Lord Nemesis said:
It does matter. Let me take an example. People don't think twice about speeding these days. They know that even if they are caught, at worst they would be fined a paltry sum. So what if they come to know that the same offense would now be punishable by cutting off their arms. How many people would dare to risk speeding after that? All the confidence about not getting caught would mean jack when they think about the consequences they have to face if they do get caught even if its a 1:1000000 probability.
I don't know the answer to that question, intuitively one might think it would come down but it's not clear whether it would apply across the board. And that's the important bit because you're making a general statement that must hold across the board.
The problem here is whether the punishment fits the crime. how reasonable is this punishment ?
If you set the bar high for a small crime, how much space do you have for bigger crimes. If you lose your hands for speeding would petty theft attract the death sentence. What effect would have this have on the society. I doubt such a society could be considered 'free' in even the most liberal of terms
Lord Nemesis said:
I don't have any hard statistics to prove my point, but back in the olden days people felt considerably safe keeping their doors open at night or even sleeping outside. Punishments were prompt as well as harsh. The crime was substantially lower. In fact even 60~70 years back, during the British era, my grandma never had any fears about keeping her house doors open at night and sleeping outside. The crime was relatively lower because the punishments were prompt if not brutal.
- Population in our granmother's time was also less than a third of what it is today.
- It's easier for ppl to move faster across the country than then. Easier to hit & run today.
- we did not have a say in what laws were enacted as we were not in charge. You are talking about the pre-independence era, any one saying the Brits should leave ended up banged up.Things were brutal in those times because we were occupied by a foreign power. What effect did it have when leaders were sent to jail over trivial offences
Would the above play any factor. Would have to normalise for it and then compare.
Did the laws brutal as they were prevent the state from being eventually overcome.
Lord Nemesis said:
Whats the situation currently. People are not safe in their own houses even after bolting everything tightly.
Does this apply everywhere tho ?
If you lived in a populated area, chances are high what you say are true, what about less populated areas. Even then there are degrees of risk as insurance premiums would indicate.
Lord Nemesis said:
Its not that those guy's didn't think they would get caught, but they knew they would get of easy even if they get caught.
I've heard of similar stories on the outskirts of my city. The problem there is law enforcement isn't as strong as within the city.
Lord Nemesis said:
IMO brutal punishments have decreased over time not because they were ineffective, but because there was a shift in ideologies that punishments must be more about reforming the offender and giving them a second chance than setting an example to wannabe criminals.
I can agree with this, in some ways it also reflects the amount of violence present in society. Our grandmother's generation would have experienced two world wars. The yardstick for punishments in that era would be very different compared to now where we've had relative peace for several decades now.
I had a similar discussion with johnie1 earlier, where we agreed that justice for any crime should have three components, compensation to the aggreived, act as a deterrent for future crime and eventualy reforming the criminal. The last bit is very important if you want to keep recurrences down. It's also allowing the criminal to reform themselves instead of being treated as spoilt goods for the rest of their life. Course it depends on the nature of the crime. I doubt it would apply in Kasab's case.
His team were psychologically trained to die. To fight till the end. Out of ten only one failed to do so.
