Does Martha Deserve it?

Edwin Pawlowski said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you think putting them into jail causes *less* of a
financial burden? Jail incurs a *greater* burden on
*everyone* since taxpayers are now

forced

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to pay a form of child-support to the state for
prisoners.

Correct. I'm against the death penalty, not because of
any kindness of my heart, just that it actually cost the
taxpayers more to go through the appeals process and
legal BS than it does to just keep themin prison for
life. If we eliminated all the legal fluff and just
execuste the same day as the sentence is handed down, it
would save a bundle.

Including any chance of finding out you had the wrong
person. I'm for the death penalty, but against rushing to
it. I don't think it should go on for 20 years, but going to
the other extreme of executing the same day as sentencing
isn't the right answer either.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even Bill Gates's life would be completely different
if he lost 90% of his income.

Different, but still not a bad situation to be in compared
to most workers. .

How his life measures up to others is irrelevant to whether
the punishment is effective. If you were fined $5000 your
life would probably "still not [be] a bad situation"
compared to someone on welfare, who would be devastated by
the same. You're comparing his life to yours rather than
seeing if *he* is affected.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What makes you think that the fine to be paid for a
non-violent crime is going to be any *less* than

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

amount you stole?

OK so I'll go rob a second bank so I can pony up the bucks
for my fine. Or dug up the backyard where the good from
the pervious robbery are burried.

You're getting somewhat irrational in your response here.
I've already stated that bank robbery *is* a violent offense
and *does* require jail time.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Right. Jailing someone for non-violent crime is no less
barbaric than flogging them or putting them into stocks
in public. It serves no

purpose,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

no net benefit.

Nothing else has worked for most instances either.

So, forget what works and just use what we have left? Do
you think that that's going to work, or is it just a case
of "at least *we* will feel like we're doing something
about the problem"?

Quoted message said:

Drug dealers are back on the street and back to work.
We've not been able to come up with any forms of anything
that help some people change their ways. Drug users,
prostitutes, petty tieves and shoplifters usually go back
to their way of life also.

Well, there are other ways to deal with that problem as
well, rather than just locking them up and having the rest
of society pay for their continued incarceration.

Quoted message said:

Visits to a physiologist?

Do you mean a psychologist?

Quoted message said:

I will agree with you when you show me some method of
puishment and rehabilitation that works on the hard core
or frequent offender criminal.

Sorry, but when did I say they shouldn't be in prison? And,
why would I have to offer a different solution in order for
you to see that the current one doesn't work?

Quoted message said:

Sure, white collar criminals may go straight but this must
be weighed on a case by case basis. Ther is no perfect
solution for all.

Well, golly, and that's part of what I've been saying.
Prison is *not* a deterrent, even though you and others are
arguing that is is. It's not the perfect solution that
you've suggested it is. It doesn't even work as a deterrent
nor was it intended to even *be* a deterrent.

Darryl L. Pierce said:

I should post a link to my research paper on the deterrent
value of punishment. The basic idea is this: in order for
prison to be a deterrent the criminal must be completely
rational *at the time* the crime is committed. However,
the criminal is *not* rational (for the most part) and
operates under both a limited understanding of future
events (the "bounded rationality model"😉 and an
unrealistically enhanced view of their own success (called
the "subjective expected utility model"😉 when committing
the crime. These two factors *alone* show prison to *not*
be a deterrent in any real sense of the word since it does
*not* deter the criminals.

Does your "paper" deal with violent crimes or with "white
collar" crimes. SOme cases of murder and assault are the
result of a set of circumstances gettting out of hand and a
loss of rational thought. That is not at all the case with
white collar crimes. These are actions that result from
careful planning.

Quoted message said:

Additionally, the low likelihood of being *caught*, let
alone enough evidence being collected to get an
indictment, a conviction or of any time being served in
prison makes the claim of prison being a deterrent even
*less* supported by actual fact. "Criminals view
punishment as a probability and not a certainty" (from
"Social Factors Cause Crimes", pg
20) is quite clearly a statement that shows the deterrence
value of prison to be so limited as to be practically
worthless in reality.

Sure, some people expect to get away with their crimes. That
is why part of the deal is public exposure, so that the
public knows that there has been a crime and that someone
has been charged/ convicted / sentenced. There is no
deterrent if people simply pay a fine as if it were some
sort of hush money, or if they suddenly disappear from th
streets and no one knows where they have gone or why.

Quoted message said:

I could go on, but I should spend more time on actually
writing the research paper rather than putting snippets of
my sources here. <g>

I can understand the <g> grin. It sounds liek your "research
is a bit of a joke.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, the money taken from stock deals does not come from
tax dollars. What gives you that impression? The money
taken comes from the *investor community* who *bought*
stocks, not from tax payers.

Of course it doesn't come from tax money. It comes from
the citizens of the country, and they are taxpayers.
Ergo, it comes from the taxpayers.

*Everybody* is a tax payer, but not everybody is affected
by illegal stock dealings. Prison time for stock fraud
punishes *everyone* while the stock fraud only harms a
*few*, and those few are now being punished *more* by
having to foot the bill for the jailtime served which will
have no *effect*.

Not everyone is affected by a murder, an assault or a theft
either. They are just members of the general public. They
all expect the criminal justice system to protect all of us
from criminals. That is part of being part of a civilized
society. We have given up on individual acts of revenge in
return for having a set of lawas which have been enacted and
enforced by our government.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On the contrary, I would suggest that it is up to you to
prove that jail time is not a deterrent.

How do I prove a negative? Give me an example, please.
(hint: the onus is on those who claim prison *is* a
deterrent to show it is such)

For a start, you could try using your noodle for something
other than a hat rack. Jail is not a great place to be.
Most of us realize that. We realize that breaking certain
laws can result in our being sentenced to a jail term, so
we refrain from committing those crimes. Granted, some
people like jail Some homeless people have been known to
commit petty crimes in order to be taken in to a place
where there is shelter and food. Obviously, they are few
and far between.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is for me. I can think of lots of things that I would
do (victimless crimes) if there were not penalties up to
an including jail time.

So the only thing that keeps you civil is a fear of
punishment? You must be a delight to be around.

