When CCW saves peoples lives thread.

[BraveUlysses]

This entire article assumes that the said criminal is deterred by prison time. Gee, if that were the case you'd think that 3 strikes would have worked...nope instead we have overpopulated our prisons and created a large population of violent criminals that having nothing to do all day except train the younger thugs who are only serving 6 months.

I don't think you actually read that summary if that's what you took away from it.

There was one important exception to the deterrent effect, however. Recidivism rates among those whose original crime was more serious were essentially unaffected by the length of their suspended sentence. That finding suggests that "more dangerous inmates are not deterred," the authors write.

[cale]

I can't "back it up", it's an opinion that I have. You on the other had have made a factual assertion, so the ball is in your court. If you want to just bounce it around like a baby, then I'll leave you alone.

umm...

but I will say that extreme punishments for breaking laws WILL have an effect in keeping people from doing stupid things.

An armed society with HARSH punishments for breaking criminal law will make a positive impact on the vast majority of law abiding citizens.

I guarantee you some states would make these changes and hard data would soon follow.

Not sheriff cereal, or just retarded.

[ParsedOut]

Yeah lets add a source and some context to that:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0518111726.htm

This entire article assumes that the said criminal is deterred by prison time. Gee, if that were the case you'd think that 3 strikes would have worked...nope instead we have overpopulated our prisons and created a large population of violent criminals that having nothing to do all day except train the younger thugs who are only serving 6 months.

If we institute physical, painful and permanent (depending on the crime) punishments, anyone without a mental disability would think twice as to whether it's worth it. I'm not saying this line of reasoning isn't FRAUGHT with pitfalls and landmines, slippery slope, etc, etc, but I think it's a conversation that needs to be had at levels where the bleeding heart progressive liberals can't stop it. State level, long live the Republic. If everyone knew that in AZ and TX, if you are caught doing a violent crime against others you will be severely punished I guarantee you those criminals will move along and those responsible citizens will be better off. Let the thugs migrate and set up shop in CA and NY, we'd see how quickly those citizens would rise up and demand the same from their politicians.

*disclaimer* No facts to back this up, it's called common sense and personal opinion.

[ParsedOut]

I don't think you've thought this viewpoint through very well--which countries do what you think we should be doing?

Do you really want to model our society off countries where the government kills people (guilty or not) constantly?

For the record, I'm not advocating "hanging people from the rafters" like this other gentlemen. I'm saying we need harsh physical penalties for convicted violent crimes. Eye for an eye, pound of flesh, etc. I also did not use these other countries as a basis for my beliefs as mentioned their culture and overall government structure is not something we should mimic.

You made the assertion, back it up.

I can't "back it up", it's an opinion that I have. You on the other had have made a factual assertion, so the ball is in your court. If you want to just bounce it around like a baby, then I'll leave you alone.

[BraveUlysses]

Yeah lets add a source and some context to that:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090518111726.htm

Passed in 2006, Italy's Collective Clemency Bill presents a unique opportunity to study the deterrent effect of prison sentences, the authors say. Crime rates often drop when criminal penalties are increased. But it's often hard to tell if the rates go down because the threat of longer sentences deters potential criminals, or if the drop happens because actual criminals are physically removed from the street for longer periods. This study of the clemency law's effects eliminates the latter scenario, measuring only deterrent effect.

When the clemency bill was passed, it immediately released thousands of prisoners who had three years or less left on their sentences. The remainder of each prisoner's sentence was suspended, but not forgiven. The law stipulated that a former inmate who commits a new crime within five years will have the suspended portion of his sentence reinstated and added to the sentence for the new crime. As a result, a repeat offender can expect extra jail time equal to the suspended portion of his sentence—anywhere from one month to three years.
[...]
"This means that a policy a commuting actual sentences in expected sentences significantly reduces recidivism," Dr. Vertova says. "A mass release of prisoners can be effective in reducing their propensity of re-committing crimes if, when a released individual gets convicted of a new crime, his normal sentence is increased by the time that was pardoned because of the early release."

There was one important exception to the deterrent effect, however. Recidivism rates among those whose original crime was more serious were essentially unaffected by the length of their suspended sentence. That finding suggests that "more dangerous inmates are not deterred," the authors write.

The researchers also caution that their results only measure deterrence on those who have already served time in jail. "Indeed, it is not clear whether these results can be to individuals who have never received prison treatment."

[frankenbeemer]

Crime rates often drop when criminal penalties are increased. But it's often hard to tell if the rates go down because the threat of longer sentences deters potential criminals, or if the drop happens because actual criminals are physically removed from the street for longer periods.

[BraveUlysses]

^^^I feel like with violent criminals like rapists, if the justice system declares them guilty, then they should be strung up outside the courthouse. That would send the message "this is what happens if you do X" and we wouldn't have to worry that they would be released back into circulation and hurt more innocents.

I was at the post office yesterday and I laughed at the sign that said something like "armed robbery is a federal felony punishable by 25 years in prison..." Wait?! Really?!?!?!! Nah I never woulda thought that!
Armed robbers should, once proven guilty, firing squad. End it. Send the message. That isn't tolerated here!

I don't think you've thought this viewpoint through very well--which countries do what you think we should be doing?

Do you really want to model our society off countries where the government kills people (guilty or not) constantly?

[z31maniac]

Post your factual information then big nuts.

You made the assertion, back it up.

Owned

Yep, it was some pretty epic pwnage.

[DER E30]

Post your factual information then big nuts.

Owned

[ParsedOut]

As I suspected, you don't have any factual information to back up your conjecture.

If you'll do your research, you'll find that things like harsh penalties and 3 strike laws tend to EXACERBATE crime.

Post your factual information then big nuts.

[z31maniac]

If we return our country to the Republic as originally intended and keep the scumbags in the Federal government out of the state's business, I guarantee you some states would make these changes and hard data would soon follow. As you know, accurate factual data isn't possible without trying to compare other countries in the world with very different cultures and laws, and that wouldn't be a very compelling argument now would it?

Let me ask you this, tell me how you think our current justice system is better than what I proposed...because it's just obviously working so well. Or what you propose as a fix to our current dilemma of robbery, rape and murder.

As I suspected, you don't have any factual information to back up your conjecture.

If you'll do your research, you'll find that things like harsh penalties and 3 strike laws tend to EXACERBATE crime.

[DER E30]

^^^I feel like with violent criminals like rapists, if the justice system declares them guilty, then they should be strung up outside the courthouse. That would send the message "this is what happens if you do X" and we wouldn't have to worry that they would be released back into circulation and hurt more innocents.

I was at the post office yesterday and I laughed at the sign that said something like "armed robbery is a federal felony punishable by 25 years in prison..." Wait?! Really?!?!?!! Nah I never woulda thought that!
Armed robbers should, once proven guilty, firing squad. End it. Send the message. That isn't tolerated here!

[ParsedOut]

Do you have any factual data to back this up claim?

(That harsher punishments deter crimes.)

If we return our country to the Republic as originally intended and keep the scumbags in the Federal government out of the state's business, I guarantee you some states would make these changes and hard data would soon follow. As you know, accurate factual data isn't possible without trying to compare other countries in the world with very different cultures and laws, and that wouldn't be a very compelling argument now would it?

Let me ask you this, tell me how you think our current justice system is better than what I proposed...because it's just obviously working so well. Or what you propose as a fix to our current dilemma of robbery, rape and murder.

[z31maniac]

I will in NO WAY condone these actions, but I will say that extreme punishments for breaking laws WILL have an effect in keeping people from doing stupid things. The whole cutting a hand off if caught stealing would be a much bigger deterrent than a few months of room and board and learning from more seasoned criminals how to get away with it next time or who to talk to in order to get an illegal firearm to be used for the next robbery. That next robbery that may cost the life of innocent citizens who have been conditioned to feel that owning a gun for self defense is unnecessary and "evil".

An armed society with HARSH punishments for breaking criminal law will make a positive impact on the vast majority of law abiding citizens. Too bad our country is so much more "civilized" than that, so civilized we're letting our own justice system accelerate the bowl spin.

Do you have any factual data to back this up claim?

(That harsher punishments deter crimes.)

[DER E30]

I will in NO WAY condone these actions, but I will say that extreme punishments for breaking laws WILL have an effect in keeping people from doing stupid things. The whole cutting a hand off if caught stealing would be a much bigger deterrent than a few months of room and board and learning from more seasoned criminals how to get away with it next time or who to talk to in order to get an illegal firearm to be used for the next robbery. That next robbery that may cost the life of innocent citizens who have been conditioned to feel that owning a gun for self defense is unnecessary and "evil".

An armed society with HARSH punishments for breaking criminal law will make a positive impact on the vast majority of law abiding citizens. Too bad our country is so much more "civilized" than that, so civilized we're letting our own justice system accelerate the bowl spin.

Agreed.