This conversation is closed.
Tough on crime? Or is it tough on Criminal?
So most politicians at least here in America always campaign on the idea of being tough on crime. However I believe they mean the opposite and really are talking about tough on criminals. Psychologically, I don't think there is anyone in the science world that would argue that positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement. ¿Yet our current criminal system uses negative reinforcement? This seems very counter intuitive to our current "proven" way to limit or mitigate our overgrowing criminal population. Now there are plenty examples of other country's and how they use positive reinforcement in criminal intervention.
But thats not what I am here to talk about.
Lets talk about what it would really mean to be tough on crime. First it is the politicians of the world that actually truly create crime! Yes you heard me right that is technically their job right? When they create laws they are actually creating criminals. Lets take an old Ohio law that I am not even sure is on the books but I know for a fact as a kid is was, it was once illegal to fish for whales while driving across a bridge. http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/ohio I am sure some where at some point in time someone actually had to do this, it would seem silly if this was a preemptive law. In a nutshell I am saying that you can't be a criminal if no law is broken. And that a politician's job is to create criminals. Let's take it to an utopian/peaceful society. Lets get rid of all crime!! Yeaaa!! However realistically could the invisible hand of the market replace all the lost Jobs?
Lawyers 1,143,358 in 2007
Politicians http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_politicians_are_there_in_the_US ( all gone for the most part)
Cops, prison workers, probation officers, case workers, weapon makers and dealers and I am sure many many more.
So how if we created a crime free utopia would we ever be able to replace these job? We don't need that many McDonalds workers do we?