I was referring to victimless crimes. They don't hurt
anyone. There are states

jail term, even when it takes place between consenting
adults. Pot smoking hurts no one, ut can get you a jail
term. A lot of people would love to smoke pot, but are not
willing to take the chance because they might get caught and
end up in jail.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I know a guy who used to speed all the time when we had
photo radar. His company paid his fines for him and they
didn't go on his driving record. He could well afford
the penalty, so it wasn't a deterrent.

He faced no penalty, so he committed the crimes. How do
you think such proves me wrong, exactly? I've been saying
that the threat of punishment does *not* deter from
committing crimes. You just explained a situation where
someone does *not* face any threat of punishment and he
continues to commit a crime. What's the point there?

There was a threat of punishment. His company paid his
fines. He owns the company. It cuts into company profits,
but it gets written off. It's peanuts to him personally. It
is still a form of punishment, but the impact upon him is
minimal, so it does not have a deterrent effect.

Quoted message said:

of.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And that's what I meant when I said "from a realistic
perspective." That he still has more money than us does
*not* mean that taking away 90% of his incoming (which
is *not* the same as his net worth; in BG's case, his
worth is tied up in non-liquid assets) won't affect him
dramatically.

And if he we nailed a second time and fined 90% of his
worth he would be down to a paltry $3.7 million. That
still isn't going to make it hard for him to put food on
the table or send the kids to summer camp.

And who said it *had* to? But, you've now taken him from
30.7 BILLION to 3.7 MILLION (your math is wrong, since it
would be 370 million) and are trying to argue that we've
not significantly affected his life because he has more
money than us? Is that *really* your point?

Oops, you're right, My math was wrong. We left him with $370
million. I magine how he is going to have to scrimp and save
to get by with only $370 million. If I were fined 90% of my
worth, I would be in the poor house.

Quoted message said:

So would a hefty fine, and that *without* further
punishment of making the taxpayers pay for the criminals
punishment. And, of that "lasting impression" what do you
think will happen? That he will suddenly stop committing
crimes? Again, I'll point you to the recidivism statistics
to show that that doesn't happen either.

Who said anything about jail time only? I could do a
stretch in prison for a few million dollars that I can get
at when I get out.

Quoted message said:

It all boils down to jail being nothing more than a
punishment, pure and simple. It's not a deterrent, since
crime rates haven't dropped and the prison population
continues to grow.

?????? It isn't that simple. Look at what people are in jail
for. In the US, a huge percentage of inmates are in there
for drug charges. A lot of them are from poor backgrounds
where the drug trade was a chance to make better money than
they could get flipping burgers. Look at crime rates in less
civilized countries where there is no law and order.

Quoted message said:

It's not rehabilitating since recidivism rates are high.
It's nothing more than punishment, pure and simple.

Yet, some people are still afraid to do things that might
land them in jail .... that is deterrent.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't. Fear of
consequences only occurs in those who first fear they
*will* be caught. Most, if not all, criminals feel they
*won't* get caught, so your who assertion about prison
time as a deterrant is a fantasy.

That is because so many people get away with these types
of crimes.

And your theoretical deterrency value of prison just went
out the window.

I don't think so. It just means that those people were not
deterred. It is hard to say how many others were deterred.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Jail is barbaric?

Yes.

> Screwing people out of their life savings IMO is
> barbaric.

No, it's not barbaric. It's illegal, immoral and
unethical, but it's not barbaric.

You might want to look up the definition of barbaric.

"[P]ossessing or characteristic of a cultural level more
complex than primitive savagery but less sophisticated
than advanced civilization" (from Merriam Webster).
Throwing everybody who commits a crime into a 6'x9' cell
for 23 hours a day is most definitely barbaric. Threat to
others? Thrown in a cell. Stole a wallet? Thrown in a
cell. Stole investment money? Thrown in a cell. Had an
ounce of pot? Thrown in a cell. Had too many traffic
tickets? Thrown in a cell. That's only a single step above
the more savage act of cutting off the hand of a thief or
the penis of an adulterer. It's hardly sophisticated and
doesn't do anything more than exact a measure of
punishment that is of little effect on the criminal.

Oddly, those are the actions of an advanced society. There
is a code of jutsice that defines certain activities as
illegal and punishable by jail sentences. Prisoners are
treated humanely. They are fed and housed, but have lost
their liberty. By your own defintion it is not barbaric.

Let her fry.

--Blair "It had to be said."

Dave Smith said:

Quoted message said:

I should post a link to my research paper on the
deterrent value of punishment. The basic idea is this: in
order for prison to be a deterrent the criminal must be
completely rational *at the time* the crime is committed.
However, the criminal is *not* rational (for the most
part) and operates under both a limited understanding of
future events (the "bounded rationality model"😉 and an
unrealistically enhanced view of their own success
(called the "subjective expected utility model"😉 when
committing the crime. These two factors *alone* show
prison to *not* be a deterrent in any real sense of the
word since it does *not* deter the criminals.

Does your "paper" deal with violent crimes or with "white
collar" crimes.

Why do you put paper in quotes? The research paper deals
with the myth that the fear of punishment works as a
deterrent. It deals with both violent and non-violent crimes
in that it talks about *criminals*.

Quoted message said:

SOme cases of murder and assault are the result of a set
of circumstances gettting out of hand and a loss of
rational thought. That is not at all the case with white
collar crimes. These are actions that result from careful
planning.

Not all white collar crimes are the result of careful
planning. They are the result of impulsive behavior that
sets into effect a chain of events, each of which requires
some action by the person to either end the chain, cover up
their actions or, in the worst case, face the consequences
when they're found out. To think that white collar crimes
are meticulously thought out or even thought out to a great
extent is to believe in myths.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Additionally, the low likelihood of being *caught*, let
alone enough evidence being collected to get an
indictment, a conviction or of any time being served in
prison makes the claim of prison being a deterrent even
*less* supported by actual fact. "Criminals view
punishment as a probability and not a certainty" (from
"Social Factors Cause Crimes", pg
20) is quite clearly a statement that shows the
deterrence value of prison to be so limited as to be
practically worthless in reality.

