Stopping Violent Crime: An Eye For An Eye?

First of all, my apologies if this is posted in the wrong forum. I searched around for the most suitable one and this is the closest I could find. Mods, if there is a more appropriate forum, please move this thread. Perhaps we need a new forum for sociological issues?

Anyhow...I've been watching the news lately and I've noticed a rise in the amount of violent crimes being committed both at home and abroad. As a parent, this worries me greatly as I can only wonder what kind of twisted society our children are growing up in. It infuriates me to see these dregs of society repeatedly committing atrocities such as torture, rape and murder and receiving the equivalent of a slap on the arse. These "people" (and I use the term VERY loosely) know that chances are even if they do get caught and convicted they will probably end up doing minimal time due to overcrowding of the system in a place where they will be allowed recreation, free meals, and even illegal drugs. After they spend as little as 1/3 of their sentence inside, they may be eligible for early parole and be back on the streets to commit more indescribable horrors on unsuspecting citizens.

Now, I should say before I go any further that I am generally not an advocate of violence. However I also believe that for the greater good of society sometimes it is unavoidable. Having said this, I think that it may be time to adopt the mantra of "An Eye For An Eye" in CERTAIN INSTANCES. I put this in bold because I don't think it is necessarily appropriate in all cases. Now I'm not saying that we should chop off a persons hands for stealing a loaf of bread to feed their family, but in the case of decidedly or repeatedly violent crimes where the defendant has been proven guilty beyond a doubt, I feel this would be justified. For instance: If a person commits any act of torture, rape, or murder on another person, the offender should be subjected to the exact same. If they have strangled someone, then they are to be strangled themselves. If they have locked someone up for a week and slowly tortured them to death, same goes. Without being too graphic, hopefully you get the point. Now I'm not saying this is going to solve all of our violent crime problems, but it might make them think twice about how they go about it. You probably would be less likely to skin someone alive if you knew it could happen to you if you were caught. At the very least, (and I know it sounds strange) it may make violent crimes more humane. I know that some "people" will commit these crimes anyway, but perhaps instead of torturing some poor sap for his money or whatever and then killing him, they will at least spare him the torture and just get it over with quickly. I know that is a horrible thing to say, but we live in terrible times.

I would appreciate hearing others thoughts on this subject.

What do we do about people who commit Genocide, Clone them?

[edit on 18-3-2008 by Throbber]

Genocide is a whole different ball of wax. Not everyone has the ability to attempt to wipe out an entire people. I'm just trying to dissuade the average violent offender. Good point though.

reply to post by subliminaut


Well admittedly the average violent offender isn't a serial killer, so i'll concede that you're right.

I'm of the opinion that in order for punishment to occur, detection of crime is a nessecity, do you have any ideas on how this could be done without resorting to a surveillence state like Britain has?

Anyhow...I've been watching the news lately and I've noticed a rise in the amount of violent crimes being committed both at home and abroad.

That's what you get for believing the news

The media garners ratings, subscription sales, etc... by fomenting a crisis mentality over crime. Lurid stories of spectacular crimes dominate the media, creating the impression that violent crime is "just getting worse and worse..."

Problem is, it isn't true, it's a distortion created by the media to make money.

In fact, violent crime rates are far lower than they were thirty years ago.

And they've been declining significantly, especially over the last decade.

Throbber: I agree that detection is a very important part of stopping violent crimes, unfortunately I have no idea how to implement this without having "viddies" on every corner. It seems that in order to ensure our freedoms, we have to give them up. Quite the paradox, eh?

Xmotex: I hope you are correct in your analysis, but I have my doubts. I know that the MSM relies on such terrible news to guarantee their ratings (again, a sign of a troubled society), but you only need take a drive down some of the streets in my home town to see that violence seems to be on the rise.

reply to post by subliminaut


A paradox indeed, it is.

However as conflicting as it is, it is an important issue that needs dealing with, because otherwise we're not going to be catching the violent offenders who know how to commit crime and get away with it.

At this point in time, without continuous and unrelenting video surveillance, all we can really do is wait for it to happen, and then leave it up to forensic science to determine guilt or innocence.

