Criminal Justice?

[Traveler]

I have become convinced that our current legal system is ineffective and needs changing. Over 30 years ago I talked to a police detective that had a concept that I believe has merit. I have added to his concept and made it my own. In my evolving process of thinking, I present it to this forum for consideration.

First responsibility of justice is to protect the innocent. In fact this has become my overriding principle. Our society has lost the perspective of protecting innocent members from those that are guilty of crimes. Often I am astonished at the boldness in which crimes are committed against innocence in our society. I am convinced that this is the case because criminals lack any respect or fear of justice.

So here is my concept.

There are two parts to the criminal justice system. The first part is the court. This part determines if a party is innocent. Not much needs to change in our current system. Yes, I know some get off and mistakes are made in convictions but we do the best we can. The difference is that the courts and judges only determine innocence and guilt. They do not determine the sentence. That happens outside the court system. Also the courts cannot consider past history or previous violations – only innocence or guilt.

The second part of the criminal justice system would be the sentence. This part is very simple.

Following the first conviction the criminal is never incarcerated. Instead they are place on probation. Does not matter what they did the sentence is the same - probation. The probation last until either a second offence is committed or until they demonstrate their rehabilitation.

Following the second conviction the criminal is always incarcerated. Again this is not for a period of time but until there is demonstration of rehabilitation.

Following the third conviction the criminal is executed.

Note that the sentence is not considered when consider innocence or guilt. The lawyers, judges, or any member of the court is not permitted to consider or communicate past criminal history. They should not know if the criminal will receive first, second or third level convictions. If a defending lawyer should know then communicating that fact would be grounds to remove them from the bar.

There are two things I want you all to consider. The first has to do with what this will save our society. It will eliminate over 80% of the crimes committed in our society. This is because over 80% of the crimes are committed by repeat offenders. It will eliminate 80% of the cost and the need for most of our police, courts and judges; all because most of this is involved with repeat offenders. It will almost eliminate all violent crimes – this is because almost all violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders. It is a fact that criminals become more violent with each conviction.

The second consideration is that even if someone shoplifts a 5 cent item they become a criminal subject to this system. You may ask – Why should we convict a person to death because they only took a 5 cent item? The reason is because this is not the first time and they are willing to raise the stakes of their own life in order to take that 5 cent item – There is nothing else that can be done with them. Oh, you say, they could be incarcerated – for life if necessary but not put to death. But they do not value their own life worth more than the 5 cents. There cannot be any value to them for any life. Would you demand others that have a chance at rehabilitation to be forced to live with such a person? All criminals forced to survive incarceration would have to adjust to the worse element in the limited place that such would prevail in survival behavior. In other words criminals would come out of incarceration with a higher propensity toward crime and disregard for life (violence) than before incarceration. We would have a system that created greater danger – not a system that could be said to care about the innocent.

You may not like my idea – that is fine. But I only want to know your opposition to my opinion if you think you have a better idea. I think women should not live in fear being raped regardless of where they live. I think parents should not worry if their child will be molested. I do not think anyone should fear walking down any street of any town. Innocent people should not be made to fear criminals. Children should not have to fear strangers. It should be the criminals that should fear – they should fear what will happen in they continue their criminal ways.

The Traveler

[Ray A]

Following the second conviction the criminal is always incarcerated. Again this is not for a period of time but until there is demonstration of rehabilitation.

Following the third conviction the criminal is executed.

Would that include people like King Lamoni?

[skalenfehl]

A little on the political side, but...

An extreme view all the way around, I think. Never incarcerated following the first conviction? We treat a felony the same as a misdemeanor? Besides, the two biggest problems in my mind are laws are not being enforced and the jails/prisons are overcrowded and the innocent overtaxed to punish and imprison the offenders. How would you fix that?

[Moksha]

Following the third conviction the criminal is executed.

Seems a little harsh. Why not try the Phantom Zone first?

[Ray A]

The second consideration is that even if someone shoplifts a 5 cent item they become a criminal subject to this system. You may ask – Why should we convict a person to death because they only took a 5 cent item? The reason is because this is not the first time and they are willing to raise the stakes of their own life in order to take that 5 cent item – There is nothing else that can be done with them. Oh, you say, they could be incarcerated – for life if necessary but not put to death. But they do not value their own life worth more than the 5 cents. There cannot be any value to them for any life. Would you demand others that have a chance at rehabilitation to be forced to live with such a person? All criminals forced to survive incarceration would have to adjust to the worse element in the limited place that such would prevail in survival behavior. In other words criminals would come out of incarceration with a higher propensity toward crime and disregard for life (violence) than before incarceration. We would have a system that created greater danger – not a system that could be said to care about the innocent.