Sure, some people expect to get away with their crimes.
That is why part of the deal is public exposure, so that
the public knows that there has been a crime and that
someone has been charged/ convicted / sentenced. There
is no deterrent if people simply pay a fine as if it
were some sort of hush money, or if they suddenly
disappear from th streets and no one knows where they
have gone or why.

The problem you're having is thinking that punishment *is* a
deterrent. I never said that paying a fine was a deterrent
any more than going to jail is a deterrent. I said that
paying a fine was *appropriate* given the crime Martha
Stewart committed; i.e., her's wasn't violent so sending her
to jail is barbaric. There's no such thing as a deterrent
that doesn't involve the use of force to attempt to
physically *prevent* crimes from happening.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I could go on, but I should spend more time on actually
writing the research paper rather than putting snippets
of my sources here. <g>

I can understand the <g> grin. It sounds liek your
"research is a bit of a joke.

How very presumptuous of you. You're quite wrong, however.
Why do you assume that it's "a bit of a joke"?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> No, the money taken from stock deals does not come
> from tax dollars. What gives you that impression? The
> money taken comes from the *investor community* who
> *bought* stocks, not from tax payers.

Of course it doesn't come from tax money. It comes from
the citizens of the country, and they are taxpayers.
Ergo, it comes from the taxpayers.

*Everybody* is a tax payer, but not everybody is affected
by illegal stock dealings. Prison time for stock fraud
punishes *everyone* while the stock fraud only harms a
*few*, and those few are now being punished *more* by
having to foot the bill for the jailtime served which
will have no *effect*.

Not everyone is affected by a murder, an assault or a
theft either. They are just members of the general public.
They all expect the criminal justice system to protect all
of us from criminals.

You are not protected from anything by the government, sorry
to say. The government *cannot* protect you *from* crime
unless it became a tyranny. It can only *prohibit* actions
and then *punish* those who commit those acts.

Quoted message said:

That is part of being part of a civilized society. We have
given up on individual acts of revenge in return for
having a set of lawas which have been enacted and enforced
by our government.

And I'm saying that the punishment handed out in accordance
with those laws is barbaric when it comes to non-violent
offenders. What made you think I was debating the law when
I've been talking *solely* about punishment?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On the contrary, I would suggest that it is up to you
to prove that jail time is not a deterrent.

How do I prove a negative? Give me an example, please.
(hint: the onus is on those who claim prison *is* a
deterrent to show it is such)

For a start, you could try using your noodle for something
other than a hat rack.

Why the attempted personal insults? Between your
insinuations that I'm being untruthful about my paper and
research to your need to use ad hominem, I wonder...

Quoted message said:

Jail is not a great place to be. Most of us realize that.

Why do you think I call it barbaric to put a non-violent
offender into jail?

Quoted message said:

We realize that breaking certain laws can result in our
being sentenced to a jail term, so we refrain from
committing those crimes.

Do we? Or do *we* (non-criminals) not commit crimes for
reasons *other* than "I don't want to go to jail"? And do
those who commit crimes do so because they think "I'll never
get caught"?

Are you a law-abiding citizen because you're afraid of
jail or for some other reason? Please answer that
question for me.

Quoted message said:

Granted, some people like jail Some homeless people have
been known to commit petty crimes in order to be taken in
to a place where there is shelter and food. Obviously,
they are few and far between.

And are yet *another* example of prison not being any form
of deterrent.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is for me. I can think of lots of things that I
would do (victimless crimes) if there were not
penalties up to an including jail time.

So the only thing that keeps you civil is a fear of
punishment? You must be a delight to be around.

I was referring to victimless crimes. They don't hurt
anyone. There are

Quoted message said:

could get you a jail term, even when it takes place
between consenting adults. Pot smoking hurts no one, ut
can get you a jail term. A lot of people would love to
smoke pot, but are not willing to take the chance because
they might get caught and end up in jail.

And I, again, ask you, is the only thing that keeps you
civil is a fear of punishment? Or is there some other reason
why you are civil? This seems to go to the heart of your
assertion that prison is a deterrent. It sounds like you're
a law-abiding citizen for *other* reasons and that it's not
deterrence that's making you that way.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I know a guy who used to speed all the time when we had
photo radar. His company paid his fines for him and
they didn't go on his driving record. He could well
afford the penalty, so it wasn't a deterrent.

He faced no penalty, so he committed the crimes. How do
you think such proves me wrong, exactly? I've been saying
that the threat of punishment does *not* deter from
committing crimes. You just explained a situation where
someone does *not* face any threat of punishment and he
continues to commit a crime. What's the point there?

There was a threat of punishment. His company paid his
fines. He owns the company. It cuts into company profits,
but it gets written off. It's peanuts to him personally.
It is still a form of punishment, but the impact upon him
is minimal, so it does not have a deterrent effect.

As I said, it's not a penalty to him. He's not losing
anything in doing it. So, I again ask you, of what relevance
is the story to my statement that the threat of prison is
not a deterrent to criminals?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> And that's what I meant when I said "from a realistic
> perspective." That he still has more money than us
> does *not* mean that taking away 90% of his incoming
> (which is *not* the same as his net worth; in BG's
> case, his worth is tied up in non-liquid assets) won't
> affect him dramatically.

And if he we nailed a second time and fined 90% of his
worth he would be down to a paltry $3.7 million. That
still isn't going to make it hard for him to put food
on the table or send the kids to summer camp.

And who said it *had* to? But, you've now taken him from
30.7 BILLION to
3.7 MILLION (your math is wrong, since it would be 370
million) and are trying to argue that we've not
significantly affected his life because he has more
money than us? Is that *really* your point?

Oops, you're right, My math was wrong. We left him with
$370 million. I magine how he is going to have to scrimp
and save to get by with only $370 million. If I were fined
90% of my worth, I would be in the poor house.

And you're again missing the point. Who *cares* how his
life compares to yours, that's immaterial to the point that
*his* life has been changed. Whether it's still better than
yours or not is irrelevant to the fact that *his* life is
now changed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So would a hefty fine, and that *without* further
punishment of making the taxpayers pay for the criminals
punishment. And, of that "lasting impression" what do you
think will happen? That he will suddenly stop committing
crimes? Again, I'll point you to the recidivism
statistics to show that that doesn't happen either.

