Crime and Punishment

 There were two separate but related stories that came up this week that share a common thread.   They both involve the punishment for crimes committed.

Someone posted a picture of the Singapore airport and asked why we didn't have beautiful places like that in the US.  Matt Walsh responded by pointing out that one possible reason was that in Singapore they have a legal system that is so draconian that people aren't going to engage in destruction of property because if the consequences.  Many people missed what I think was his point.   What stood out to me was the fact that a legal system with draconian punishments for even minor crimes does seem to be successful in minimizing crime.  In other words the trade off for a society with a low crime rate is a justice system which canes people for minor crimes, and imposes a swift death penalty for major crimes.  I think he's onto something.  In the US over the last few years we've seen increases in all sorts of crimes, and increases in rioting and looting.   We've also seen cities start to not enforce certain laws, and criminals who's punishments range from minor to nonexistent.     I'm not saying that I agree with these types of legal systems, but I do agree that cutting off the hands of thieves would likely be more of a deterrent than even a short incarceration.   I'd suggest that the folx who are regularly looting stores in various cities with impunity, might be deterred if it was going to cost them a body part or being caned.   Again, I'm not necessarily endorsing this concept, but I do agree that draconian consequences, swiftly administered, are very likely to lower crime, and save money.   

 

The second story involves a couple of gay men who adopted children, brutally sexually abused them,  and produced videos of this vile abuse.   I think that virtually everyone in the US regardless of their political views would agree that these were heinous crimes committed by two vile and evil men.  Many people, myself included, would argue that the death penalty is the only appropriate punishment for these vermin.  But it seems as tough a left leaning court struck down the death penalty for cases in which parents sexually abuse their children.   It could be argued that life in the general population of a maximum security prison is likely to be a death sentence, but do we as a country want prisoners in charge of meting out punishment to people?   I admit that there is a perverse sense of these vermin getting their just deserts by spending years of their lives being violently raped, abused, and likely killed by their fellow inmates.  While spending the rest of their lives being protected by the state doesn't seem particularly just.   The fact that there are people who would argue that the death penalty isn't appropriate for vile creatures like these completely mystify me.  

I think that the conclusion these two stories have led me to is that if the state is willing to be draconian enough in punishing minor crime, and actually follows through with swift and harsh punishment, that we would likely see a decrease in crime.   The question then becomes how draconian is too draconian, and are people willing to trade draconian punishment for lower crime.  

We all know that these idiotic bans on "assault weapons" will have a minimal effect on crime, at best.  We know that criminals will be able to source illegal weapons, and will use them.  We know that law abiding citizens will obey the law, and will use other tools to exorcise their rights.  What would be interesting to see is what would happen if committing a crime with a gun, came with a swift, harsh, significant punishment.