Is there ANY effective deterrent?

Post #16,430 by Andrew Grygus 11/4/01 5:19:43 AM Reply	Is there ANY effective deterrent? It seems even the death penalty is not effective as a deterrent (except for detering future acts by the subject of said penalty). I don't think the people who commit most serious criminal acts can think very far ahead, like far ahead enough to when they might be caught. If you aren't going to get caught, then why worry about the penalty? It has been said that 3 Strikes in California has resulted in more shoot-outs with police by those facing a third conviction, but I have seen no reliable statistics on that. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #16,434 by static 11/4/01 6:08:38 AM Reply	I think that might be the wrong question. Your post rather highlights that. A deterrant not against committing a crime but against getting caught? Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #16,469 by Brandioch 11/4/01 1:19:48 PM Reply	Define "deterrent" I seem to be saying that a lot. Are we talking about a punishment that will stop OTHER people from commiting crimes? If so, then I agree with Andrew. Nothing will stop people who don't plan beyond tomorrow. And most of the criminals out there are that type. Otherewise they wouldn't make such stupid mistakes and get caught. If we're talking about stopping the person who committed the crime from doing it again, then death is no different from life inprisonment. Which seems to be where the 3 strike rule is helping. Repeat offenders are locked up forever. At least, in Seattle the crime rate is dropping. Given a set population with X criminals (repeat) Then locking up Y criminals means that only X-Y criminals are available to committ said crimes. Well, in theory. In practice, the varieties of the human population shift the results back and forth. To be truly effective, this would have to be combined with social programs aimed at preventing kids from becoming new criminals.

Welcome to IWETHEY!