Who said anything about jail time only? I could do a
stretch in prison for a few million dollars that I can get
at when I get out.

You seem to be stuck in viewing his money from *your*
financial standpoint. Try viewing it from his.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It all boils down to jail being nothing more than a
punishment, pure and simple. It's not a deterrent, since
crime rates haven't dropped and the prison population
continues to grow.

?????? It isn't that simple.

It most certainly is. If the fear of prison were a deterrent
then crime rates would go *down*. They *don't*.

Quoted message said:

Look at what people are in jail for. In the US, a huge
percentage of inmates are in there for drug charges.

So? If the fear of jail were a deterrent then it would
have a quantifiable effect; we would see a marked decrease
in crime rates. But, we don't. We see an *increase* in
crime rates. That's quite indicative of your assertion
being *wrong*.

Quoted message said:

A lot of them are from poor backgrounds where the drug
trade was a chance to make better money than they could
get flipping burgers.

So, they weren't deterred by the threat of prison. Thank you
for again proving my point.

Quoted message said:

Look at crime rates in less civilized countries where
there is no law and order.

If there is no law and order, there is no fear of prison, so
I don't see how that has any bearing on this thread. Care to
explain how it relates to this?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's not rehabilitating since recidivism rates are high.
It's nothing more than punishment, pure and simple.

Yet, some people are still afraid to do things that might
land them in jail .... that is deterrent.

Can you cite a reference to the number of people, or are
they hypothetical?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't. Fear of
> consequences only occurs in those who first fear they
> *will* be caught. Most, if not all, criminals feel
> they *won't* get caught, so your who assertion about
> prison time as a deterrant is a fantasy.

That is because so many people get away with these
types of crimes.

And your theoretical deterrency value of prison just went
out the window.

I don't think so. It just means that those people were not
deterred.

And your claim is that prison *is* a deterrent, while you're
now telling me that it's not but trying to wave that away.

Quoted message said:

It is hard to say how many others were deterred.

Then how can you claim *any* are deterred in any number
sufficient to claim that, on the whole, prison is a
deterrent?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > Jail is barbaric?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Screwing people out of their life savings IMO is
> > barbaric.
>
> No, it's not barbaric. It's illegal, immoral and
> unethical, but it's not barbaric.

You might want to look up the definition of barbaric.

"[P]ossessing or characteristic of a cultural level more
complex than primitive savagery but less sophisticated
than advanced civilization" (from Merriam Webster).
Throwing everybody who commits a crime into a 6'x9' cell
for 23 hours a day is most definitely barbaric. Threat to
others? Thrown in a cell. Stole a wallet? Thrown in a
cell. Stole investment money? Thrown in a cell. Had an
ounce of pot? Thrown in a cell. Had too many traffic
tickets? Thrown in a cell. That's only a single step
above the more savage act of cutting off the hand of a
thief or the penis of an adulterer. It's hardly
sophisticated and doesn't do anything more than exact a
measure of punishment that is of little effect on the
criminal.

Oddly, those are the actions of an advanced society.

Doling out the same punishment for every crime is your idea
of an advanced society?

Quoted message said:

There is a code of jutsice that defines certain activities
as illegal and punishable by jail sentences.

You're assuming your conclusion in adding the "punishable by
jail sentences" part. Why do you think jail is an
enlightened punishment?

Quoted message said:

Prisoners are treated humanely. They are fed and housed,
but have lost their liberty. By your own defintion it is
not barbaric.

There is nothing in what you said that was not barbaric.
Whether you feed or clothe someone who is stuck in a cage,
they are still stuck in a cage. If they aren't a physical
threat to others, and if being in that cage has no effect on
the person but to cage them, then it is barbarism,
punishment for the sake of punishment.

--

In rec.food.cooking John Gaughan said:

Wow, the suffering. Just think, I worry about putting
enough food on the table not to starve my family. Yes,
Martha's "empire" dipping in value must be difficult.
Maybe she will have to fire her servants or go without the
personal chef.

That's a pretty lousy thing to happen for those who work for
Martha Stewart though. There are a lot of hard-working
people who depend on that woman for their livelihood. It
would be unfortunate if they had to suffer because of the
actions of her boss.

Quoted message said:

I am the only male in my immediate family that is not a
convicted felon. I would say "person," but my mother is
not a felon although my sisters have both spent time in
the county jail.

Ugh! What a family!

Quoted message said:

I also live on a military installation that has a federal
prison camp (non-violent convicts, i.e. tax evaders,
embezzlers, and the like). They are out all the time
mowing the lawns, trimmin, edging, pulling weeds, etc.
Better them than me :-)

Maybe you'll get to see Martha out mowing the lawn.

Dave Smith said:

Rehabilitation is usually some sort of program to educate
or train people so that they can find meaningful
employment so that they can find a way to support
themselves without having to resort to crime. Martha has
job skills. I don't think that there is any question about
that. She has a lot of money, so she can easily afford to
pay a fine. I think a little jail time is called for.

Not me. My tax dollars can be spent in much better ways. The
solution is simple. The fine should be higher. The fine
should be of sufficient magnitude to make Martha Stewart
feel the financial pain. The same is true of all white
collar crimes. Make the crimes cost more than it would to do
business honestly and you'll see corporate malfeasance
become a rarity.

Quoted message said:

Consider that the US has laws to seize property and assets
obtained though crime. I have read stories of old people
losing their farms because someone grew a little bit of
pot in the back 40 without their knowledge. In this case,
she would be paying a fine out of the money that she made
through illegal stock deals.

Martha Steward reportedly made $50K off that imclone
stock deal. Make the fine $5 million and it sure would be
a huge disincentive to others who might commit a white
collar crime.

In rec.food.cooking Earl said:

What you saw was the "lying under oath/tampering with
evidence" trial. Moral of story -- don't tamper with
evidence or lie, no matter what liberal Democrats did to
excuse Bill.

Or what conservative Republicans are doing to excuse
Bush/Cheney.

