Totalitarianist

I do not advocate what I am about to say. I am only saying that is is a possibility. History shows that the stricter the laws, the less crimes. New York City is an example. The Soviet Union under Stalin is an example. I hate to give the man credit, but crime increased dramatically under the dictatorship of Hitler in Germany. It was a direct result of his policies, his uncompromising liquidiation of the criminal class. Ivan the Terrible is another example -- crime being non-existent in that case.

When there is crime, it is the fault of the State for not giving preemtive capital punishment to those predisposed to criminal activity -- "Homo Delinquens". The State is a being which needs self-control. Self-control is a virtue. The State may be sadistic, but sufficient self-control stops it from being sadistic by means of liquidating the criminal class. If the criminal class thrive, the State has little self-control, and obeys its sadistic impulses by commiting crimes in the disguise of the criminal. This is the state of America at the moment. A very sadistic State, with lots of crime. The less crime, the less sadism.

Again, I do not advocate what I am about to say. It is only the collected wisdom of mankind throughout history. I am only pointing out the nature of mankind.

-If there is reason to believe that someone has committed a crime, put him in a labour camp. Have him work to death in the labour camp. Use his corpse to feed the other prisoners. No other food will be allowed. (Do not waste that which does not have to be wasted. Use all resources.)

-One in every 10 people caught idling would be shot. The rest would be whipped.

-The job of some of the criminals would be to make food for the other criminals with the corpses of the ones who worked to death, or who were shot for idling.

(Actually, shooting them might be a waste of a bullet -- it is a good deterrent, however. Perhaps something less costly. Death by beheading, perhaps?--only a possibilty, not that I believe that it is morally correct or anything. Its workability is the question.)

-School children would watch the criminals work to death in these labour camps on "field trips".

-The majority of school children who are potential criminals as adults would be deterred from commiting the crime by the psychical influence of fear alone.

-Replace the police force with the army.

-Have them protect the masses from criminals at all times, in as many places as possible.

-Have surveillance cameras watching as many places as possible at all times.

All children, in whatever stage of development, that exhibit half-wittedness (since most criminals are below average in intelligence), that have a disturbed personality, that are violent, or that have difficulty solving everyday problems -- any or all of these, no matter how slight, would be...sent to an island, with...good...living conditions. They cannot be part of the State. All potential criminals (or as many as possible) must not exist in the ideal State.


The question I have for everyone is this: would this mitigate the present state of affairs with regards to crime? This is not a question of ethics. Would it work or not? If not, why not?

And please, no insults.

Anyway, I like the idea of this sort of totalitarianism. It is appealing to me because I want to feel safe. Is it such a bad thing to desire safety? It would make me feel quite safe.

The Cromwell Institute

I don't mean to insult you, Tote. But to me your post suggests a disturbed personality. This means that you would not be safe in the society you envisage.

Is crime such a terrible thing that we should subject ourselves to the whims of an absolute, unchecked military state in order to be protected from it?

Who protects us from this criminal regime you envisage? Or do you not see beheading "idlers" as criminal behaviour?

Tote, in your desire for safety, you have planned a nightmare world in which no-one is safe. There are ways to make yourself personally safe from criminals without involving the military.

GunnerJ

Now if we can get a bunch of mutants to predict the future, we can REALLY stop crime before it happens!

livius drusus

Since you have excluded any ethical premises, the only reason any act is criminal is because it has been arbitrarily defined as such by your sadistic State. I assume this State would automatically exempt its own actions from the definition even when said actions are indistinguishable from crimes perpetrated by individuals. The military police shooting an idler in the head would not be considered murder in your scenario. Without any oversight or ethical underpinning, the State has complete and unfettered right to control its citizens even to the point of demanding their lives.

Given that, how could you ever assure your own security from the State's whim? For instance, how could you be sure that the definition of idling would never be expanded to included posting bizarre musings on morality and crime on internet bulletin boards leading you to be the one in ten that gets shot in the mouth or beheaded on the spot? You might be safe from muggers, but who will keep you safe from the State?

Jagged

Even if your premise is true (more & stricter enforcement=less crime), it does not follow that this is the only or best way to acheive this goal. To believe so is a logical error. There is often "more than one way to skin a cat" (excuse the deplorable expression). 2+6=8 but so does 4+4. Studies have shown alternative crime control methods (such as neighborhood policing) to have promising potential, without the side effect of destroying or locking up a large segment of the population. A civilized society must control crime, but a humane society finds the least destructive methods of doing so.

May I also point out that the United States is known for its inclusion of the death penalty among crime control laws, however has a far higher rate of violent crime than non-death-penalty nations such as those in Western Europe. How do you explain this?

Walross

What about all the people (myself included) who already feel safe - no totalitarian state needed. In fact, the state you envisage would make me feel decidedly unsafe.

Walross

Bloop

Did people in the Soviet Union under the rule of Stalin , Beria et al feel safe ?

Oxidizing Material

I shouldn't be doing this, but to play devil's advocate here, do you think the Smart family were feeling relatively safe before their daughter was kidnapped?

Eudaimonist

�Those who would give up liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.� � Benjamin Franklin

Gunnaheave

Of course when one simply defines a huge range of criminal activity (that caried out by officials of the state) as non-criminal it is easy enough to pretend the crime rate has gone down. But if you realy think these places were "safe" for anyone, then you are fantasizing.