Comments on: Florida paradox

By: Larry

Larry — Wed, 04 May 2005 08:03:00 +0000

Some excellent points. I’d add that I reckon that the police should only engage in high-speed car-chases in exceptional circumstances (i.e when they’re chasing a dangerous violent criminal). The rest of the time the the car-chase itself puts the public in far greater danger than simply letting the suspect go for the time being.

By: Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett — Tue, 03 May 2005 12:08:00 +0000

This is the problem that the commentators on America's Wildest Police Chases seem to miss, or if they get it they are performers in a post-modern joke.

Some guy gets pulled over for having some grass in his car - he stands to go to jail, lose his right to vote, become unemployable and lose his welfare benefits. So he runs, instigating a long and dangerous car chase. Which might end with him being shot dead.

Some guys have robbed a bank. They face draconian prison terms, so they shoot it out with the cops.

The commentators akcknowledge the severity of the sentences that these guys are facing, and that this causes their desperate bids for freedom. But they never openly say that a less draconian system of punishment would lessen the incentives to act so desperately.

And the irony of it is, these are largely people of the same philossophy as those who attempt to build a punishment for crime vs. reward for crime argument for such harsh punishments.

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Tue, 03 May 2005 12:03:00 +0000

Ah, fair enough. Yes, that is foolish. The three-strikes law has had that effect, I believe: gives criminals an incentive to kill witnesses, turning petty thefts into murders.

By: john b

john b — Tue, 03 May 2005 11:59:00 +0000

NB I suppose you could partially get round the problems associated by adding extra penalties for child murder – eg boiling in oil, pre-death torture, imprisonment of sex offenders’ families (presumably not in cases where they’re also the victims), etc.

By: john b

john b — Tue, 03 May 2005 11:53:00 +0000

The number of children murdered by recidivist sex offenders is low. I mean, low even as a proportion of children murdered by non-family members, which is miniscule as a proportion of children murdered anyway. It's a total red herring.

However, changing the law so that the sentence for child molestation (minimum life with parole after 25 years, maximum life without parole) is pretty much in line with the sentence for child murder (minimum life without parole; maximum death) creates a massive incentive for child molesters to kill their victims if they think there's a chance they might ever tell anyone. Which they inevitably might.

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Tue, 03 May 2005 11:53:00 +0000

Yeah. I’m the first to say that hasty legislation often has the opposite effect to that desired, but I can’t quite see your chain of logic on this one. Not saying you’re wrong, but could you explain a bit further for us dullards?

By: Chris Baldwin

Chris Baldwin — Tue, 03 May 2005 11:45:00 +0000

Will it ensure that more children get murdered?