John Gaughan said:

Jack Nichols said:

Now George W. Bush is President, promising a new era of
corporate responsibility symbolized by Martha Stewart's
ruin. Such is justice in the age of irony.

Quoted message said:

A Republican, promising corporate responsibility? Do you
actually believe this? This is just a lie to gain respect
from the little people, who outnumber the "important"
people and as a group have more votes.

The entire prosecution of Martha Stewart is a scam being
purpetrated on the public by the Securities & Exchange
Commission. MS did nothing that no one else would have done,
and has done. She was not involved in insider trading and
she defrauded no one. The SEC is using MS to divert the
public's attention against the real corportate theives who
have ripped off the life savings of many hard working
individuals. This is really obvious by the fact that the SEC
tried to nab Martha Steward on securities fraud, which the
judge said was completely bogus.

Darryl L. Pierce said:

You might want to follow up on that assertion. Jail
time is not a deterrant. It never has been and it never
will be.

Exactly. The fact that the United States has the most
people locked up in jail, while also having the highest
rate of violent crime just screams loud and clear that jail
is not a deterant.

Edwin Pawlowski said:

Correct. I'm against the death penalty, not because of
any kindness of my heart, just that it actually cost the
taxpayers more to go through the appeals process and
legal BS than it does to just keep themin prison for
life. If we eliminated all the legal fluff and just
execuste the same day as the sentence is handed down, it
would save a bundle.

It would also result in innocent people being executed. Just
ask any of those who were freed from death row after being
there for years, but who would have been killed in your
warped "system of justice."

The best way to deal with crime is to prevent it. Punishment
always takes place AFTER the fact so it cannot possibly
prevent the crime from having occurred in the first place.

"Darryl L. Pierce" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dave Smith said:

Quoted message said:

I should post a link to my research paper on the
deterrent value of punishment. The basic idea is this:
in order for prison to be a

deterrent

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the criminal must be completely rational *at the time*
the crime is committed. However, the criminal is *not*
rational (for the most part) and operates under both a
limited understanding of future events (the "bounded
rationality model"😉 and an unrealistically enhanced
view of their own success (called the "subjective
expected utility model"😉 when committing the crime.
These two factors *alone* show prison to *not* be

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

deterrent in any real sense of the word since it does
*not* deter the criminals.

Does your "paper" deal with violent crimes or with
"white collar"

crimes.

Quoted message said:

Why do you put paper in quotes? The research paper deals
with the myth

that

Quoted message said:

the fear of punishment works as a deterrent. It deals with
both violent

and

Quoted message said:

non-violent crimes in that it talks about *criminals*.

I would put it in quotes too. From your posts your "paper"
sounds like a college freshman level polemic that, rather
than impartially investigating an issue, instead tries to
prove a point that you already believe in. This is made
quite clear by your statement "...myth that the fear of
punishment works as a deterrent." You already believe that
fear of punishment does not act as a deterrent so why should
anyone take your paper seriously?

Also, I can offer numerous counterexanples to your thesis.
Here are just two:

1) I am sometimes in situations where I could drive 90
MPH with perfect safety yet I do not for fear of
getting caught.
2) I have known several people who believed that using
recreational drugs was perfectly moral but did not do so
for fear of imprisonment.

You are certainly right to claim that fear of punishment
*sometimes* does not act as a deterrent, but to claim it
*never* does is just plain silly.

Peter Aitken

Quoted message said:

Edwin Pawlowski said:

Correct. I'm against the death penalty, not because of
any kindness of my heart, just that it actually cost the
taxpayers more to go through the appeals process and
legal BS than it does to just keep themin prison for
life. If we eliminated all the legal fluff and just
execuste the same day as the sentence is handed down, it
would save a bundle.

It would also result in innocent people being executed.
Just ask any of those who were freed from death row after
being there for years, but who would have been killed in
your warped "system of justice."

The best way to deal with crime is to prevent it.
Punishment always takes place AFTER the fact so it cannot
possibly prevent the crime from having occurred in the
first place.

Robert LeFevre described it perfectly in "The Right Amount
Of Government". Government cannot protect anybody from
criminals unless it became a tyranny. In order to prevent
someone from harming you, they have to be denied their
liberty, their freedom to act. And, when one denies
somebody of their freedom, one becomes a tyrant. Government
can only *prohibit* actions and then *punish* those who
commit those actions and then only *after* the action (and
the harm) has occured.

Peter Aitken said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Does your "paper" deal with violent crimes or with
"white collar"

crimes.

Quoted message said:

Why do you put paper in quotes? The research paper deals
with the myth

that

Quoted message said:

the fear of punishment works as a deterrent. It deals
with both violent

and

Quoted message said:

non-violent crimes in that it talks about *criminals*.

I would put it in quotes too. From your posts your "paper"
sounds like a college freshman level polemic that, rather
than impartially investigating an issue, instead tries to
prove a point that you already believe in.

So, because I have a different opinion that you or Dave, my
research couldn't possibly be serious, well thought out of
persuasive? That's quite a leap there, mate.

Quoted message said:

This is made quite clear by your statement "...myth that
the fear of punishment works as a deterrent." You already
believe that fear of punishment does not act as a
deterrent so why should anyone take your paper seriously?

Why do you think that because I don't believe that the fear
of prison is an effective deterrent automatically means that
my paper is either laughable or not to be taken seriously?
It sounds like you've assumed *your* conclusions concerning
the paper without having read it.

Quoted message said:

Also, I can offer numerous counterexanples to your thesis.
Here are just two:

1) I am sometimes in situations where I could drive 90 MPH
with perfect safety yet I do not for fear of getting
caught.

Solely for fear of getting caught, or is there also the
personal safety factor and other elements involved? IOW, is
your not breaking the law *solely* based on your fear of
punishment or is it influenced by other, possibly more
important concerns, such as physical safety?

Quoted message said:

2) I have known several people who believed that using
recreational drugs was perfectly moral but did not do
so for fear of imprisonment.

Then in those cases they have been generally deterred. But,
you're talking on a very localized, anecdotal scale.
*Generally* the fear of prison is not a deterrent and the
proof of that is the growing prison population and the lack
of decrease in crime rates. How can you say something is a
general deterrent when nothing is generally being deterred?

