Many see that there are major crimes quite often, and many of these types of crime happen more, and more. (It seems that they are on the rise) Just scroll through the headlines here to see what I am talking about: http://www.foxnews.com/us/crime/index.html?intcmp=subnav 
There are far too many crimes, and I think the cause of this is the lack of punishment. We lack the will to punish those who disobey the rules of society, and God. This isn't meant to insult anyone, but I honestly think that we have let crime become something that isn't bad. We let those who want to, disobey the rules, with little to no consequence. (I am not saying that sometimes a punishment can be too harsh though.) But I feel that those people who take other's lives don't get a punishment that fits their crime.

Any thoughts? 

Now remember, I DON'T WANT TO BE OVER DOGMATIC, INSULTING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 

Follow the rules of the forums, and be kind to those who don't share your opinions...

I was just talking about this the other day during my one of my classes. I had to watch a movie called Fruitvale Station based on a true story about a police officer shooting a black guy named Oscar Grant in California a few years ago. Oscar was just trying to get home and then gets held under hostage when he didn't even do anything. The cop who is Caucasian and who shot him, only received around less than a year and stepping down as an officer as his punishment for abusing his power under the law in position. Meanwhile if the roles were to be switched like a Caucasian victim who got shot and a black cop abusing his power, the punishment standards would have been set higher which is sad. Prejudice plays a role when it comes to crimes and situations like this which makes me sick to see the inequality in the American system. As much as I would like to see equal punishment from certain consequences, there seems to be no way of doing that sadly.

I do agree with you on people who do crimes and the punishments don't even match up based on the severity of their actions. The crime and punishment system seems to be a bit lenient. More crimes are happening and there is no discipline or authority stopping it as much as it is supposed to do.  

First off, I applaud your use of dogmatic.

Anyway, on to topic. I actually disagree with you, there are a few things that make crime seem much more prominent today then it seemed back then. For one, local news is all about that kind of stuff, it keeps them airing and it keeps their views high. That and the weather. Also I feel like with today's world there's a lot of fine print stuff going on, a lot of technicalities and all that jazz. People are more heavily watched and and when they come into a close call with the law they're generally pretty vocal about it. Onto the subject of being vocal about these things, if you notice on the news a good bit of their stories aren't actually people getting into trouble, just people trying to cause an uproar about things that mean a lot to them personally. All in all, I don't think much has changed in the crime rate, it's easy to forget about how crime was many years back when for one, you were too young to understand that kind of thing and for two, it wasn't as shoved in your face as it is today. 

In fact, just doing a little googling will prove my point. The U.S.'s crime rate is at the lowest it's been since 1974. I can't speak for the rest of the world on this matter but I think that's at least a good example.

Punishment for crimes should be instated, but these days,  there are so many factors affecting crimes and punishment for them. For example, there was recently a story about a woman who spent close to two decades in prison for a crime she did NOT commit. I realize that, believe or not, she isn't the only one. There are a handful of people who are in jail as we speak for crimes not committed. Stuff like this also made me realize that a death penalty will not completely solve anything, for it could be likely that the wrong person could be executed.

Another factor I seem to notice is how people of high status and power get minimal to no sentences. Ever notice how a celebrity gets only, like... a month or two in prison whereas if the common man did what they did, the sentence would be higher? It's crazy to think about.

I'm for punishment for the consequences of actions that people take, but even I realize that this justice system is weird. When you have people like the aforementioned examples, it doesn't make much sense.

I feel that if you do something so awful and terrible that no normal human being would do, then you throw away your humanity. If you throw away your humanity, you should lose all your human rights. At that point, you would have the same amount of rights as a Deer during hunting season. I say let the world lose on that person. Not only would that be a suitable punishment for hard criminals, but that's democracy right there. A decision for the people to make- "What should we do to punish this guy?".
Of course, this sort of thing would never stop extremists. NOTHING can stop extremists other than hunting them down and stopping them before the crime is committed, otherwise they flat-out win and we can't really do anything, because at that point they would be willing to accept death, or worse.
Of course, for petty crime we could easily just raise jail-time for that, or maybe we could require every new 18 year old that has a history of being a delinquent to do a scared straight sort of thing.
What do you think of my ideas?

