Isn't it probable that the uptick in violence is our response to the unevolving mode of accepted 'social norm'? Doesn't it seem that persecuting the individual for an act that they have likely made out of desperation and a feeling that they have no other option only lend to perpetuating a system that is already broken? Do we really understand why these acts are commited; ourselves sitting pretty not putting ourselves in their shoes and thus not truly understanding the reasoning behind their actions? Instead do we stay with unmoving minds and hearts and judge them?

Doesn't it seem more reasonable to tackle these fragments of a broken society rather than the people who are caught within it?

EDIT

I think it poignant to mention that society is the sum of its individuals, and a problem arises when we try to 'sweep' these problems/people under the rug. Just kill them.

I still can't see how everyone has distinguished an actual uptick in violence from a mere increase in the reporting of such crimes, and ultimately better information distribution.

Good point, I think that some percentage of the 'increase in violence' is a perception as you say based on better information distribution.

It does remain though that our prisons are fuller then ever. What's wrong with this picture?

Well put it this way, nowdays we'd have caught Jack the Ripper.

Because it shows that you're willing to kill yet again.


Unless it was an accident, right?

That's deemed manslaughter by the law, and while you still can receive jail time, it's significantly reduced since you didn't actually mean to kill the guy.

We should have a small chemical release module implanted in us early in our lives so that if we feel the combination of chemicals in the brain that says "Kill dis sumbitch." the module releases something that puts us into catatonia until someone can revive us.

Will elaborate a bit more later.

I thought accidental death was where you caused someone's death purely through just that, an accident that is out of your control, while manslaughter is meant to be when you intended to cause harm/could have avoided causing harm by acting differently but didnt mean to kill the person? I may be wrong but that was how I understood it to be.

I'd perhaps have thought death sentencing is more a deterrent than jailing for life, because jails are rather cushy these days, since they are obliged to fit in with human rights and all. And often life sentences are in fact cut short for various reasons, such as 'good behaviour' or any excuse to get them out of the jail to fit more people in (so as was said, life sentence practically DOES only mean 15-20 years). But death penalties have problems, such as if a proposed 'murderer' is killed, and the real one is caught or gives themselves up, then someone else's life has totally unlawfully been ended. These cases of misidentification still happen with our supposedly advanced age and tech. This is why death row exists, but then they go for trial as their human rights allow since they have nothing to lose, and their substantial food and living quarters are being paid for until they are executed, also.

Also, financial related crimes tend to get much worse sentences than anything like rape, abuse etc. because in our society, money is worth more than a human life, and through the history of society that is how our law has developed, to keep the wealth of the people with lots of it under their posession, and to brutally punish anyone who tries to take it and thus deterr others. These rich people can easily escape prison themselves and likely win any legal battle against someone of lower class, so they can avoid such rape etc., while if the lower classes do that to each other, the rich don't care. Maybe it's not a 'conscious' thing each individual wealthy person thinks per-se, but that does appear to be the case, hence the term "posession is nine-tenths of the law".

It doesn't help that each case on often have vastly varying reasons, and so a death sentence might not always be fair, even if two separate people have murdered two each for vastly different reasons.

Yeah I know it's Wikipedia, but there you go. Voluntary is when you have intent to hurt or damage someone, but it gets out of hand and it kills them instead.

This. Am so surprised at the immature views of most of the posters in this thread. BANS FOR ALL

But what if it isn't recklessness? Like, if you're driving along, and suddenly you accidently drive over a nail or bit of broken glass, and pop the tire, causing you to spin out and hit someone, killing them?

The technical term for that is "accident" which is not a crime. Not yet, anyway.

The difference between the two is involuntary manslaughter is when you're being reckless, like you're playing around with a gun and you shoot someone when it goes off accidentaly. An accident is when like the thing above, where you pop a tire out of nowhere, lose control, and hit somebody. You couldn't have done anything about that. But with the gun, you were just plain irresponsible.

Unless the tire pops because of negligence on your part. Checking the tires is part of a driving test for a reason. You'd be screwed.

Just a small notion. My biology teacher mentioned how a lot of prisoners suffer from Jacob's Disease, a genetic disease which results in higher aggression. I don't support the idea, but what about if eliminating the individuals who have Jacob's Disease would improve society?

Bah, Law.
I remember hearing from the new about some guy who raped, and killed this teenager, I can't remember what her age was, around 16-19, that he had been stalking and the guy got caught a few days later by police.
He protested that the police used excessive force, and he got reconciliation money paid to him. Also, he only got 20 years, but he was on bail at 10.
Justice my ass.

Ten years is still a frigging long time.

We'll just quietly sneak in that little eugenics program.

I tried to look up Jacob's Disease, but all I found was mad cow.

Used, once you start taking out those pesky aggresion-causing genetic diseases, where does it stop? Let's snip off the revolt genes, maybe cut out the paranoia chromosomes, and hell, why not get rid of the uncomplacent alleles while we're here. All in the name of preserving a calm, peaceful society. Because, of course, revolts, uprisings, and resistance endangers the common folk by ousting the government that keeps all of us happy and safe.

I exagerate of course, but only to further my point.

So based on some genetic default you have no control over you'll be deemed unworthy for society? That's a little extreme, don't you think? Besides by that standard America would finally have its excuse to shoot gay people or mutilate people with red hair.

IMO the death penalty should not be something standard, AKA murder = death. The death penalty should be an extension of natural selection. Reserved only for people so stupid, so dense, so ignorant that they pose an immediate danger to everyone around them but themselves.

To give an example, the forest fires in Australia right now. Someone who put those fires on on purpose with the knowledge of what would happen should be shot in the kneecaps and thrown in a sharktank.

Some random persons who started the fire as a prank, without overlooking the consequences, are to retarded to begin with. If you're too dense to stop for a moment and overlook even the possible consequences of your actions you should just be ended right there.

Yeah, I don't think a lot of people understand just how long Jail sentences are for the dude inside. Especially for a guy who isn't a thug or a gang dude, it's going to be long, lonely, and painful in there.

Although, are there statistics on repeat offenders in stuff like murders, rape, and child pornowhatever?

What Used suggested worked in the Book Hominids, and that was a good book, so I agree.