I'm afraid I have to call that.  Millions to track him down?  Millions to extradite?  Millions to try him?

We always knew where he was, he never hid.  We just had to wait for another country to decide to extradite.  No millions to track.

We never pushed hard to extradite, Sweden finally decided to pick him up.  America has not spent massive recources on extraditing him.  No millions to extradite.

He has *already been tried*.  There will not be a massive, multi-million dollar legal case associated with this.  If millions were spent, they were spent in the past during the original trial.  Now we need to get our return on investment.

Deterrence *is* a part of an effective legal system, and the system needs to maintain the illusion of 'blind' justice.  That means everyone gets to do their job, the law of the land needs to be followed, and he needs to do a little time.

"We always knew where he was, he never hid.  We just had to wait for another country to decide to extradite.  No millions to track."

Wrong. Every day he spent outside the country, paid justice workers watched him. It's standard policy. 30 years = millions of dollars, easily.

"We never pushed hard to extradite, Sweden finally decided to pick him up.  America has not spent massive recources on extraditing him.  No millions to extradite."

But you did push, for 30 years, with multiple countries. Again, easily millions.

"He has *already been tried*.  There will not be a massive, multi-million dollar legal case associated with this.  If millions were spent, they were spent in the past during the original trial.  Now we need to get our return on investment."

Fair enough, though imprisoning him will cost millions, so the point is moot.

"

Exactly. Having "death sentences" has not improved crime anywhere. There is no empirical data saying "deterrents" work to do anything but make people panic if they think they are going to be caught.

Correctional facility, not revenge center. People are too caught up by emotions rather than what the law was set up to do: keep order in society so it can prosper. If "deterrents" worked, there would be data supporting it. 

It was used as an argument for the "three strikes rule", that it would deter people. Did it? No. It increased the number of people being given prison terms, by making minor offenses like drug possession, DUI (the pre-crime crime) and others add up over time.

Now you are just making bald assertions about cost and method.  I seriously doubt that there has been a task force watching him every day for thirty years.  If you can show me otherwise, great.

I also doubt our justice department ever spent much time lobbying to get him extradited.  Again, if you can show otherwise please do.

As far as I know, prison costs 20,000-60,000 per year per inmate, depending on where it is.  Since he will not get a long term sentence millions I can't see how you could get millions.

And yes, deterrence does work.  Is it the end-all?  No.  Should we rehabilitate?  Yes, you need both.  Personally, I would try drugs if they were legal.  Being illegal is the main thing stopping me.

Deterrence has been proved to not be 100% effective.  That is all.  To prove your point you need to show an alternative system that does not use incarceration as a deterrence measure, that is more effective than systems that include incarceration.  As far as I know, it does not exist.

Criminal justice is about doing the best we can, not about being perfect.  You will never have a perfect system, and blanket statements won't change that.

Clockcat do you think there would be more or less crime if there was no police force/prisons? Deterance may not stop everybody but it does stop some. I don't think that can be denied.  There may be more effective methods but i haven't seen them.

As for the death penalty well the alternative is just as bad and the crime serious enough that if you are not put off by life in prison you won't be put off by the death penalty. Also im guessing alot of people dont think they will get caught.

So you have no data then. No empirical evidence.

Okay.

The Police and prisons are deterants. So if you accept they deter crime deterance does work. what do the police and prisons do? punish.

Look if that indeed is the point of the current system then I cannot imagen us doing a worse job at rehabilitating people, can you? So i maintain that is only in name not in practise. Rehabilitation well its a nice idea but it fails so bad imo. How do you go about rehabilitating people? If there is a good answer to that question then maybe we should rehabilitate instead of the current system witch in correction only in name.

I agree it shouldn't be for vengance, but punishment is important I think.

         I've responded already back on the first page, has a father of two daughters that guy belongs in jail no matter how long it takes.

         Polanski's biggest problem is not the original charge,  he already did some time after the conviction, no matter what the victom and her family say about it.  His big problem is jumping bail, escapeing lawful custody,  failure to appear. Polanski is in hot water against the court system itself.

My point was nothing exists that does not use deterrence, so how do I present data for an analysis?  Where is my control group?

What would you accept as data?  Increased incarceration leading to lower crime rates?  Increased police to citizen ratio leading to lower crime rates?  Societies that penalize more harshly having lower crime rates? 

I guess I need to know what you want from me so I can present it.  I'm not being flippant, but you really do have to acknowledge my second paragraph....what other system is there?  I don't say that punishment is fantastic and it always works and we should put everyone on death row for littering because it will make a better society.

Although, if that is what a society values...China and Iran sure seem to have lower crime rates than countries with more lenient justice systems.  So if you are wanting proof about how increased penalty makes a more orderly society you don't have to look far.  Chopping hands off for stealing really does seem to reduce theft, and execution for drug crime really does seem to reduce drug usage!

You don't have to like it, but unless you can present some other alternative then this is a case of reality meeting wishful thinking.  If we started publicly hanging people who smoked marjijuana on the nightly news, reefer use really would decline (but it wouldn't go away totally).  Is that a society I want to live in?  No.  Is it reality?  Yes.

(Edit: I can pull data for crime rates versus penalties if you want, but the examples I listed should be clear enough without a graph.)

"Aslong as whatever they do does not take away jobs from the general public."

Uh uh. They need to be fit for society upon release. That means they have to be learning or utilising actual skills. They don't however have to recieve the money they earn. It can go to numerous different possible places.

"You have an equal say to every other canadian citizen."

Not really, but capitalism is a different topic.

"if you really were upset by some law you could get it changed if it was a valid request."

ONLY if outrage over the law superceded lack of interest. Which is rarely the case.

" You do agree to the law by being a canadian."

Nope. I was born here. There was nothing to choose. And moving isn't an option, most other countries are worse.

"disagreeing with a law doesn't give you the right to break it"

Yes it most certainly does. You just have to be prepared to be punished for something you can't see as being wrong.

I'll get back to you on a superior system.

A criminal record is sufficient deterrence for you. Until you have one, and can't get a good job because of it. From that moment forward, more deterrents simply increase the risk of capture, requiring a more vicious policy to avoid capture. The ultimate proof against deterrence is the FAILURE to ban alcohol. I could list every justice system in history if I wanted to go to the trouble, but this is a golden gem of refutal.

Drug use in general has been rising my entire life. It doesn't help when the government blatantly lies about drugs in an effort to make them seem worse than they are.
Drunk driving has gone down significantly from, say the 70's, due to education. Not deterrence. In fact, that's more proof deterrence doesn't work, because in recent years the number of drunk drivers has stayed relatively stable, despite significant efforts year after year to make the punishment more severe than it already is.