darthyoda : To the point where we have to talk about crime we have to talk about justice. Maybe I should capitalize that. Justice. In the United States we say that we have a "Judicial System", but in the end it all ends with one question: is Justice the goal here? For the purpose of my argument I'd like to define Justice as the act of making the punishment equal in "weight" to the crime, so that the metaphorical "scales" are balanced. The United States Judicial System defines itself by Justice, it's even in the name, but Justice is not what it is concerned with. The Judicial System, as a whole, tends to lean more heavily on preventing further crime than metering out an equal punishment. That's why we have jails, or "penitentiaries". Jails are all about preventing further crime. However, after the religious reformations from say 1820 to 1860 in America, people wanted to see social reform in the jails. That was the birth of penitentiaries, places where the guilty would go to be isolated, so that they may achieve penitence and be fully incorporated back into society. We no longer care about Justice as truly important, and I think that is the right thing to do. True Justice is usually more cruel than is necessary.       On another note I would like to agree with styrofoamboots. The current fear for crime is mostly just the smoke and mirrors of the fear-based media and news. Crime is way down.

I grew up in a really s***ty community. Like it was so bad that one time I was standing in the lviing telling my mom how she can actually go through with dieting and then RATTATATATATATA DADADA TATATATA. It was no pokemon. A few moments later cops showed up and the whole area was filled with neighbors and my shot up car. I was like wtf why me goshdarnit. Gang violence is nothing new to me but I got out of there and am glad I did. But why though? Why do people actually believe they can get away with it. People can be doped up as hell and drunk on 5 different substances and still not think it is right to do such a crime but they still do. Why? They know even if they get on death row, they still will get a decade or so to live. That is why. Our society is one that protects their citizens. Here we know we are not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Now before I say we should do away with that which I think we should to a certain extent, innocence has to be addressed. 

In high school we had to do debates in a certain class and we would actually be assigned a side regardless if we support it or not and we will have to argue against or for it depending on the assignment. I am talking about a full blown mock trial then an essay. It was actually very fun and I am glad because that class really showed me there are multiple angles to every rule, every controversy, every right, and every wrong. There is no 100% right. There is no 100% wrong. That is why we have a complicated justice system. In fact it is so complicated few actually understand the full extent of our justice system and thus our justice system is flawed but we need this complicatedness or else we might as well etch all of our few simple laws into a stone using ancient cunieform and create a few more codes of Hammurabi. Nonetheless, since nothing is 100% our system is still flawed. There has been innocent people on death row. It is quite messed up. There are truly innocent people who are not deserving to be punished for a crime they did not commit. I don't need to cite any examples because if you want one, a simple google search will overload your brain with these cases all over the US and also the world (and maybe other worlds too if aliens exist). Our justice system is here to screen for that innocence. For sure, there will always be people who are innocent but are found guilty. There is no way around human imperfectness but the truth is, these are far and few in between and these innocent cases are becoming increasingly rare. I am very sorry but because of this I will need to say that we need to get rid of the "no cruel and/or unusual punishment" part of our laws. The good outweigh the bad. 

Why I say this is because of crime. If you get caught tagging up my wall, I am in full support of you getting a finger AND a toe cut off. Slowly. You are only 14? Too bad, you are old enough to know right from wrong. In fact this punishment will serve to remind you for the rest of your life to not do this anymore or condone it because you know what will happen. Do you want your whole hand gone? No? Okay then, don't vandalize people's private property anymore, Justin Bieber. Now is this too cruel? I have to admit it is kind of cruel sometimes but it can work. So long as our system isn't too corrupted in the future, this type of punishment will not invoke fear on the populace. For example, a bunch of a**h*** cops are targeting you because you are black, say you did something, the racist judge finds you guilty even though you are innocent. They cut off a finger. This type of thing will only invoke boundless fear in the population and will probably start a revolt. I am not for that. What I am for is justice and example. Yes there is fear on the populace if you 'set an example' of someone but at the same time your nephew will think twice before he tags up a wall for his gang. Or he may think twice before feeding his neighbor's dog a good piece of chocolate. I mean if one person doesn't learn the first or second time then they are an idiot. How many fingers do you have? We do have idiots but most will learn and in time there will be less crime. It will be the norm and if the authorities are not corrupt then it can work. Jails will be less crowded because now you won't need to do that as often. This seems like a pretty fascist idea but only deniers will disagree. I'm sure families of victims want justice and a lot of time they say the punishment isn't hard enough. What do people really want? See the perpetrator get locked up, get 3 meals a day, free cancer treatments? No, we all know what the families of victims want. True punishment. 

