Mr Rayon Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 why do so many of the world's developing countries have relatively stricter punishments for people who break the law in comparison to developed countries? Is there a psychological explanation for this or is it all just a coincidence? thanks! also, as we head into the future and developing countries become more developed, will this necessarily mean lighter punishment for crimes committed by people. what does everyone think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) Overcrowding is always a factor to consider. Plus, in more advanced nations, it's understandable that they might be more geared towards rehabilitation, developing functioning members of society. Edited October 30, 2011 by Realitycheck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 My best guess is that people who live in developing countries are more used to death and suffering so they are less troubled by sentencing people to it. Also, I'm fairly sure that London (for example) is more crowded now that it was 100 years ago when we still had the death penalty so I don't think overcrowding is a major factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xittenn Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 why do so many of the world's developing countries have relatively stricter punishments for people who break the law in comparison to developed countries? Is there a psychological explanation for this or is it all just a coincidence? Like employing the death penalty for acts of homosexuality in countries of Africa? Retardation? Sorry, I'm being callously biased against idiocy, erm . . . ignorance! They simply do not see the benefits of acting in an other fashion, probably because for them there really aren't any. In fact their present methods may even be the most beneficial to the masses as the costs of other forms of justice may for them be greater. Apples . . . . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Money may be a factor. Only a relatively rich nation can afford to spend money on long rehabilitation programs rather than feeding its population, and bullets are cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Appolinaria Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I think so. I find it interesting that Norway was ranked as the best place to live based on criteria "examined included life expectancy, literacy rates, school enrolment and country economies." in 2007. Source They also have one of the most humane prisons in the world, where there is no capital punishment and the longest sentence is 21 years. Source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 They also have one of the most humane prisons in the world, where there is no capital punishment and the longest sentence is 21 years. Source. Is that good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Appolinaria Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Is that good? I would think so. Norway has very low crime rates & murder rates compared to other developed countries that enforce more severe punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I would think so. Norway has very low crime rates & murder rates compared to other developed countries that enforce more severe punishment. Fair enough, it works there...that's all that matters. Every country is different with varied population makeups and problems so the 'ideal' judicial system or level of relative severity will vary also between them. John B's comment nailed it really, for me, as a general way of describing the reality of the situation across the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Appolinaria Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Fair enough, it works there...that's all that matters. Every country is different with varied population makeups and problems so the 'ideal' judicial system or level of relative severity will vary also between them. John B's comment nailed it really, for me, as a general way of describing the reality of the situation across the world. I agree with John B's statement. Norway's GDP rank is very good. They have plenty of natural resources & a high standard of living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) Norway is one of the best places to live surely for reasons other than lax judicial systems. A lax system for small offenses might not be too bad, but this latest mass murderer is kind of an example of what can happen when a screwed-up idealogue decides he wants to be above the law and try to preach in the most insane way possible. The most heinous crimes should have a deterrent in place. Edited October 31, 2011 by Realitycheck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Appolinaria Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) Norway is one of the best places to live surely for reasons other than lax judicial systems. A lax system for small offenses might not be too bad, but this latest mass murderer is kind of an example of what can happen when a screwed-up idealogue decides he wants to be above the law and try to preach in the most insane way possible. The most heinous crimes should have a deterrent in place. In the U.S., harsher punishment like the death penalty doesn't seem to act as a crime deterrent. "A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country from found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Eighty-eight percent of the country's top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder. Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. " Source. Maybe one could argue that rehabilitation is more effective in solving the problem than fear of punishment. Edited October 31, 2011 by Appolinaria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainteaserfan Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 and bullets are cheap. Of course, here in the US, we manage to make it cost way more for death row inmates than lifetime ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 But how would this kind of treatment deter a first time offender such as this mass murder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Appolinaria Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Well, maybe this humane solution of rehabilitation reflects the mentality of the general population, which is why there are low murder rates in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) This guy was a total psychopath just waiting to happen, no warning at all. What are those "experts" thinking? Of course, anybody