You may not like my idea – that is fine. But I only want to know your opposition to my opinion if you think you have a better idea. I think women should not live in fear being raped regardless of where they live. I think parents should not worry if their child will be molested. I do not think anyone should fear walking down any street of any town. Innocent people should not be made to fear criminals. Children should not have to fear strangers. It should be the criminals that should fear – they should fear what will happen in they continue their criminal ways.

Execution for stealing a few mints, no matter how many times, seems rather draconian. No, Traveler, it's a silly idea. People who shoplift don't always go around raping women. People who rape may not be shoplifters. People commit house theft to get money for drugs. Something like 80% of house break and enter is drug-related. These people are sick, literally physically sick, and they do this to get a "hit" just to feel normal. They need to be treated, not executed. Bringing back total prohibition would be a "better idea", but in fact prohibition increased crime.

Now if you're talking about a repeat offending pedophile, they should be locked away for life. But in this concept you've presented, someone who steals a few mints three times, should meet the same fate as a repeat and unrepentant pedophile.

Don't think I'm lenient, or want to water things down, as I'm subjected to crime of some nature nearly every single week I work, but to execute someone who really needs help? They can have my small change, it can always be replaced, no matter how annoying, but the last thing I'd want is to see their lives ended. This is a concept entirely devoid of mercy, and justice. Imagine if Jesus only gave us three strikes for theft, then put the millstone around our necks.

[skalenfehl]

If anything bring back chain gangs to build federal and state highways. That would build infrastructure while saving lots of tax dollars, and rehabilitate many criminals. Each generation is getting softer and more unruly.

[Ray A]

Rehabilitation obviously isn't working very well. Here's another hyothetical suggestion. Make criminals work for those they steal from. Make them come face to face with the people they offended. Let the offended explain how hard they work, how much it takes to earn money and run a business. Then make them work in that business for about three months, without pay, and get to know all the staff, and all the lives they affected.

If you lock them away, or even use chain gangs, they never see the real effects of what they've done, or how they've hurt people, and in jail they're only going to become more isolated and hardened. Maybe that's one reason "rehabilitation" doesn't work well. Let the offended be able to ask to his/her face, "why did you do it?"

[skalenfehl]

Rehabilitation obviously isn't working very well. Here's another hyothetical suggestion. Make criminals work for those they steal from. Make them come face to face with the people they offended. Let the offended explain how hard they work, how much it takes to earn money and run a business. Then make them work in that business for about three months, without pay, and get to know all the staff, and all the lives they affected.

If you lock them away, or even use chain gangs, they never see the real effects of what they've done, or how they've hurt people, and in jail they're only going to become more isolated and hardened. Maybe that's one reason "rehabilitation" doesn't work well. Let the offended be able to ask to his/her face, "why did you do it?"

Ok, my suggestion could be the punishment, followed by yours for the actual "rehabilitation".

[MaidservantX]

I have thought about sentencing and prison reform and similar subjects a great deal as well. I could write a 500 page post.

However, I will offer only one tidbit at this point instead of outlining my personal plan of reform.

One of the main influences upon a (first-time) convict that may lead to them repeat offending is the fact that they spent time incarcerated. In my humble opinion, incarceration does not, in general, output fine upstanding citizens that have learned their lesson about a big mistake. Rather it outputs citizens that have been trained further in criminality and a horde of other attitudes etc. that one would be hard-pressed to escape in order to become good and keep the law. Another huge thing a (first-time) incarcerated convict will face is the opportunity, temptation and/ or necessity of joining a gang. Once they are freed from prison they may still need ("need") to keep those gang commitments. It would take the effort of a saint to overcome gang commitments, and this person is not a saint, he's a weak, first-time convict. It's something one generally doesn't do alone (leave a gang; possible, not easy or likely). And then as a convict who has been freed from prison you face simple things like getting someone to hire you (a job), a circumstantial influence that may lead some to not make the effort to continue to keep the law. As I said, these are just a couple of points.

I think my overall objection to your plan, Traveler, is that I very heartily resist a "one size fits all" plan for criminal justice. More nuance is needed I think for true justice.

Thanks for bringing the subject up, though.

[Ray A]

Ok, my suggestion could be the punishment, followed by yours for the actual "rehabilitation".

skalenfehl & Ray, Criminal Justice Consultants (all donations go to a rehabilitation fund)

[a-train]

I like the direction, but I would elminate the prison system almost altogether just as Joseph Smith proposed. Prison is basically ineffective.

The main thing that needs to return to the criminal justice system is JUSTICE. The crooks must first and foremost make restitution in every case. Our current system does not do this. A robber may go to jail, but he never has to pay any restitution to the victim. This is the definition of injustice.

-a-train

[skalenfehl]

Society is caught in a perpetual downward spiral. People don't want to "parent" properly anymore. Fathers are not taking responsibility, children are more and more unruly, disobedient, lazy, etc. What if we could somehow break the cycle for a generation and reinforce good parenting, family structure, etc. What if we could shift our focus and emphasis on the "prevention" instead of the "cure"?

Since we're discussing hypothetical scenarios, how could we build on this one?

[Ray A]

Society is caught in a perpetual downward spiral. People don't want to "parent" properly anymore. Fathers are not taking responsibility, children are more and more unruly, disobedient, lazy, etc. What if we could somehow break the cycle for a generation and reinforce good parenting, family structure, etc. What if we could shift our focus and emphasis on the "prevention" instead of the "cure"?

Since we're discussing hypothetical scenarios, how could we build on this one?

That is obviously one key factor. The problem is that the divorce rate is so high, and single-parent families so prevalent now, that parents have less control. Two is mostly more effective than one, and I think this as I was a single parent for about 7 years, as some here probably are. Some single parents do just fine, but many have lost control of their kids, especially where there is no father-figure in the home. The problem really goes back to the breakdown of the traditional family unit, I think anyway.

This, btw, isn't a lecture, just an observation.

The bottom line is that I think we should be looking at causes first, rather than draconian punishment which still leaves the causes intact. Anyone can have children, and no one checks to see if they are capable of bringing those children up responsibly. It's sort of like putting the cleaner in charge of a jumbo jet.

[skalenfehl]

Granted, but you pretty much reinforced what I said, which brings me back to my question. How do we build on this?

[a-train]

Society is caught in a perpetual downward spiral. People don't want to "parent" properly anymore. Fathers are not taking responsibility, children are more and more unruly, disobedient, lazy, etc. What if we could somehow break the cycle for a generation and reinforce good parenting, family structure, etc. What if we could shift our focus and emphasis on the "prevention" instead of the "cure"?

Since we're discussing hypothetical scenarios, how could we build on this one?

I don't think that there is anything we can or should do as a society to coerce good parenting, but I think what we need to do is stop subsidizing bad parenting. The welfare system in our country greatly contributes to this issue. We literally pay people to stay unmarried.

This will eventually change, its just a question of whether we will change it before or after an economic and/or social catastrophe. The Great Society is not so great and we will either admit it now, or suffer the consequences.

One of the biggest contributors to the heavy burden of prisons, police work, and the operations of our courts is the drug war. It isn't working, it never worked, and we need to change our whole outlook on that. If we really want the drug dealers off of our streets and out of our schools, there is only one way to do it. Much of the violent crime in our society is linked to the black drug market.

Legalizing drugs would end the whole mess. Our people could go to the local convenience store and buy legally grown and distributed marijuana with their cigarettes and beer instead of supporting a black market criminal system. The same stoners would exist as do now, but the criminal element would be out of business, law enforcement would be less swamped, the courts could give more time to more meaningful cases, and a large percentage of our youth would be out of prison.

I simply cannot see how our current approach is paying off. We are paying a tremendous price and we aren't really even getting what we are paying for. At the end of the day, the drugs are still available everywhere. It may sound like a bad joke, but its true. Do you want some weed? Contact your local 8th grader. Mushrooms or LSD? Check the closest college campus.

The whole system has been clogged with bad legislation and bad legal practice.

-a-train

[Ray A]

Granted, but you pretty much reinforced what I said, which brings me back to my question. How do we build on this?

Well, the Church has had the answer through its leaders for about 45-plus years now, when they first introduced Family Home Evening. I think they saw, very early, the tidal wave coming. But divorce and family breakdown occurs within the Church too, and probably more often now than in previous years. The Church can't do anything but keep reinforcing this message. Individuals will decide the course of their lives, and we all have to live with the consequences of our decisions.

