Punish a Criminal Harshly & It's Not Deterrent Vs Punish a Criminal Mildly & It's Very Deterrent?

What's the best options between:
A. A murder gets punished harshly and no one gets scared.
B. A murder gets punished mildly, but everyone else in the population finds it deterrent.

Please explain why.

Here's the explanation:
Option A = The murder gets a punishment s/he thinks are very harsh, but no one else finds it deterrent because they finds the harsh punishment mild. What the punishment is depend on the murder.

Option B = The murder finds this punishment as both mild and mercifully. S/he's relatively happy with this. But everyone else finds the punishment deterrent and disgusting, so most people aren't into committing a crime because of it.

What's the most important here between: punishing the murder harshly or a deterrent punishment?

#Punishment #JusticeSystem #Criminal
Punish a Criminal Harshly & It's Not Deterrent Vs Punish a Criminal Mildly & It's Very Deterrent?
  • A. Murder gets punished harshly, but everyone else finds it none-deterrent
    Vote A
  • B. Murder gets punished mildly, but everyone fits it deterrent
    Vote B
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|0
720

Recommended Questions

Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 7

  • This would never happen irl. The criminal and the general public are deterred by fear of the same things (usually jail or death).

    1|1
    0|0
    • 7d

      I know. But if this was possible, would you choose A or B. This question isn't supposed to be completely realistic.

  • Punishment should be to prevent further crimes, not to take revenge. So if a humane punishment does the job, why not?
    Although your question is kind of hypothetical. Can't really think of a punishment that's mild but deterrent as opposed to another one that's harsh but non-deterrent.

    0|0
    0|0
    • 4d

      Criminals have different views like everyone else, so for one criminal prison would be mild and for another criminal the death penalty would be.

      An ISIS fighter may prefer to get hanged instead of being in prison for life. Many believes they would go to heaven if they dies and especially if they've done "good deeds" like terrorism, waging holy wars etc. Life in prison may be boring for these frustrated people that wants action.

  • It all depends on the crime and the motive.

    For example, if a person murders their neighbor because of a disagreement their punishment should be harsh such as death or solitary.

    If a person murders their neighbor because the neighbor raped their child, then the punishment should be mild such as probation or a short prison sentence.

    Motives are rarely considered when it comes to justice and it’s even more rare that the punishment fits the crime.

    2|0
    1|1
  • When you decide your murder someone you should get killed for it (unless it was manslaughter.)

    In Other Words:
    "Jus drein jus daun"-The100
    Blood must have blood

    0|0
    0|0
  • Why do you think either option has deterrent value?

    0|0
    0|0
  • none of these options are true harsh and fearful is appropriate

    0|0
    0|0
  • How many years until Anders Breivik is back out?

    0|0
    0|0
    • 6d

      We don't know. He was sentenced to 21 years in prison, but after 21 years they can expand his prison time if they think it's necessary. They can do it several times. They can expand it with 21 years if they think it's necessary I've heard, but I'm not sure on the exact number.

    • Show All
    • 6d

      I doubt he would get released. Even if he gets out of prison, he's still not free and have to be guarded all the time considering how much people are against him. He needs guards 24/7 to protect him from protesters and to guide him to a less violent lifestyle.

      He may be considered too mentally ill to be released too and still be seen as a danger to the public.

    • 6d

      We will see

What Guys Said 20

  • Research has shown that the rate at which someone is caught and punished is far more important than the severity of the punishment.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Punishment is not a deterrent, nobody commits a crime planning on getting caught and punished, people plan crimes around them getting away with it.

    So why would a punishment deter them?

    1|0
    0|0
    • 6d

      But if it was possible, would you choose option A or B? Would you rather is "if-scenarios", not necessary the reality.

    • 6d

      You're asking me whether justice should be revenge-based or prevention-based.

      I say revenge.

      The only thing more satisfying than expediency is pure satisfaction itself.

      Personally, I think victims and their families should have a say in how violent criminals should be punished. I don't think it serves any greater good to deny them that natural right.

