Do you agree with a "removal of privilages" legal system

[Flynn]

The title says it all really, would you agree with a legal system whereby if a crime was committed by someone the courts could take away something that the person being prosecuted liked instead of issuing an appropiate punishment. For example if someone assaulted someone else then the assaulter might have his drivers license taken away, or their pornography stash removed from their bedroom. Is a legal system like this acceptable? Thoughts and views are welcome and will not be met with flames, atleast from me

[tigger]

I think that it's acceptable, so long as the punishment remotely fits the crime. My grandpa lost his right to vote in the '30s for repeatedly going AWOL (then escaping his base brig). He lived until '96, never getting to vote.

[nist7]

No. This would only work in certain kinds of crimes, like what tigger described. But generally, this criminal justice system would not work.

What if the guy killed someone? What if the guy had nothing to lose? What if it was a CEO that robbed thousands of employees of their retirement? Do you ban that CEO from owning Ferraris?

Even without such extreme cases, the amount of resources needed to enforce privilege deprivation would be enormous. It'd be way to costly to keep track of every criminal and make sure he doesn't read/watch/download/etc. any porn.

Personally, I think they need to start decriminalizing certain behaviors. Free up jail space for real criminals rather than kids who are just looking to get high.

[teeb]

I think this would work for minor crimes.

The problem is that there's not a huge number of privelidges you can take away. You can take away their driving license, their right to vote, their ability to buy alcohol, their passport, their ability to go to football games? What more, though? You can't really - in the UK, at least - take away anything that we specifically try to give to everyone, no matter how bad (such as free healthcare on the NHS, a right to housing, and so on).

Besides, a lot of the above - taking away driving licenses, and being banned from football games, for example - already take place in the UK.


edit - and, as mentioned above, it doesn't make sense if the punishment doesn't fit the crime. The two have to be somehow related - I'm thinking of the news story about an English man who kept harassing women, and has an order placed on him saying he's not allowed within x feet of any woman.

[nist7]

Originally Posted by teeb

I think this would work for minor crimes.

The problem is that there's not a huge number of privelidges you can take away. You can take away their driving license, their right to vote, their ability to buy alcohol, their passport, their ability to go to football games? What more, though? You can't really - in the UK, at least - take away anything that we specifically try to give to everyone, no matter how bad (such as free healthcare on the NHS, a right to housing, and so on).

Besides, a lot of the above - taking away driving licenses, and being banned from football games, for example - already take place in the UK.

Yup. If you are caught drunk driving, you will obviously have your privilege of driving taken away.

If you are caught molesting little kids, you will obviously have your privilege of hanging out at playgrounds be taken away.

So, come to think of it, this privilege taking away thing is already in the system. But obviously will not work if the whole justice system was changed into that style.

[teeb]

Originally Posted by nist7

If you are caught molesting little kids, you will obviously have your privilege of hanging out at playgrounds be taken away.

I hope that more than just the removal of the 'privelidge of hanging out at playgrounds' is involved in the sentence :/

[Flynn]

Originally Posted by teeb

I think this would work for minor crimes.

The problem is that there's not a huge number of privelidges you can take away. You can take away their driving license, their right to vote, their ability to buy alcohol, their passport, their ability to go to football games? What more, though? You can't really - in the UK, at least - take away anything that we specifically try to give to everyone, no matter how bad (such as free healthcare on the NHS, a right to housing, and so on).

Besides, a lot of the above - taking away driving licenses, and being banned from football games, for example - already take place in the UK.


edit - and, as mentioned above, it doesn't make sense if the punishment doesn't fit the crime. The two have to be somehow related - I'm thinking of the news story about an English man who kept harassing women, and has an order placed on him saying he's not allowed within x feet of any woman.

That's strange. It is quite difficult to avoid either gender in everyday life, how did he get about?

[teeb]

Originally Posted by Flynn

That's strange. It is quite difficult to avoid either gender in everyday life, how did he get about?

Found the story.

He was banned from 'talking to women' for 5 years.

