My opinion as to how society should deal with crime falls under several categories, since crime is not just black and white.
Firstly, let me establish the broadest categories: how toprevent crime and how to react to crime after the event.
As to how to prevent crime, there are several ways of going about this. Apart from the obvious increasing police ability, we must also, as a society, not create criminals ourselves (as we unfortunately have a tendency to do); we must also gain an understanding of the criminal mind in order to rehabilitate and help people before they turn into murderers. Crime is as much psychological as it is physical.
Secondly, as to police, I think there should be two "types" of police: community police and paramilitary police.
Community police would be ground officers who are intimate and friendly and knowledgeable within the community they are charged with protecting. They may be dressed in casual clothes and are either unarmed or may carry a small sidearm. They help each other by communicating and, together with others who might be in patrol cars, give a community a sense of security.
The emphasis of these police isn't intrusion into other peoples' lives, but rather, just being casual on the street. They would also participate or help out locally.
Basically, to have these police as close and as local as possible with the common people. They wouldn't be heavily armed soldiers, though.
Also, encouraging the common people themselves to establish local and community watches and plans, etc
And then, the paramilitary police
These guys would not directly and actively patrol, but instead are responsible for responding to cases and apprehending wanted criminals. Their responsibility is more federal and nationalized, and also includes protecting the nation against things like criminal gangs, domestic terrorism, and serious murderers, etc
However, these guys, contrary to the "community" police, would be heavily armed, armored, and authorized to use deadly force if necessary. They would also have an intelligence network in order to ensure they are fully capable of carrying out their jobs.
They would also be authorized to carry out military operations against criminal organizations, etc
They would have also military-grade vehicles and weapons at their disposal if they find them necessary
Basically, the aim with these guys is to destroy crime at all cost, while trying not to interfere with the common people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for after the event (how to prosecute criminals), I think we must also think logically here and not think of crime as "black and white"
Firstly, I classify crime under two main types: material and violent. Material crimes deal with crimes that deal with things such as robbery, fraud, counterfeiting, etc
I believe that in these cases, punishment is NOT the main goal; rather, rehabilitation is more important since in the end money can be repayed and the person can still have a chance of giving back.
Before I continue, firstly life sentences would be abolished because they are pointless, so any life sentences would be commuted to death sentences.
However in the case of material crimes, I think there should be NO life or death sentences. Instead, rehabilitation is the primary goal.
So let's say something reasonable, like a maximum sentence (depending on if it's very severe like bank robberies) of 15 years, minimum of 2
I do think that if the criminals show good behavior and are fit to rejoin, they may be paroled at any time. If however they show violent behavior and at the end of their sentence are still dangerous, they should be executed to be on the safe side.
However during their setences there should be an emphasis on rehabilitation, education, etc (since most thieves resort to crime because they can't do anything else)
Committing a "material" crime and a "violent" crime would obviously not be mutually exclusive and in such case you would be charged and sentenced on both counts (for instance, a thief who shoots someone during his robbery, would be tried with assault, attempted murder, and robbery, and probably breaking and entering if it's in the home) and would carry out their sentences consecutively (unless they are sentenced to death)
Also if the person seriously re-offends after carrying out his sentence, his next sentence would be commuted to the death penalty
Now, as for violent crimes, I will break them down into, what I believe, are the usual cases:
Firstly, for crimes out of cold blood (commited for pleasure, lack of emotion, or by sociopaths), the sentence would be execution, since
A) these people can not be rehabilitated
B) crimes out of cold blood are the sickest you can get, and execution is the appropriate punishment
And any crime of cold blood, whether murder, attempted murder, assault, rape, etc, would receive the death penalty
Rape, especially against children, would always receive the death penalty on first offense
For crimes of passion (done because of emotion), I still think they should be punished, and the death penalty would still be possible, but I think we should have an emphasis on anger management counseling, rehabilitation, as well as a lengthy prison sentence (say, 20 years to 40 years)
The reason being is that, in the end, we are only human and in some cases it is understandable that people act out of emotion (even though it's still wrong and should be discouraged)
As for the third type of crime IMO, which is military crime, I think they should all receive the death penalty, and these include:
treason
desertion
cowardice
disclosure of military intelligence
And things of that nature, naturally
Please comment and tell me how you think justice should be done
Firstly, let me establish the broadest categories: how toprevent crime and how to react to crime after the event.