Now I know there are petty crimes. That is why there are different levels of cruel and unusual punishments. If someone steals, allow the owner of the stolen item take back what was stolen and let them also take a prized possession. It doesn't always have to be violent at first. If said person steals again, repeat step one and also brand both hands with a huge symbol that he is a thief who cannot repent. If he does it again, repeat step 1 and 2 but brand his face and devoid him of sleep for a few days without any food. Nobody will want to end up like this person. The punishment keeps going up. You think anyone will steal anymore? You betcha but there will be a dramatic decrease in thievery just like how there are less gun violence in Texas because you won't know who has a concealed firearm that will punish you for robbing the store. Don't want the somewhat heinous punishment? Don't do it.

Can anyone agree with me? I've brought this up before with coworkers and it is odd but most people who do agree are middle aged people, almost all of them are older than me. The youngest called me a bigot lol. My friends know I am outspoken and am a strong supporter of Ayn Rand's objectivism so this is normal of me to have outside the box ideas. Well, nothing is 100% I can see this working but at the same time I don't want to be so naive and self centered to think every idea of mine can work no matter how right I believe I am. Maybe this is another thing the US needs to learn about from other countries. We have so many prisoners in our jails whereas other countries do not. I am no expert in foreign affairs but some of these states must be doing something the US isn't. Note that I do not support this type of punishment for interrogations though. Use the brand new Polygraph 5000 all the way for that.

Trying to not be too dogmatic here but Darthyoda's words, "We lack the will to punish those who disobey the rules of society, and God" really bothers me. Every word in that sentence I agree with except for "God." I am an Atheist and proud of it but that is not the reason why I am a problem with that word in that sentence. I believe people can believe in whatever religion they want whether you worship one or two deities I do not care. What is important is to not punish others in the name of your god. You are the one handing down punishment. Not god. I'm not a believer but people are not gods even though we can be 'godly.' People have the right to who they hate and if they hate your god you are only a terrorist for exacting punishment in the name of religion. Religion is intangible. You cannot punish people for insults on religion for there is no direct harm on you. Religion isn't like your money in the bank. I can steal your money and be tazered but I can talk s*** about your god or his gods but I am not stealing and I am not hurting you physically. Punishing someone for that is like punishing someone for liking import beer or any beer for the matter. This is definitely not a crime.

I've been watching this Dexter show on netflix. And it takes this crime and punishment to a new level. But if a some one kills and gets off is it right to take the law in to your own hands? But if you look at most crimes it's not so cut and dry. If I steal bread because I'm hungry should I lose a hand? or should I be forgiven because I was hungry? Wish the system was always right. But it isn't  and will never be. It is good to talk about these things.

rebelyell : If I were hungry and went into your house, and stole things to either sell or to eat, wouldn't you want Justice? It's not Justice, if I take what isn't mine. It is cut and dry. Justice is cold. That is why there must be balance between Justice and Mercy. Mercy goes to the extreme, where you give everyone everything, because they asked. It's not bad, but it becomes bad when you compromise family for those who need. Balance is only part of Justice. Justice needs to be kept in check by Mercy, and Mercy by Justice.

Titanium Oxide: Most of the laws come/ originate from a Judeo-Christian perspective. God said, "Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal..." Those laws originate from Him, and that is why it's not religion. I'll discuss religion vs Christian in a different thread if you would like, but not in this thread. This thread is about Crime and Punishment.

Cutting off one's hand for stealing isn't balance. Proper punishment would be requiring him to restore what he stole twofold. (Double as much as he stole.) Or a fine, or jail. Cutting off his hand is more "gang violence" style. It doesn't restore balance, it's more like revenge.