Bet he's single

[Flynn]

Still, how the devil is that doable? Thanks for the link by the way. Edit: Oh yes, "unless for legitimate reasons". What if it is legitimate flirting?

[nist7]

Originally Posted by teeb

I hope that more than just the removal of the 'privelidge of hanging out at playgrounds' is involved in the sentence :/

Well, of course there would be other punishments involved as well. heh

Originally Posted by Flynn

That's strange. It is quite difficult to avoid either gender in everyday life, how did he get about?

Exactly...which is why a whole legal system based on privilege taking away would not work so well.

[Blind_Io]

Originally Posted by Flynn

The title says it all really, would you agree with a legal system whereby if a crime was committed by someone the courts could take away something that the person being prosecuted liked instead of issuing an appropiate punishment. For example if someone assaulted someone else then the assaulter might have his drivers license taken away, or their pornography stash removed from their bedroom. Is a legal system like this acceptable? Thoughts and views are welcome and will not be met with flames, atleast from me

There are four methods of behavior modification:

Positive Punishment: adding a stimulus or condition that is unpleasant - example: spanking
Negative Punishment: taking away a stimulus or privilege that is pleasant - example: being grounded
Positive Reward: adding a stimulus or condition that is pleasant: example: You did a good job, here's ice cream.
Negative Reward: Removing a stimulus or condition that is unpleasant: example: You did good, so you don't get a beating.

The problem with a negative punishment system is that eventually the perpetrator has nothing left to loose.

Also, this really should be in the Political Discussion.

[Quiky]

Moved to political area..

[Hercules286]

No, it's a system that will breed nothing but corruption. If one has connections in the legal system, they could pretty much get away with pretty much anything.

[Momentum57]

^ That has to be the most moronic statement iv read. To say that connections in the legal system would allow some one to get away with pretty much anything is to say that society has never prosecuted the powerful. Corruption happens yes but it is far less standard than the ethical professionals that carry with them integrity and duty to their charge.

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally Posted by Flynn

The title says it all really, would you agree with a legal system whereby if a crime was committed by someone the courts could take away something that the person being prosecuted liked instead of issuing an appropiate punishment. For example if someone assaulted someone else then the assaulter might have his drivers license taken away, or their pornography stash removed from their bedroom. Is a legal system like this acceptable? Thoughts and views are welcome and will not be met with flames, atleast from me

yeah because you need to be able to drive to assault someone


might as well take away rapists right to vote as well.... that'll stop em from doing it again.

rules like this would only work for certain things

[Momentum57]

^ All felons lose the right to vote.

Additional punishments post release from a facility are up to the judge usually stemming from the method which the offender committed the crime. An example of this is a rapist who trawled for hookers in his car cross town so not to be recognized. The judge would sentence time and revoke all licenses as that now the rapist when out would have a much more difficult time committing the crime in the same method. This is not to say that he could not commit the crime again but rather that as having served his time he should be given a second chance and the ability to drive and commit similar offenses is an impediment to his chances

[Hercules286]

Originally Posted by Momentum57

^ That has to be the most moronic statement iv read. To say that connections in the legal system would allow some one to get away with pretty much anything is to say that society has never prosecuted the powerful.

Oh, but it has. Usually after they've fallen out of favor, though.

What I meant to say is that if the judge has the right to take something away from you for your crime and you leave it for HIM to decide, well, you get stuff like that:

A dude cuts someone in a knife fight. Then the judge decides to take away all the knives the dude's got, because he "knows dude's a nice guy" and the dude is the judge's sister's husband's psychiatrist.

Corruption happens yes but it is far less standard than the ethical professionals that carry with them integrity and duty to their charge.

When proposing a new system, you've always got to consider the ways in which it can be abused, as well as all the time it works normally. If you'd rather have the new system than the old, then you might go and change it.

[Flynn]

Sorry guys, this thread has become out of hand, moderators feel free to lock/delete, I didn't expect this level of intelligent conversation

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by Momentum57

^ All felons lose the right to vote.

I little off topic. But I'd love to see politicians vie for the "prison vote"