As to how to prevent crime, there are several ways of going about this. Apart from the obvious increasing police ability, we must also, as a society, not create criminals ourselves (as we unfortunately have a tendency to do); we must also gain an understanding of the criminal mind in order to rehabilitate and help people before they turn into murderers. Crime is as much psychological as it is physical.
Secondly, as to police, I think there should be two "types" of police: community police and paramilitary police.
Community police would be ground officers who are intimate and friendly and knowledgeable within the community they are charged with protecting. They may be dressed in casual clothes and are either unarmed or may carry a small sidearm. They help each other by communicating and, together with others who might be in patrol cars, give a community a sense of security.
The emphasis of these police isn't intrusion into other peoples' lives, but rather, just being casual on the street. They would also participate or help out locally.
Basically, to have these police as close and as local as possible with the common people. They wouldn't be heavily armed soldiers, though.
Also, encouraging the common people themselves to establish local and community watches and plans, etc
And then, the paramilitary police
These guys would not directly and actively patrol, but instead are responsible for responding to cases and apprehending wanted criminals. Their responsibility is more federal and nationalized, and also includes protecting the nation against things like criminal gangs, domestic terrorism, and serious murderers, etc
However, these guys, contrary to the "community" police, would be heavily armed, armored, and authorized to use deadly force if necessary. They would also have an intelligence network in order to ensure they are fully capable of carrying out their jobs.
They would also be authorized to carry out military operations against criminal organizations, etc
They would have also military-grade vehicles and weapons at their disposal if they find them necessary
Basically, the aim with these guys is to destroy crime at all cost, while trying not to interfere with the common people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for after the event (how to prosecute criminals), I think we must also think logically here and not think of crime as "black and white"
Firstly, I classify crime under two main types: material and violent. Material crimes deal with crimes that deal with things such as robbery, fraud, counterfeiting, etc
I believe that in these cases, punishment is NOT the main goal; rather, rehabilitation is more important since in the end money can be repayed and the person can still have a chance of giving back.
Before I continue, firstly life sentences would be abolished because they are pointless, so any life sentences would be commuted to death sentences.
However in the case of material crimes, I think there should be NO life or death sentences. Instead, rehabilitation is the primary goal.
So let's say something reasonable, like a maximum sentence (depending on if it's very severe like bank robberies) of 15 years, minimum of 2
I do think that if the criminals show good behavior and are fit to rejoin, they may be paroled at any time. If however they show violent behavior and at the end of their sentence are still dangerous, they should be executed to be on the safe side.
However during their setences there should be an emphasis on rehabilitation, education, etc (since most thieves resort to crime because they can't do anything else)
Committing a "material" crime and a "violent" crime would obviously not be mutually exclusive and in such case you would be charged and sentenced on both counts (for instance, a thief who shoots someone during his robbery, would be tried with assault, attempted murder, and robbery, and probably breaking and entering if it's in the home) and would carry out their sentences consecutively (unless they are sentenced to death)
Also if the person seriously re-offends after carrying out his sentence, his next sentence would be commuted to the death penalty
Now, as for violent crimes, I will break them down into, what I believe, are the usual cases:
Firstly, for crimes out of cold blood (commited for pleasure, lack of emotion, or by sociopaths), the sentence would be execution, since
A) these people can not be rehabilitated
B) crimes out of cold blood are the sickest you can get, and execution is the appropriate punishment
And any crime of cold blood, whether murder, attempted murder, assault, rape, etc, would receive the death penalty
Rape, especially against children, would always receive the death penalty on first offense
For crimes of passion (done because of emotion), I still think they should be punished, and the death penalty would still be possible, but I think we should have an emphasis on anger management counseling, rehabilitation, as well as a lengthy prison sentence (say, 20 years to 40 years)
The reason being is that, in the end, we are only human and in some cases it is understandable that people act out of emotion (even though it's still wrong and should be discouraged)
As for the third type of crime IMO, which is military crime, I think they should all receive the death penalty, and these include:
treason
desertion
cowardice
disclosure of military intelligence
And things of that nature, naturally
Please comment and tell me how you think justice should be done
Last edited:
