harshness of the judicial system in developing countries

[Iggy]

According to the U.N.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8290550.stm

Thank you. The link says...

 

Norway's consistently high rating for desirable living standards, is, in large part, the result of the discovery of offshore oil and gas deposits in the late 1960s.

 

that reason makes a lot more sense to me than the one you give here...

 

...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"...

 

I can understand why you want there to be a correlation between Norway's liberal justice system and their standard of living, but it is a very large leap between the two.

[ewmon]

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?

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.

I wholeheartedly agree with John Cuthber's statement: A nation's perspective/tolerance of its own strictness/lenience is relative to the strictness/lenience of the environment in which that nation exists.

 

I also see the OP as suggesting that developing countries produce stricter punishments (undeveloped → strictness). But consider the opposite correlation between "development" and "punishment" (strictness → undeveloped). Stricter punishments result from a harsher view of human rights (cannot speak out against govt, no right to education, no intellectual property rights {patents etc}, no protection for the weak {children, elderly etc}, and so on), which prevents a nation from developing.

 

I think that, either way, the cause-and-effect is a vicious cycle that maintains at certain status quo: Development cannot progress without advancements in human rights, but human rights cannot advance without progress in development. It has been said that:

 

Only when the least in a society has social/legal recourse to wrongs committed against them, will you find peace and prosperity.

[Brainteaserfan]

Stricter punishments result from a harsher view of human rights (cannot speak out against govt, no right to education, no intellectual property rights {patents etc}, no protection for the weak {children, elderly etc}, and so on), which prevents a nation from developing.

That seems like a big leap to me.

 

Could one not say that stricter views come from a government that WANTS to protect the people's rights (right to not be harmed by crime)?

 

Edit/PS: Yes, I agree that the OP may have started with a rather faulty premise.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[imatfaal]

That seems like a big leap to me.

 

Could one not say that stricter views come from a government that WANTS to protect the people's rights (right to not be harmed by crime)?

 

Edit/PS: Yes, I agree that the OP may have started with a rather faulty premise.

 

Human and Civil rights tend to be seen as rights that allow an individual to follow a certain course of action without interference from the state or other authorities. The right "not to be harmed by crime" is a difficult one - how would you formalise it? in which circumstances would the govt be allowed to derogate from it? Is this a universal right, or only a right that accrues to certain citizens under some constitution?

 

many govts will claim that their draconian criminal justices systems are motivated by a desire to protect the populace and prevent crime. but when comparisons are made (and I realise they are tendentious) between countries with harsh/punitive criminal justice systems and those with mild/rehabilitative systems; those citizens of the gentle liberal systems suffer less crime and society is in general less violent, those citizens of tough conservative systems are more likely to be a victim of crime and violence is part of the culture. now which is cause and which is effect is not certain. but perhaps you could look at a single country as its justice system becomes less orientated towards rehabilitation and removing causes of crime and more intent on retribution and punishment of the perpetrators of crime - similarly one could look at the opposite trend. I do not know of a study in which an increased draconian attitude to crime has, on a large scale and long term, lead to anything apart from greater violence within society.

[Anders Hoveland]

Brazil is supposedly a free democracy with a rapidly growing economy, yet its prisoners are crammed into overcrowded rooms and fed rotten food.

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3768145.stm

http://metrostudies.berkeley.edu/pubs/reports/Wacquant_MILITARIZATIONURBMARGBRAZIL-pub.pdf

 

 

[imatfaal]

Brazil is supposedly a free democracy with a rapidly growing economy, yet its prisoners are crammed into overcrowded rooms and fed rotten food.

 

 

 

/photos snipped

 

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/3768145.stm

http://metrostudies....GBRAZIL-pub.pdf

 

 

 

I didn't read the article fully (other than the abstract) and the news story was pretty distressing - but what was your point?

[rktpro]

Harshness of judicial system is not related to developed or developing countries, in my opinion.

It can be related to: Historical Events experienced by a country:like Nature of democracy and how it has evolved. If it has evolved against colonialist with mass struggle, it is quite possible that the judiciary would be humane.

Similarly, all nations have their own history of rulers. It definitely influence the judiciary.

[imatfaal]

Harshness of judicial system is not related to developed or developing countries, in my opinion.

It can be related to: Historical Events experienced by a country:like Nature of democracy and how it has evolved. If it has evolved against colonialist with mass struggle, it is quite possible that the judiciary would be humane.

Similarly, all nations have their own history of rulers. It definitely influence the judiciary.

 

Surely then, if that were the case, there should be a fair amount of similarity between the common law states of the UK, the commonwealth, and the United States. The UK imprisons about 140 per 100,000, OZ and NZ about 160, USA around 750, and India about 25! The only large country with figures even close to the USA is Russia - which has no colonial past.

 

 

Americas incarceration rate has changed massively in my lifetime - it strikes me that it is less about historical imperative and more about political contingency and desire to play the "tough on crime" media card.

 

 

[rktpro]

Americas incarceration rate has changed massively in my lifetime - it strikes me that it is less about historical imperative and more about political contingency and desire to play the "tough on crime" media card.

 

 

That is also a reason. Because politics is motivated by democratic history in a lot of country, I said so.

[imatfaal]

That is also a reason. Because politics is motivated by democratic history in a lot of country, I said so.

 

So explain the difference between those countries who claimed their independence from the GB over the last three hundreds or so. Explain the differences between states within the same nation.

 

Of course the political history of a state is reflected in today's policy - but without a certain amount of predictive power or correlation your statement is a self-predicitive. ie America has, in my lifetime, had a very liberal rehabilitative penal system, and had a draconian retributive penal system; now America's history is of course tied up in this as a distal presumed cause - by the proximal proven causes are political posturing, positive reinforcement of harsher systems, and media reaction to crime.

[swansont]

Brazil is supposedly a free democracy with a rapidly growing economy, yet its prisoners are crammed into overcrowded rooms and fed rotten food.

 

!

Moderator Note

Please stick to the topic. If you have a relevant point to make, make it. Otherwise, note that this site is not your personal soapbox.