who would open loose on a bunch of children of his own descent and then boast about how easy it was surely has a number of screws loose and there probably wasn't any viable deterrent, but I still think something that bad shouldn't be excused. Edited October 31, 2011 by Realitycheck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainteaserfan Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Well, maybe this humane solution of rehabilitation reflects the mentality of the general population, which is why there are low murder rates in the first place. Hmm, yes, and maybe the not-so-strict crime laws are a result of the low crime and murder rate. I hadn't thought of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Appolinaria Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 This guy was a total psychopath just waiting to happen, no warning at all. What are those "experts" thinking? Of course, anybody who would open loose on a bunch of children of his own descent and then boast about how easy it was surely has a number of screws loose and there probably wasn't any viable deterrent, but I still think something that bad shouldn't be excused. This guy was a total psychopath just waiting to happen, no warning at all. What are those "experts" thinking? Of course, anybody who would open loose on a bunch of children of his own descent and then boast about how easy it was surely has a number of screws loose and there probably wasn't any viable deterrent, but I still think something that bad shouldn't be excused. My emotions push me towards more severe punishment for people like him, but then again, who's to say he can't be rehabilitated? If he's really ill, rehabilitation seems more humane than punishment. But this comes down to opinion I think, and I don't want to get into that any further...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggy Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) why do so many of the world's developing countries have relatively stricter punishments for people who break the law in comparison to developed countries? That's a fine premise for a really good question, but I wonder what data (if any) supports the premise. Perhaps... if no one has compiled data to support or reject the assumption... we could do it ourselves. Norway (and specifically, its GDP) I see was given in that regard, but looking at the top few countries listed by GDP per capita, I see that a good deal of the top listings (4 of the top 6 for example) do legislate the death penalty which stands out as the most severe punishment. So... Our example would seem to have a selection bias. "A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country from found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide... Maybe one could argue that rehabilitation is more effective in solving the problem than fear of punishment. Of course, lowering the rate of murder isn't the only reason for the death penalty, so I don't know what you mean by "the problem". You could try telling a person on death row that we are executing them in order to deter future acts of the crime he/she committed, but I'm sure you couldn't get the words out because it would sound and it would be unfair. Sometimes the prevalence of crime may have nothing to do with the severity of punishment. To use the same example, in Norway there is more rape going on than in almost all other countries which track that sort of thing. I wouldn't assume this has anything to do with the severity of punishment for that crime either way. Too many people, in my opinion, are willing to blindly assume that liberal justice and punishment are inexorably linked with economic development. There are counterexamples. The axis powers of WWII had some really grotesque counterexamples. Edited October 31, 2011 by Iggy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Appolinaria Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 (edited) That's a fine premise for a really good question, but I wonder what data (if any) supports the premise. Perhaps... if no one has compiled data to support or reject the assumption... we could do it ourselves. Norway (and specifically, its GDP) I see was given in that regard, but looking at the top few countries listed by GDP per capita, I see that a good deal of the top listings (4 of the top 6 for example) do legislate the death penalty which stands out as the most severe punishment. So... Our example would seem to have a selection bias. Of course, lowering the rate of murder isn't the only reason for the death penalty, so I don't know what you mean by "the problem". You could try telling a person on death row that we are executing them in order to deter future acts of the crime he/she committed, but I'm sure you couldn't get the words out because it would sound and it would be unfair. Sometimes the prevalence of crime may have nothing to do with the severity of punishment. To use the same example, in Norway there is more rape going on than in almost all other countries which track that sort of thing. I wouldn't assume this has anything to do with the severity of punishment for that crime either way. Too many people, in my opinion, are willing to blindly assume that liberal justice and punishment are inexorably linked with economic development. There are counterexamples. The axis powers of WWII had some really grotesque counterexamples. The problem is homicide occurring. I could argue that rehabilitation would be more effective, since many death row inmates have prior felonies. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics: Capital Punishment for 2009, of death row inmates, "65.7% had prior felony convictions." Source. Since it's clear that the death penalty doesn't deter one from committing murder- if proper psychological rehabilitation was used when these inmates committed their prior felonies, as opposed to just meaningless incarceration, would the homicide following them have occurred? Edited November 1, 2011 by Appolinaria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggy Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 (edited) The problem is homicide occurring. Right, that's what you said before. It is not specific enough to make sense to me. If the sole aim of executions were to lower the overall murder rate then they fail and should be abolished. Your citations say as much. You say the problem is murder, so if executions, on the other hand, are aimed at preventing the person being executed from committing homicide again then I suppose it works fine for that purpose. Regardless, I think the whole affair misses the point. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics: Capital Punishment for 2009, of death row inmates, "65.7% had prior felony convictions." Source. Since it's clear that the death penalty doesn't deter one from committing murder- if proper psychological rehabilitation was used when these inmates committed their prior felonies, as opposed to just meaningless incarceration, would the homicide following them have occurred? Uhhh... I don't follow. I see no reason not to rehabilitate lesser offenders as a precaution against escalation that might one day put that person on death row. That would seem to have no bearing on the abolition of capitol punishment which, I think, was the subject you commented on. In fact, your comment pointedly shows the confusion. You say "Since it's clear that the death penalty doesn't deter one from committing murder". But, if you execute someone it prevents them from further acts of murder 100% of the time. The death penalty does, in that sense, deter one from committing murder. If, when you say "Since it's clear that the death penalty doesn't deter one from committing murder", you mean that the execution of person-X doesn't deter person-Y from committing homicide then I'd say that you've missed the point of executing them and it wouldn't be fair even if capitol punishment were used for that reason. I guess I should explain at least one other reason for executing a criminal... If a fella kidnaps a 7-year-old girl, drives her around in his camper for a few days while raping and torturing her then slowly murders her and dumps her body on the curb -- it may (and it did) offer the family some solace to know that the perpetrator is no longer with us. His continued life, in that case, is worth less than the family's peace. That is at least one valid reason to execute people, and it has nothing to do with your citation. Also, if it is appropriate in even one case to execute someone then we can't, and we shouldn't, make it a judicial impossibility. This should hopefully go without saying. The main point (in case it got lost in this and you're not sure where to direct your response) is that lowering the rate of homicide isn't the only reason for capitol punishment. Studies (which you cite) showing that executions don't have that effect are not an argument for doing away with the practice. Therefore, the studies you cite don't mean we should (or shouldn't) abolish the death penalty. Or, in case the reader resides somewhere executions have already been abolished, the studies don't support (or contradict) that decision. Edited November 1, 2011 by Iggy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Appolinaria Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) The death penalty punishes a homicide, rehabilitation might prevent that homicide from occurring in the first place. Which should we be spending our money on? This is a terrible example but let's say you leave the faucet on, do you waste your time trying to clean up the mess before you turn it off? No, you would turn off the faucet first, and then handle the after-affects. We need to go to the source of the problem. The death penalty only occurs after the homicide has. It's too late. If the problem is homicide occurring, then the death penalty does not affect this! It does not lower murder rates out of fear of punishment. Besides removing the chance of them recommitting a crime (obviously) is this ethical? Who's to say rehabilitation is not just as effective? Is the death penalty solving the problem or just dealing with it? All I'm really saying is that maybe the general mentality of our society is why our crime rates aren't as low as Norway's. And maybe why we aren't "the best place to live". And maybe this reflects in how humane they are with punishing crime. Edited November 4, 2011 by Appolinaria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggy Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 The death penalty punishes a homicide, rehabilitation might prevent that homicide from occurring in the first place. Which should we be spending our money on? Both. You're comparing apples and oranges. The optionsgiven aren't mutually exclusive. The death penalty only occurs after the homicide has. It's too late. Indeed If the problem is homicide occurring... Like you just said, that isn't the problem at hand. It's too late. Is the death penalty solving the problem or just dealing with it? Depends on what problem you're talking about. All I'm really saying is that maybe the general mentality of our society is why our crime rates aren't as low as Norway's. And maybe why we aren't "the best place to live". And maybe this reflects in how humane they are with punishing crime. "the best place to live" according to who? A devout sheite muslim would hardly consider it the best place to live. It's subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Appolinaria Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 "the best place to live" according to who? A devout sheite muslim would hardly consider it the best place to live. It's subjective. According to the U.N. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8290550.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) I looked at this "That's a fine premise for a really good question, but I wonder what data (if any) supports the premise. Perhaps... if no one has compiled data to support or reject the assumption... we could do it ourselves. Norway (and specifically, its GDP) I see was given in that regard, but looking at the top few countries listed by GDP per capita, I see that a good deal of the top listings (4 of the top 6 for example) do legislate the death penalty which stands out as the most severe punishment." And I wondered why someone chose GDP as a measure of "development". Personally, I don't see any country with a death penalty as civilised. (I might accept that, in wartime , that would be different for some crimes). In any event, Qatar has a very high GDP and an attitude to human rights that, at the most positive, could be described as "better than some of its neighbours". The UAE isn't most people's idea of a well developed country either. http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/crime/women-get-jail-and-deportation-for-kissing-on-dubai-public-beach-1.106824 Money really isn't everything. Edited November 4, 2011 by John Cuthber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now