Quoted message said:

You are certainly right to claim that fear of punishment
*sometimes* does not act as a deterrent, but to claim it
*never* does is just plain silly.

I never said it *never* does. I said it general *does not*
work as a deterrent. You're talking on a small scale where
yes, you *can* find people who were deterred. But, what is
the percentage of the population that *is* deterred? It's
nowhere near large enough for one to claim that the fear of
prison is a general deterrent. And, point out one person who
was deterred does not make it generally a deterrent.

--

Quoted message said:

The entire prosecution of Martha Stewart is a scam being
purpetrated on the public by the Securities & Exchange
Commission. MS did nothing that no one else would have
done, and has done.

I don't think that anyone is questioning the fact that it is
done. The problem is that it is illegal, and she got caught.

Quoted message said:

She was not involved in insider trading and she
defrauded no one.

Apparently she was involved. She had inside information of
an upcoming announcement that would cause a company's stock
to plummet. Acting on that information, she dumped her stock
before the information became public. As a result, someone
else ended up losing money on those stocks.

Quoted message said:

The SEC is using MS to divert the public's attention
against the real corportate theives who have ripped off
the life savings of many hard working individuals.

I think that maybe you mean the other corporate thieves, as
she became joined their ranks when she acted on insider
information.

On 03/15/2004 7:33 AM, in article [email hidden],
"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> opined:

Quoted message said:

John Gaughan said:

Jack Nichols said:

Now George W. Bush is President, promising a new era of
corporate responsibility symbolized by Martha Stewart's
ruin. Such is justice in the age of irony.

Quoted message said:

A Republican, promising corporate responsibility? Do you
actually believe this? This is just a lie to gain respect
from the little people, who outnumber the "important"
people and as a group have more votes.

The entire prosecution of Martha Stewart is a scam being
purpetrated on the public by the Securities & Exchange
Commission. MS did nothing that no one else would have
done, and has done.

Next time federal prosecutors want to ask you some questions
go ahead and
lie. We'll see where you end up.

She was not involved in

Quoted message said:

insider trading and she defrauded no one. The SEC is
using MS to divert the public's attention against the
real corportate theives who have ripped off the life
savings of many hard working individuals. This is really
obvious by the fact that the SEC tried to nab Martha
Steward on securities fraud, which the judge said was
completely bogus.

Dave Smith said:

Quoted message said:

The entire prosecution of Martha Stewart is a scam being
purpetrated on the public by the Securities & Exchange
Commission. MS did nothing that no one else would have
done, and has done.

I don't think that anyone is questioning the fact that
it is done. The problem is that it is illegal, and she
got caught.

Quoted message said:

She was not involved in insider trading and she defrauded
no one.

Apparently she was involved. She had inside information
of an upcoming announcement that would cause a
company's stock to plummet. Acting on that information,
she dumped her stock before the information became
public. As a result, someone else ended up losing money
on those stocks.

No one was defrauded by MS lying about that infamous limit
order. I suspect she did illegal insider trading, but notice
that she was never charged with that. Until she is charged
and convicted of that crime, she is presumed innocent and
all the public outrage against her is misplaced.

The prosecuters had no intention of going forward with an
insider trading indictment because that's difficult to
prove. But they knew a manipulative controlling b! like
Martha would perjure herself if they set a trap by lying to
her about an insider trading investigation.

It's called "entrapment."

Best regards, Bob

Darryl L. Pierce said:

Quoted message said:

Also, I can offer numerous counterexanples to your
thesis. Here are just two:

1) I am sometimes in situations where I could drive 90
MPH with perfect safety yet I do not for fear of
getting caught.

Solely for fear of getting caught, or is there also the
personal safety factor and other elements involved? IOW,
is your not breaking the law *solely* based on your fear
of punishment or is it influenced by other, possibly more
important concerns, such as physical safety?

Quoted message said:

2) I have known several people who believed that using
recreational drugs was perfectly moral but did not do
so for fear of imprisonment.

Then in those cases they have been generally deterred.
But, you're talking on a very localized, anecdotal scale.
*Generally* the fear of prison is not a deterrent and the
proof of that is the growing prison population and the
lack of decrease in crime rates. How can you say something
is a general deterrent when nothing is generally being
deterred?

Quoted message said:

You are certainly right to claim that fear of punishment
*sometimes* does not act as a deterrent, but to claim it
*never* does is just plain silly.

I never said it *never* does. I said it general *does not*
work as a deterrent.

I have to admit that you never said it in exactly those
words and with that emphasis. Never the less, that has been
your frequently repeated claim. I have looked through you
comments on this thread and cut and pasted the following
comments on jail and deterrence.

- The problem you're having is thinking that punishment *is*
a deterrent.

- Prison is *not* a deterrent, even though you and others
are arguing that is
is.

- These two factors *alone* show prison to *not* be a
deterrent in any real sense of the word since it does
*not* deter the criminals.

- Jail was never meant to be a deterrent

- It's not a deterrent, since people commit crimes thinking
they will not get *caught*.

You have constantly and repeatedly stressed that jail is not
a deterrent. You never failed to acknowledge that it can be
or that it often is. Instead, you constantly denied that it
is a deterrent and never allowed for the possibility that it
is. In effect, you were indeed saying that it is never a
deterrent.

Quoted message said:

You're talking on a small scale where yes, you *can* find
people who were deterred. But, what is the percentage of
the population that *is* deterred? It's nowhere near large
enough for one to claim that the fear of prison is a
general deterrent. And, point out one person who was
deterred does not make it generally a deterrent.

Let me guess..... this "paper" that you are working on is
high school level?

"Darryl L. Pierce" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Aitken said:

Quoted message said:

> Does your "paper" deal with violent crimes or with
> "white collar"

crimes.

Quoted message said:

Why do you put paper in quotes? The research paper
deals with the myth

that

Quoted message said:

the fear of punishment works as a deterrent. It deals
with both violent

and

Quoted message said:

non-violent crimes in that it talks about *criminals*.

I would put it in quotes too. From your posts your
"paper" sounds like a college freshman level polemic
that, rather than impartially

investigating

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

an issue, instead tries to prove a point that you
already believe in.

So, because I have a different opinion that you or Dave,
my research couldn't possibly be serious, well thought out
of persuasive? That's quite a leap there, mate.

I said nothing of the sort. If you want to engage in a
serious conversation you ought to read a message - and
understand it - before replying. If your research is so
great let us see it so we can judge it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is made quite clear by your statement "...myth that
the fear of

punishment

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

works as a deterrent." You already believe that fear of
punishment does not act as a deterrent so why should
anyone take your paper seriously?

Why do you think that because I don't believe that the
fear of prison is

an

Quoted message said:

effective deterrent automatically means that my paper is
either laughable or not to be taken seriously? It sounds
like you've assumed *your* conclusions concerning the
paper without having read it.

Again, I never said anything of the sort. Why do you keep
putting words in my mouth? Is it that you have no
response to what I actually said? Or can't you understand
what I said?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, I can offer numerous counterexanples to your
thesis. Here are just two:

1) I am sometimes in situations where I could drive 90
MPH with perfect safety yet I do not for fear of
getting caught.

Solely for fear of getting caught, or is there also the
personal safety factor and other elements involved? IOW,
is your not breaking the law *solely* based on your fear
of punishment or is it influenced by other, possibly more
important concerns, such as physical safety?

Still again you did not read or understand what I said. Did
you miss the "with perfect safety" part of my sentence?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2) I have known several people who believed that using
recreational

drugs

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

was perfectly moral but did not do so for fear of
imprisonment.

Then in those cases they have been generally deterred.
But, you're talking on a very localized, anecdotal scale.
*Generally* the fear of prison is

not

Quoted message said:

a deterrent and the proof of that is the growing prison
population and the lack of decrease in crime rates. How
can you say something is a general deterrent when nothing
is generally being deterred?

Yet again your argument lacks logic. The growing prison
population is evidence (not proof) that the fear of prison
is not *enough* of a deterrent to prevent crime or reduce
it significantly - I have no argument with this. But that's
not the question and it's not what you have been claiming.
Toa rgume that te fear of prison is not a deterrent, you
would have to show that it is relatively rare for people to
*not* committ crimes because of this fear - and you have
not done so.

As an analogy think of smoking and health. Your argument
would be that because lots of people still smoke, fears of
the health dangers do not serve as a general deterrent
against smoking. You would totally overlook the millions of
people who quit or never took it up because of the health
dangers, just like you are ignoring all the people who gave
up or never started committing crimes because of the fear of
prison. No, I cannot prove how many peopoe there are, but
because *you* are making the claim that fear of prison is
not a deterrent, it is incumbent on you to show that they do
not exist - otherwise your thesis is nonsense.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are certainly right to claim that fear of punishment
*sometimes*

does

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not act as a deterrent, but to claim it *never* does is
just plain

silly.

Quoted message said:

I never said it *never* does. I said it general *does not*
work as a deterrent. You're talking on a small scale where
yes, you *can* find

people

Quoted message said:

who were deterred. But, what is the percentage of the
population that *is* deterred? It's nowhere near large
enough for one to claim that the fear of prison is a
general deterrent.

If that's just your opinion, fine, but to convince me and
others you'll need to provide some numbers and facts.

Peter Aitken

Peter Aitken said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > Does your "paper" deal with violent crimes or with
> > "white collar"
crimes.
>
> Why do you put paper in quotes? The research paper
> deals with the myth
that
> the fear of punishment works as a deterrent. It deals
> with both violent
and
> non-violent crimes in that it talks about *criminals*.

I would put it in quotes too. From your posts your
"paper" sounds like a college freshman level polemic
that, rather than impartially

investigating

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

an issue, instead tries to prove a point that you
already believe in.

So, because I have a different opinion that you or Dave,
my research couldn't possibly be serious, well thought
out of persuasive? That's quite a leap there, mate.

I said nothing of the sort.

You said precisely what I suggested. If not, then please
explain what you *did* mean by your statement. You
explicitly suggest that it's not an impartial paper, and
that it's only purpose is to prop up my personal opinions?

Quoted message said:

If you want to engage in a serious conversation you ought
to read a message - and understand it - before replying.

I do. But, you should take your own advice since you're
jumping to great conclusions based on nothing.

Quoted message said:

If your research is so great let us see it so we can
judge it.

"...so great..."?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is made quite clear by your statement "...myth
that the fear of

punishment

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

works as a deterrent." You already believe that fear of
punishment does not act as a deterrent so why should
anyone take your paper seriously?

Why do you think that because I don't believe that the
fear of prison is

an

Quoted message said:

effective deterrent automatically means that my paper is
either laughable or not to be taken seriously? It sounds
like you've assumed *your* conclusions concerning the
paper without having read it.

Again, I never said anything of the sort.

You said *precisely* that.

Quoted message said:

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? Is it that you
have no response to what I actually said? Or can't you
understand what I said?

Or is it that your statement was exactly what I described:
that, based on what you see my opinion to be, my paper can't
possibly be anything more than a biased polemic meant to
support only my position. Is that not what you wrote above?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, I can offer numerous counterexanples to your
thesis. Here are just two:

1) I am sometimes in situations where I could drive 90
MPH with perfect safety yet I do not for fear of
getting caught.

Solely for fear of getting caught, or is there also the
personal safety factor and other elements involved? IOW,
is your not breaking the law *solely* based on your fear
of punishment or is it influenced by other, possibly more
important concerns, such as physical safety?

Still again you did not read or understand what I said.
Did you miss the "with perfect safety" part of my
sentence?

There's no such thing as "perfect safety". And, you didn't
answer my question. Is the *only* reason you don't do it is
the fear of getting caught and sent to jail?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2) I have known several people who believed that using
recreational

drugs

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

was perfectly moral but did not do so for fear of
imprisonment.

Then in those cases they have been generally deterred.
But, you're talking on a very localized, anecdotal scale.
*Generally* the fear of prison is

not

Quoted message said:

a deterrent and the proof of that is the growing prison
population and the lack of decrease in crime rates. How
can you say something is a general deterrent when nothing
is generally being deterred?

