Do you believe that this will lower the amount of crime?

Question

1) Allowing police to carry military level weaponry such as fragmentation grenades, 50 Caliber assault rifles, RPG...

2) Public executions done with medieval methods such as beheading, beating to death, burning, these are chosen by the victim's family or the judge.

3) Personality reforming prisons through solitary confinement, basically leave these ppl alone in a room for a few months let them loose their personality and then rebuild it to be that of a good citizen. This could scare ppl a lot i guess.

Will using all three of these lower crime in your opinion. Is it possible to achieve good results by just using 1 or 2 of them.

Answer 1

Okay first of all the police are bad enough without giving them more power.  Right now they basically have the power to do whatever they want with out consequence.  They do stuff to people and then lie about it which is terrible.  We don't need to give them any more power, we may need to take some away.  On the public hangings and executions, alot of people are wrongfully convicted and it is now coming out with DNA evidence that people that have been jail for years are innocent, so we don't want to give the courts any more power either because THEY LIE AND MAKE MISTAKES TOO.  As for the third thing, I don't think we should give people in jails any more power either because they are as bad as the cops they beat people up and lie about it to cover up.  Basically I don't agree with any of your theories about lowering crime.  People commit crimes in a lot of cases simply because the system is failing it's people.  How about we fix the system and make it better????????I think crime would be lower if the police weren't looking for any reason to charge you with something so that they can look good.  Our system is pathetic and it needs to be fixed I agree but I don't think a dictatorship is what we need, No.

Answer 2

No.  

Answer 3

so ur overall solution is to put fear into people's lives in order to get them to abide? we'll it worked for most dictators and it worked for hitler and stalin until they died! it worked for Mao Zhe Dong too! so yea it works but ur still gonna have crime regardless

Answer 4

Absolutely not....look at any thoughtful study on crime and prevention is the key, which means addressing the problems of poverty, lack of quality education, lack of treatment for the mentally ill, alcohol and drug addicted. A more heavily armed state would lead to facism. Read some history, educate yourself without the bias of right wing fundamentalism.

Answer 5

Neither will work.

1 is bad because the police already have sufficiently advanced equipment to deal with dangerous criminals in most developed and developing countries. If standard police do not cut the cake, the special forces move in and they have (some) military grade equipment. Grenade launchers and high explosives are not in use by police because they must look to minimize damage to public and private property, contrary to the debacles we see in movies.

2 is worse because it would only further desensitize the masses to human suffering, making them more likely, not less, to commit violent crimes. Judges are given too much power as it is, more would only corrupt them further; also, a grieving victim's family should definitely not be nudged by the system towards pettyness, cruelty and violence - that can make them violent criminals.

3 is the worst because if you isolate people like that for so long they will go insane, making them forever incapable of being "good citizens" or, if they are strong enough to resist, they will certainly harden their minds against the system and resist any attempt at re-education all the more forcefully.

As for using scare tactics in general, they instill fear in the population. Fear is one of the most useful emotions, of course, but if a government is scaring its people with such punishments (and other illadvised policies) the people will become hateful of it, angry and rebellious. That's how you get all the revolutions that turned most of the world into republics.

To take down a disease, and crime is a disease, one must take down the causes. Always. No shortcuts.

Answer 6

Sounds like a fascist society that uses reeducation and fear to control its people.  I'm SURE you would love to live there wouldn't you?

Answer 7

The first one will result in the criminals carrying better weapons. The second thing would never happen in our society, so it's worthless. The third thing would take too much time and money, and wouldn't really help anything.

None of these will end well.

Answer 8

I'm sure it would lower crime--because most of the people in the US would move to other countries.