If people had real jobs, you would see crime rates drop through the floor. You're always going to have your sick animals out there, but most of the crime we see today is the result of a lack of practical opportunity and meaningful employment. And the "attitude" or mentality that goes along with it.

This of course does not include the real criminals who rob the people blind and create the conditions of hopelessness and despair for their own profits.

[edit on 3/18/0808 by jackinthebox]

Jackinthebox: While I agree with you in that if there were more opportunities for "real" employment, some crime rates would drop, I also know that there are some who commit these crimes for the sheer thrill of causing somebody pain and suffering. It is these people who need to be dealt with more severely.

I think we are getting a little off topic here. The real question is: Do you think that "An Eye For An Eye" would slow the rates of VIOLENT crimes in our countries?

I doubt it. There are some states here in the US that now have the death penalty for raping minors. Not that I condone this most wretched crime, but it shows that even by going beyond an eye for an eye is not a deterrent.

You have to attack the root causes of crime.

Even the crimes that seem to be caused by people who get a thrill out of hurting other people, can often be traced back to economic problems. They were hurt and/or neglected growing up, and become determined to share their misery with the world.

Three thoughts on that.

1. Talk is cheap;
2. You never know what you're going to do until you're in the situation;
3. Announcing plans of personal mayhem on teh intarweb is prob. not a good idea if you're really serious.

2...er, 3 cents.

reply to post by jackinthebox


You really want to attack the root do you?

Question everything you see, ask yourself what kind of ideas can be thought of when looking at that particular object or subject.

Ask yourself, why would a perfectly normal middle-class schoolkid get involved in Facism?

In many cases when asking this question (ideas that can be thought of, not schoolkid fascists), i have found the answers right in front of me.

E.g; In videogames emphasizing Stealth instead of gratuitious violence, the thought has occured to me often on the benefits of having such skills - i would for example be able to live off others without them even knowing of my existence.

So long as something exists that gives an individual the idea of how something illegal may benefit him, whilst the possibility remains that he will be able to get away with it, PEOPLE WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SYSTEM.

Not everyone has a 24/7 conscience after all, and for those people who don't (pretty much everyone) the conscience sometimes gets a tad irritating.

The important point to make, in dealing with the causes of crime - is that of Nessecity.

Oftentimes the people who steal or mug others are doing so in order to fund a drug habit, and of course in some instances they are forced to do so in order to appease petty theft rings (i was aware of a few when i was a kid - the kind of social circle where the kid who steals the most expensive thing was showered with praise from the others), but is it NESSECARY for such actions to occur?

No.

No doubt, there are situations in which committing a crime is nessecary - say for example you were forced to kill someone in order to protect your family (an extreme) or if you had to steal food in order to feed your little brother?

In both situations, you would not be committing crime for your own ends.

Materialism causes Nessecity, so therefore one must conclude that the main cause of crime is Materialism.

Don't forget that Materialism is Glorified in every single aspect of the Media.

In short - it's about Your environment, and what You Learn from it.

If you deal with the environment in which there is crime, it might be possible to cause some sort of progress.

Of course, some people do quite like that Anarchic 'Urban Chaos' environment.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by Throbber]

Though one of the main causes of crime is necessity, another is plain old greed. Not to mention whatever personal gratification an individual may receive from the act of either doing something wrong, or harming someone else. I think you will find that crimes committed out of sheer necessity (minus drug related incidents) are generally not as violent in nature as the crimes committed for personal pleasure or greed. Someone committing a crime from need, I think, is less likely to cause unnecessary pain or suffering. They would probably rather just get it over with. On the other hand someone who commits crimes out of a need for gratification or personal pleasure is more likely to "go the extra mile" so to speak.

I agree with what you are saying, but you have to take it a step further. If a kid grows up in a desperate and violent environment as the result of economic conditions, then their crimes are not based on immediate necessity, but the social cancer is still caused by economics nonetheless. We can no longer afford to treat social ills on a case by case basis. You have to treat the disease, not the symptoms.

Please don't misunderstand me though. A sick animal has no place in society. But I would rather implement measures that would lower the instances of us having to pay to keep these animals locked up.