TitaniumOxide : The problem is that, even though we may increase the punishment to ridiculous degrees, it will not stop crime. Very few crimes are planned, and those are punished very severely. Killing a man in a fit of passion is punished far less than meticulously planning a murder. Most anybody who is going to be stealing bread from a street vendor is not organizing a mafia-style hit on the stall. They are hungry, starving, and they saw something they wanted. They aren't thinking of any long term consequences, they are thinking about their growling stomachs. No matter how powerful and vile you make the punishment for crimes, it will not stop people. And I think the Justice System goes too far. Justice is a moral choice, you have to "believe" in Justice to follow it. People disagree on how important Justice is to our society, and I think that true, blind Justice is unnecessary. The only thing our punitive system should be responsible for is preventing further crimes, at the least cost to both the perpetrator and the community. Imagine we have a man, starving on the street, so willing to fight for his life that he accidentally kills a man over some food. Say that then you cut off this man's hand as a punishment, That is an irreparable mistake. That man will no longer be able to work fully, and he may be rejected from job opportunities and forced to steal again. We cannot have our punitive system continue the cycle of crime.
     And as you pointed out your disagreement with the mention of God in terms of crime, I would like to agree with you. Our courts and our churches are separated by the constitution and should never be combined. However, I would like to take something you said and bring my opinion on it. You are in favor of "Ayn Rand Objectivism". I find this to be as frightening as the mention of the holy judgement of God. Ayn Rand focuses primarily on egalitarianism, the belief that you should look out for yourself, that by working hard for yourself, as everyone works for themselves, the nation grows. As such, she supports laissez-faire capitalism. This is very dangerous, not only economically, but in social matters like this. Focusing only on yourself, or, at the very least, those around you, leads to a dangerous narrowing of concept. There is no compassion for those who commit crime, because you do not understand their situation. You see yourself, who is able to work hard and keep a job, and you cannot understand that there are people who cannot get a job, cannot provide food for themselves and their families. I do not condone crime, but there are circumstances under which it is excusable. 

     However, darthyoda, I would like to point out one thing, In your latest points you said that most laws originate from a Judeo-Christian background inasmuch as the Ten Commandments. I do not think this is the case. Before Moses descended from the mountaintop, was everyone just a bloodthirsty killer? Was a death simply accepted when it was very obvious who murdered them? No! These moral codes do not come directly from God, they were instilled in mankind far before that. 

Brain-Splattered : I would hope that as a society we are past wanting to watch the stuff you described. A would Americans really want to watch a Coliseum? If you truly think that they would that scares me a little. Have we really progressed so little from the days of the Roman Empire? Also the Coliseum became what it was when the empire was stagnating and went into decline it was not a contributor to the glory of Rome, but a sore emphasizing what was wrong with Rome.

In the earliest known legal codex, Ur-Nammu, murder of a free person, rape against a free person, marital unfaithfulness and robbery were punished by death. I honestly doubt that their society had no thieves or robbers even with the insanely harsh punishment for being caught. No society today would approve of such a punishment for robbery, in fact you could commit premeditated armed robbery and kill your victim and not get life imprisonment in most countries.

@ tiropat ok first off you are taking me too seriously. That post I made was supposed to be a funny sarcastic answer to the thread. No I do not believe all that stuff I was saying in there but in short to sum up ... I do believe that there should be tougher punishments for a lot of crimes and that the government and politicians fail at the help they should be providing. There were too many things wrong with Rome but we won't get into that. Yup you proved my point in the last thing you said. Thank you. " No society today would approve of such a punishment for robbery, in fact you could commit premeditated armed robbery and kill your victim and not get life imprisonment in most countries ". Sad thing to see that a killer would get away with that without stiff punishment but that is the days we live in. 

Brain-Splattered : Sorry if I took you too seriously, but this is the debate forum not crazy house. I would expect that this is where serious discussion happens more than anywhere else on the forums.

How strong do you feel the punishment should be for a killer/ rapist/ thief? If killing someone carries a death penalty then once you have committed that crime no other crime has weight to it. You are already dead if you get caught so might as well do any other crime that won't trace to you or might help you evade police. If I steal a car while running from the cops it doesn't matter that I lose a finger for theft I'm already a dead man if they catch me.

@ tiropat No problem at all about taking me too seriously. I mean you don't really know me so go figure you take things as they are typed in. As far as my post earlier I should have stated it was meant to be sarcastic and funny. You wanted serious so here it is : I feel that a killer ( not self defense ) should get the maximum sentence possible under the law. That person has no morals and should be treated as such. As for a rapist I feel the same way. For a thief I feel that depends on what has been stolen and the circumstances of the theft. As long as loss of life, kidnapping, and rape are not involved then I think a repeat offender should get a max punishment. If they are not repeat offenders then they should get off with little time and probation as a warning to not do so again. Also as I said before I would base that on the theft and the circumstances. Now whether you agree with my point of view or not it is my opinion and i stick to it. 

archaicConsul : Sorry I haven't responded in a while. 

Before Punishments were regulated by law things were not pretty. No one determined what punishment was right, each leader did each one on a whim. If I found that you took a vase of mine, I could kill you. That was not a way that would be good. The Pharaoh, one of the biggest rules before the Ten Commandments, did all his judgments based on a whim. Law has it's origin, but not just law. Law tells us what a crime is defined as in a certain Civilization. But beyond that, it is a Moral code. A Code which we are supposed to keep. But law isn't only a code by which we need to live, but it is something that tells us what happens to us, should we break the code. It is to protect those who could lose something. A store owner loses his hard work when someone steals. Under no circumstance does his stealing benefit anyone, except himself. Stealing is against the law, but should the store owner decide to gift the item (mercy) them the law has been satisfied. But, if he is not caught, that makes it wrong, under every circumstance. 

darthyoda :

I think the Bible sums it up pretty well. Back when God was giving the Israelites various commandments, he gave them a baseline to go by with civil punishment. Whatever evil someone has done, it shall be paid back unto him.

Eye for eye.

Tooth for tooth.

I'd say that's pretty fair.

I don't think there's any merit to saying that these crimes are on the rise. Everyone taking statistics on violent crimes agree that they've been going down constantly in the past hundred years since we've started recording them. The only reason we notice them at all is because we've been developing more and more ways to hear about them (first radio, then TV, and now the internet). We don't need more punishment as much as we need better journalism.

Sword legion : Not speaking against what you said, but what about Jesus' teaching that we are to learn to forgive those who have wronged us. Murder is a horrible crime, doubtful that anyone here would say otherwise. But isn't something like capital punishment really just human's justification for revenge? I am not sure how I feel about he death penalty, honestly. I don't believe that a murderer should have a comforting life, and I don't see myself weeping for a murderer being executed. But I also feel that my personal feelings hold no merit on judgement. We are all sinful people, and not sure that it is our place to decide on another's life. No matter what the condition, the person who flips the switch, pulls the lever, fires the gun (depending on what form of execution is chosen) is killing another person. In society, there are no repercussions on that person, but that person still broke a Commandment. Laws made by man do not trump the 10 Commandments. When someone brings up the Old Testament that says that balance is justice, I want to know how that doesn't go against the fact that we are told to learn forgiveness, love our enemies, and turn the other cheek in certain instances. Not saying we should just forgive rapist, child predators, and murderers in a sense that we should just set them free. I think that a punishment for life should be given, but how is being okay with killing the person showing the forgiveness that we are told to be able to have? Though this is also coming from someone who has never had someone murder someone close to me or truly harm them. Maybe it is something that I won't know how I would truly feel unless put in that situation, which I hope never happens anyway. I guess I hope that my view on capital punishment will always be uncertain to me.

rcarter2 :

I wouldn't say that it's justification for revenge, I'm fine with revenge actually, it's a fine human emotion that keeps the world a lot safer. If you know someone will pay you back for what you did to them, it deters you from doing it, this allows human to coexist without killing each other in even an anarchastic society. Plus, if a person would kill one human being for a poor reason, who's to stop them from doing it again?

Turning the other cheek, the Mennonite speak about it all the time, but a smack on the cheek is a small offense, it's better to just take the blow rather than cause a fight in most situations. I know that the New Testament also states that the government "Beareth not the sword in vain." And even says if you do evil, to be afraid, for the government is ordained of Yahova. Now, it may not be the best government, true, and I'm not sure if ordained, is really the best word, (in English anyways) but Yahova does allow it to happen for the sake of order.

Killing a person is not mercy, or grace. It is judgement. Judgement given because the perpetrator has made no remorse.

If you look at those in the Old and New Testament who were spared from death they deserved, it was because they had repented, or turned away from their sins. Those who will not repent, (keep killing, ect.) Must die, lest they continue to take other lives. Although life in prison may be a nice thought since then no one has to take on the heavy task of killing another human being, it doesn't work as we keep running out of prison space. Besides, that person will die anyways in several years. Even though it's nice to think that people may change, the sad fact is people seldom do. Especially at that point. In the end, we have to remember that each individual is responsible for what they do in life, as we are responsible for what we do. And even though it is a heavy thing, I would say it would be better to kill someone than have them live in a prison the rest of their life.