Hello:
Or, do the cops have NO effect on crime whatsoever, no matter how the laws are enforced?
Do you think incarceration has any effect on crime? I ask, because you'd think when spending for the cops goes up, crime would go down. But, it doesn't. We have the largest percentage of our population in jail than does the entire world, and by a long shot. You'd think that would correlate with a lower crime rate. Yet, crime doesn't go down.
Something is very wrong with this equation.
excon
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Let me ask. Would you be more or less likely to steal if there is no consequence, small fine, jail time, death sentence?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I was responding to your thesis that policing and or police presence has no effect on crime. Thats clearly ludicrous.
I believe spanking children teaxhes right from wrong better than doing nothing. Is it the most efficient probably not.
Its basically just a supply and demand curve. Lets say we have people that want to cheat on a test. Clearly that number would go down the harsher the penalty of being caught. In addition, if you add more teachers/observers of the students increasing the chance of being caught the number would also go down.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
***
I believe spanking children teaches right from wrong better than doing nothing. Is it the most efficient probably no***
What you're basically saying and demonstrating to the child is the fact that you're incapable of reasoning with him/ her so violence is your best solution.
You're guilty of child abuse and actually brag about it?
Do you beat your wife if she deviates from your preffered definitions of what's right/ wrong?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Maybe you should read my post again where it says: "Is it the most efficient probably no"
The question was can spanking your children teach right from wrong clearly punishnent/consequences do that. Again some are more efficient than others
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Why would I need to read it again,it's patently clear what you said.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Why do you need to read again. Because you stated:
"What you're basically saying and demonstrating to the child is the fact that you're incapable of reasoning with him/ her so violence is your best solution."
Well no thats not what i said and its not implied. I never said this is the way i discipline children and I never said it is the standard we should use.
That leads me to the conclusion, you didnt read, you cant read, or your a giant strawman. Your choice.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Lemme ask you this.. Is hitting a child the best way to teach him not to hit?
Easy response: No. However it would teach hitting is wrong better than absolutely nothing. Obviously hitting a child too hard is abuse, but thats a different factor than could it teach hitting is wrong.
Not sure where your going with this. Probably not but i would make the assessment based on the temperment of that pitbull.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
There are plenty of reasons why longer sentences and tougher law enforcement does not equal stronger deterrence.
First of all, criminals don’t act in purely rational ways: They might be going through a particularly low period in their life, or might have developed a drug addiction. This means rational factors of deterrence won't weigh too heavily in a criminal's mind.
Second, criminals are often forced to commit crime by economic or social pressure. A larger sentence is therefore an ineffective deterrent, as it does nothing to solve the underlying motivation for their activity.
Third, criminals’ idea of deterrence is often based on the likelihood of being caught, not the severity of the punishment. Many criminals believe they can simply avoid being punished, and see prison as a lesson to be more careful and not get caught next time.
And finally, people are inherently bad at understanding the differences between long periods of time. If a prisoner would get a five year sentence in a "soft on crime" environment but ten years in a "tough on crime" environment, people can't meaningfully wrap their head around the difference. Therefore, increasingly long prison sentences yield marginal benefits for deterrence.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Its important to note I was responding to this.
"Or, do the cops have NO effect on crime whatsoever, no matter how the laws are enforced?
My answer there is of course incarceration has more impact than nothing. Again simple supply and demand. I have never stated my opinion on the most efficient manners because ultimately id know i need to do a lot more research to have an informed opinion of maximal effect
To your point about likliness of being caught. The OP says when spending on cops go up crime does not go down.
Again seems ludicrous as more cops equals more eyes equals higher liklihood of being caught.
Again i have no opinion on efficiency. Simply like you stated, higher chance of being caught equals lower amount people willing to commit crime.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
There are plenty of reasons why longer sentences and tougher law enforcement does not equal stronger deterrence.
And there are plenty of reasons why longer sentences and tougher law enforcement does equal a stronger deterrent. Why not go with that for the benefit of society?
First of all, criminals don’t act in purely rational ways: They might be going through a particularly low period in their life, or might have developed a drug addiction. This means rational factors of deterrence won't weigh too heavily in a criminal's mind.
Doesn't mean that they won't weigh at all. The one who commits the crime gets all the attention but the one who doesn't commit a crime we really never know why not, do we? We never know the effects of deterrents but it's not logical to think removing them will reduce crime.
Third, criminals’ idea of deterrence is often based on the likelihood of being caught, not the severity of the punishment. Many criminals believe they can simply avoid being punished, and see prison as a lesson to be more careful and not get caught next time.
It isn't about the criminal state of mind, it's about their actions. You're not seriously purposing no one who is released from prison isn't reformed and doesn't commit crimes so they don't go back, are you?
And finally, people are inherently bad at understanding the differences between long periods of time. If a prisoner would get a five year sentence in a "soft on crime" environment but ten years in a "tough on crime" environment, people can't meaningfully wrap their head around the difference. Therefore, increasingly long prison sentences yield marginal benefits for deterrence.
What evidence do you have that people don't understand the difference between ten years in prison and five? Sorry bud but you need to supply some evidence for these assumptions.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra