Um…no. Producing google search results on "criminologist" is not a research study and does not constitute proof of anything except your ability to type.

So I guess it's up to me. From Stephen Levitt.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/6191.html

Over the last two decades the punitiveness of the juvenile justice system has declined" substantially relative to the adult courts. During that same time period juvenile violent crime" rates have grown almost twice as quickly as adult crime rates. This paper examines the degree to" which those two empirical observations are related, finding that changes in relative punishments" can account for 60 percent of the differential growth rates in juvenile and adult violent crime" between 1978 and 1993. Juvenile offenders appear to be at least as responsive to criminal" sanctions as adults. Moreover, sharp changes in criminal involvement with the transition from" the juvenile to the adult court suggest that deterrence, rather than simply incapacitation important role.

Um…no. Producing google search results on "criminologist" is not a research study and does not constitute proof of anything except your ability to type.

So I guess it's up to me. From Stephen Levitt.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/6191.html

Over the last two decades the punitiveness of the juvenile justice system has declined" substantially relative to the adult courts. During that same time period juvenile violent crime" rates have grown almost twice as quickly as adult crime rates. This paper examines the degree to" which those two empirical observations are related, finding that changes in relative punishments" can account for 60 percent of the differential growth rates in juvenile and adult violent crime" between 1978 and 1993. Juvenile offenders appear to be at least as responsive to criminal" sanctions as adults. Moreover, sharp changes in criminal involvement with the transition from" the juvenile to the adult court suggest that deterrence, rather than simply incapacitation important role.

At least most of that must be true. An aborted fetus must, I think, by definition, be unwanted.

I know what leads to crime: People.

I saw on the news that people who had to evacuate their homes in B.C. because of the advancing forest fires, were recently able to return home, just to find that their homes had been looted. We would probably have to abort the whole species to avoid this sort of thing.

Even when Opportunity's knock is sombre and tragic, people will still enthusiastically open the door, even if it requires busting the lock.

Ted, this part wasn't in the abstract I posted but the author pointed out that in countries where juveniles are treated less harshly than adults, the crime rate decreases right at the point where age of majority is reached (i.e. when the threat of sentence is increased). When juveniles are treated more harshly than adults, the crime rate actually increases when the age of majority is reached (when the threat of sentence decreases).

There are plenty more studies that could be posted stating the same thing, but I have no doubt that there are several studies which would find the opposite results, so there's no point in getting into a war over who can post the most studies. Studies, like polls, are often commissioned by people with agendas, on both sides of the issue.

My point is only that blanket statements that the liberal approach is "proven" to reduce crime are bogus, as are conservative claims to the contrary. Each approach may or may not have its merits, but to say that either is the proven method that works is just rhetoric.

No but if somebody says that something is "proven", then I'd like to see the empirical evidence to back up that assertion. A google search on the word "criminologist" doesn't count as evidence.

And there is no evidence to suggest that differences between American and Canadian crime rates is caused by incarceration or sentencing. There are thousands of factors. Access to guns, etc. I agree capital punishment is not a factor and I don't advocate for it, though I wouldn't shed a tear if Bernardo or the creeps that murdered the girl in Woodstock were to meet with a fatal accident while behind bars.

"Prison doesn't stop crime, it only delays it…"

So… life sentences will delay crime indefinitely. Yay, we solved it!

Are you saying that we have established that it is only, or primarily, poverty that leads to criminality?

It seems to me that the argument for welfare as crime prevention implies that the victims of crimes are really the culprits. It really says, "We should all feel ashamed of ourselves, not giving enough to that young man so he was forced to steal from us. Simply disgraceful." Then, once the welfare is flowing, when the next theft happens, how could anyone not say, "Ah, it's because we didn't give him enough."

Also, I ask you, would this logic apply to other crimes, for example, to excuse a rape, "Well of course he raped her, she wouldn't put out"?

Ultimately crime is (or should be) about a violation of property (I include one's own body in my definition of property). Crimes occur when one person think he or she has a right to the property of another person – or thinks that terms like "property" and "right" are meaningless.

At present, it is the trend in Canada to ignore property and rights. People think they have an increasing right to the property of others. Maclean's magazine, as I understand it, was dragged before the Human Rights Commission because it wouldn't publish some other people's articles in its own magazine. The fact that court (or commission, or whatever) would hear this case tells me that Canada is still figuring out who has a right to whom's property.

Perhaps before determining the what makes a criminal, we should first determine what is a crime.

Oh.

So we are both for the death penalty then?