[Traveler]

For a reason I did not try to define criminal behavior. If criminal behavior is defined as stealing a 5 cent item that it is criminal behavior weather it is a 5 cent item from a poor person or 5 million dollar something from a rich person. I put the notion of a 5 cent item to see where people drew the line for justice. If they really believe in justice or if they make excuses.

If a person cares less about life than a 5 cent item then you might as well give them what ever they want and forget about justice, liberty and believe that might makes right and if you are strong enough you take what you want. It is my belief that our society has become so vile – not because of violent criminals but because of citizens that demand that criminals be allowed to be violent. Their will always be violent criminals in our society. The reason is because the attitude of so many that would rather have violence than to do what ever it takes to stop it.

I am convinced that the more misinformed people support the criminals – making excuses for criminals and denying justice to victims the more rewarding criminal behavior will become. The more innocent members of society must fear and the less the criminals will fear. Not one criticism gave any indication of how to stop criminal behavior. .

I will offer the historical example of the Laucayan. They had no jails, no criminals, no weapons for defense or offence, no courts and they had no tolerance for criminal behavior. The softest or considered easiest out for criminal behavior (first or any offence to someone found guilty) was death. Most often the punishment was banishment. But when the Europeans showed up they called them savage and brought their “civilized” brand of justice. There once was a people that lived in peace where the women and children could walk through the streets of any village at any time day or night without fear.

Why do people give more consideration to criminals that live without any fear and no consideration at all to the innocent men, women and children that live in fear? I do not understand that excuse. Sorry – If I could choose, I would choose to live where criminals fear – not innocent people.

The Traveler

[Ray A]

Legalizing drugs would end the whole mess.

Train, I'm going to PM you a video of what my brother says about this. I'm not posting it as it could be seen as "advertising".

[Traveler]

Granted, but you pretty much reinforced what I said, which brings me back to my question. How do we build on this?

Many ancient Native American societies existed under the tribe. In order to be a member of the tribe one had to either be a "brave" or under the care of a brave. It was the responsibility for the brave to keep those under him under control. The tribe elders only punished a brave. So if the wife or child of a brave committed a crime it was the brave that acted and then answered to the elders and if necessary took the remaining punishment. If a brave could not handle those under him it was up to him to disavow them or step down. If someone disavowed by a brave were not accepted by another brave then they were banished from the tribe.

In essence this was a family based patrioricle system - and it worked. Looking at the resulting society - I think it worked much better than ours. I think that system is closer to society of Heaven where G-d the Father is like the brave for his children. It is my understanding that G-d does not give any allowance for sin. It is my impression that many on this forum really would not like to live with G-d in heaven.

The Traveler

[SMG]

Many ancient Native American societies existed under the tribe. In order to be a member of the tribe one had to either be a "brave" or under the care of a brave. It was the responsibility for the brave to keep those under him under control. The tribe elders only punished a brave. So if the wife or child of a brave committed a crime it was the brave that acted and then answered to the elders and if necessary took the remaining punishment. If a brave could not handle those under him it was up to him to disavow them or step down. If someone disavowed by a brave were not accepted by another brave then they were banished from the tribe.

That does seem like a good system. It seems it would cause people to stop and think because it would more than just themselves who would suffer the consequences.

It is my impression that many on this forum really would not like to live with G-d in heaven.

The Traveler

Okay, now that seems more than a little harsh, non?

[Ray A]

It is my understanding that G-d does not give any allowance for sin. It is my impression that many on this forum really would not like to live with G-d in heaven.

D&C 1

31 For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;

32 Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;

33 And he that repents not, from him shall be taken even the light which he has received; for my Spirit shall not always strive with man, saith the Lord of Hosts.

So, three strikes, not 77? And what is the Lord's punishment? Withdrawal of the Spirit, not physical death. He gave Noah's generation 120 years to change.

Traveler, just out of interest, do you see any of your concepts being supported by the Book of Mormon?

[Dr T]

This is an interesting topic. I think we are missing the whole idea of "sinful nature" in all of us. When we talk about "cure" (which was a great thought Skalen) I think we do not have one apart from God.

[Moksha]

What about sending them on a cab ride with Ray to scare them straight? :)

[Dr T]

Why's that moksha, just because he served in Austrailia? :)

[Ray A]

What about sending them on a cab ride with Ray to scare them straight? :)

One week on night shift with me will have their values quickly reassessed. "Oh, was I like that?"