Yet again your argument lacks logic. The growing prison
population is evidence (not proof) that the fear of prison
is not *enough* of a deterrent to prevent crime or reduce
it significantly - I have no argument with this.

Then you have no argument with me. I've stated that the
belief that it's a deterrent is a myth, and your statement
"not enough of a deterrent" supports that.

Quoted message said:

But that's not the question and it's not what you have
been claiming. Toa rgume that te fear of prison is not a
deterrent, you would have to show that it is relatively
rare for people to *not* committ crimes because of this
fear - and you have not done so.

Your understanding of logic then is lacking. I don't have to
prove a negative. One can *not* prove a negative. How do you
prove the fear of prison is not a deterrent? You can't, not
directly. Instead, you have to indirectly show the claim
that it *is* a deterrent to be unsupported by fact. And here
are (a few of) the facts: the prison population in 1990 was
4.1 million people. In 2002, the prison population was 6.7
million people. That's a growth of 54%. In that same time
period, the US population grew from 248 million people to
281 million people. A growth of 13%. The prison population
(that's just the people who were *convicted*) grew at over
*4 times* the population growth! How can you say the
threat of prison is a deterrent when the actual figures
show it to *not* be so? If it were a general deterrent,
the worst case should have the prison population growth be
no more than the general population growth. But, it's not,
it's 400% greater!

You can continue to claim your anecdotal "it is a deterrent"
line and for you it's a specific deterrent (i.e., *you*
won't commit crimes because you fear going to prison). But
it is not a *general* deterrent; it does not prevent the
majority from commiting crimes.

Quoted message said:

As an analogy think of smoking and health. Your argument
would be that because lots of people still smoke, fears of
the health dangers do not serve as a general deterrent
against smoking. You would totally overlook the millions
of people who quit or never took it up because of the
health dangers, just like you are ignoring all the people
who gave up or never started committing crimes because of
the fear of prison.

How can I ignore evidence not presented? Can you show me
figures that demonstrate that generally people are deterred
from crime by the threat of prison?

Quoted message said:

No, I cannot prove how many peopoe there are,

That's what I've found as well.

Quoted message said:

but because *you* are making the claim that fear of prison
is not a deterrent, it is incumbent on you to show that
they do not exist - otherwise your thesis is nonsense.

No, the onus is not on me to prove it. The onus is on the
positive claimant, the one who claims that it *is* a
deterrent, to prove their position. The default position
(which I'm taking) is to reject the claim until such a time
as the positive claimant supports their assertion. And
that's precisely my thesis, that the threat of prison is not
a deterrent.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are certainly right to claim that fear of
punishment *sometimes*

does

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not act as a deterrent, but to claim it *never* does is
just plain

silly.

Quoted message said:

I never said it *never* does. I said it general *does
not* work as a deterrent. You're talking on a small scale
where yes, you *can* find

people

Quoted message said:

who were deterred. But, what is the percentage of the
population that *is* deterred? It's nowhere near large
enough for one to claim that the fear of prison is a
general deterrent.

If that's just your opinion, fine, but to convince me and
others you'll need to provide some numbers and facts.

Try looking at the Burea of Justic Statistics website for
the growth rate of the prison population
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/corr2tab.htm>.
Then, go to the US Census Bureau's website and look at the
population growth for the same period of time.

Dave Smith said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are certainly right to claim that fear of
punishment *sometimes* does not act as a deterrent, but
to claim it *never* does is just plain silly.

I never said it *never* does. I said it general *does
not* work as a deterrent.

I have to admit that you never said it in exactly those
words and with that emphasis. Never the less, that has
been your frequently repeated claim. I have looked through
you comments on this thread and cut and pasted the
following comments on jail and deterrence.

- The problem you're having is thinking that punishment
*is* a deterrent.

- Prison is *not* a deterrent, even though you and others
are arguing that is is.

- These two factors *alone* show prison to *not* be a
deterrent in any real sense of the word since it does
*not* deter the criminals.

- Jail was never meant to be a deterrent

- It's not a deterrent, since people commit crimes
thinking they will not get *caught*.

You have constantly and repeatedly stressed that jail is
not a deterrent.

That's right. It's not a deterrent.

Quoted message said:

You never failed to acknowledge that it can be or that it
often is.

It can be a specific deterrent, but it is not a *general*
deterrent. I acknowledge that *some* people decide not to
commit crimes because of the fear of getting caught. The
difference here is that those who argue that it is a
deterrent think that *most* people operate under this
mindset; i.e., that most people would commit crimes but they
don't for fear of going to prison.

Quoted message said:

Instead, you constantly denied that it is a deterrent and
never allowed for the possibility that it is. In effect,
you were indeed saying that it is never a deterrent.

Show me where I said "never". There are four kinds of
deterrence:

1. general deterrence: the individual will not commit crimes
so as not to experience the consequences
2. specific deterrence: the individual commits no *further*
crimes are committed after having experienced the
consequences of a past crime
3. absolute deterrence: the individual never commits a crime
after seeing someone *else* experience the consequences
4. restrictive deterrence: the individual commits *fewer*
crimes after seen someone *else* experience the
consequences

In this thread, those in favor have argued in favor of
prison being a general deterrence. It is *not* such. People
*in general* (i.e., the majority) are *not* deterred from
commiting crimes for fear of prison. There are cases of
specific and restrictive deterrence, but those are by their
nature specific cases.

The problem here seems to be one of communication. Those who
are arguing that prison is a deterrent seem not to
understand what makes something a deterrent and when someone
is actually deterred by something and when someone simply
doesn't do something.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're talking on a small scale where yes, you *can* find
people who were deterred. But, what is the percentage of
the population that *is* deterred? It's nowhere near
large enough for one to claim that the fear of prison is
a general deterrent. And, point out one person who was
deterred does not make it generally a deterrent.

Let me guess..... this "paper" that you are working on is
high school level?

Wow, you've the give of fallacy the same as Peter. Because
my paper argues against your position, it's obviously
nothing more than a high schooler's report or, as Peter try
to claim, it's not objective or impartial. IOW, because it's
not in agreement with you, the paper is obviously not to be
taken seriously? Have I summarized your claim sufficiently?