  • The detterant is most important between the 2. Without the deterrent you will just have more of the same crime, and the new criminals will see the punishment as mild just like the population. So you end up failing to show a harsh punishment to either.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I seriously doubt that murderers consider the punishment while contriving to do the crime. Perhaps a small percentage weigh the benefit of outcome vs being caught, but I doubt the punishment is any real deterrent at all once you've gone down that road.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Punishment is a poor deterrent regardless of how punitive it is
    However the harsher the punishment the less chances of resocialization of the criminal
    Well outside the options that require no resocialization
    Locking people up for huge chunks of their life really doesn't do much good for anyone
    Huge expense for society
    The incarcerated person becomes marginalized and institutionalized and will likely never fit into society again

    0|0
    0|0
  • The real question here is what you want to achive
    Do you want to punish criminals or stop/reduce crime rates

    1|0
    0|0
  • The whole point of criminal justice, and punishment in general, is to prevent undesirable behavior.
    The punishment in itself is ultimately meaningless.

    So, obviously, the choice B is the answer.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Punishment must meet the crime. A kid that steals a chocolate bar should not be serving 5 years due to mandatory minimum. Yet a murder who killed in a drive by, should not be getting parole within 2 years and walking free. Murder is murder you should serve the minimum of 25 years unless of course it was unintentional gun went off or car accident. Then max should be 5 years. Accidents do happen. Killing innocent people at bank robbery isn't no accident.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I am going to side track a bit. I have social anxiety and I'm an introvert as well. When I went to jail for 3 months last year is was a social nightmare, I always wanted to be alone but I had to deal with pretty nasty cell mates. I was always extremely self conscious of myself, it was draining. And the bordem, playing cards and watching TV was the only things I was permitted to do.

    0|0
    0|0
  • A dead criminal cannot reoffend. Not even the bleeding hearts can argue with that statement.
    I do not view this situation as one of rehabilitation. I see it as vermin control.
    Criminals have a 70 per cent recividism rate, on average.
    That figure is not uniform, hence the use of the work average.
    Paedophiles, for example, have a rate of recividism that is close enough to 100 per cent.
    A typical Western prison system spends about $300 per inmate per day.
    A bullet to the head, by comparison, would be a non-recurrent expenditure of roughly 50 cents per criminal.
    Trillions saved, safer streets and that money spent on maintaining and expanding infrastructure that is economically productive.
    To me, the logic of the case for dragging most criminals screaming from the court and putting a.45ACP through their sociopathic/psychopathic brains is overwhelming.
    Since rapists would be among those euthanised in that way, women who made false rape allegations would be treated in the same way.

    0|1
    0|0
  • There is very little deterrent for murder. Those who would do it don't believe they will get caught, so the punishment is irrelevant.

    The purpose for capital punishment is simply vengeance. And there is some value there, if the public doesn't feel that crime is being punished/avenged by the state, they will take matters into their own hands.

    Having said that, I also don't believe that there state should have the power to kill it's own citizens. I think life without parole is appropriate, assuming that actually means no parole ever.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Punish harshly and fix society so that exteme deterrents aren't needed.

    0|0
    0|0
  • The best deterrent is the high risk to be caught. Most criminals think they won't be caught.

    0|0
    0|0
  • B, then capture the criminal later and silently “disappear” them.

    0|0
    0|0
  • This is a very ignorant view of sociology

    1|0
    0|0
  • wtf are you talking about?

    0|0
    0|0
  • DEPENDS what he or she did
    AND WHY THEY DID IT

    0|0
    0|0
    • 7d

      Here's an example: The crime was terrorism and more than 10 people died. The person didn't like satire and therefor attacked a satire-company.

    • 7d

      ok he should be killed

  • Guys like dildos

    0|0
    0|0
  • B clearly saves more lives

    0|0
    0|0
  • Those both sound wrong. Try again.

    0|0
    0|0

Recommended myTakes

Loading...