As I have said to others in many conversations "you cannot punish your way out of crime"; society needs to decide what we want the justice system to do. Are we a restore and rehabilitate type of people or are we a punish and detain type of people?

[–] Dave 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly! I also think there's a misconception that heavier sentences act as a deterrent, when largely they don't.

[–] absGeekNZ 3 points 1 year ago

There isn't a lot of evidence that harsher punishments lead to less crime.

But harsher punishments intuitively seem like they reduce crime, to those already unlikely to commit crime. Because obviously getting into trouble with the justice system is the worst thing that can happen, therefore getting in more trouble is worse. Thus harsher punishments must make crime less likely.

What the people who think like this seem to miss, is that their experience of life is not the same as those that commit crime (as a general rule); these people are mapping their own experience onto all people rather than trying to understand the experience of the "other".

[–] liv 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The way I see it, international statistics around recidivism rates are pretty conclusive. So at this point I have to wonder, is having punishments a higher priority than having lower crime rates, in our society?

[–] absGeekNZ 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For some, the punishment is the point. But I would say that given the choice between punishing people or having lower crime, almost everyone would take the lower crime rate.

[–] liv 3 points 1 year ago

If they would, then it's hard to explain why as a country we have chosen not to.