Application For Cigarette License Form - City Of Glendale: Fill & Download for Free

This answer may contain sensitive images. Click on an image to unblur it.Probably nothing significant. People that tend to murder either do so in the heat of the moment, or they believe that the reason for killing is justifiable, regardless of the legal consequences that may come with it. That is also why there is no evidence that harsher penalties reduce murder or any other “crimes” and that in some cases, it probably increases it.There is probably a good chance that if murder were legalised tomorrow, people would just resume their daily lives. In fact, people would also be more likely to stock up on weapons of their own because that way if somebody did try to kill them, they would have better means to defend themselves. I also want to dispel a myth about murder statistics later on, but I also feel that it is important to start with other types of killings that are currently legalised to one extent or another in the majority of countries today: suicide and abortion.We will start with the first one, and we will discuss how suicidal behaviour was historically treated, as well as what happened once suicide started to become decriminalised in the majority of the world’s nations. The same will be done in regards to abortion as well, as I find that discussing these two types of homicides will give better better context as to what would happen in the event that traditional murder were to become legal as well.Suicide, which is effectively self-murder, was not only punishable with imprisonment in most industrial countries until fairly recently (though a few jurisdictions still make it a crime, such as the state of Maryland and the country of Cyprus) but the penalties for successful suicides and sometimes even attempted suicides could be far more graphic and excessive.Maryland man convicted of rare attempted suicide chargeIn places such as Ancient Greece, those convicted of suicide were usually buried on the outskirts of a city, alongside other murderers and serious offenders that were executed, and buried in unmarked graves. (Though sometimes the friends or family members of the suicide victim would mark their graves, anyway.)Until the 1800s, those convicted of suicide after death in commonwealth countries could find their property being confiscated to the state, as opposed to being distributed to friends and family members (this practice was abolished in 1822) and until 1823, most of those that died by suicide were either cremated in order to deny a proper burial; were thrown at sea; or were buried in crossroads in some of the most unpleasant parts of a town or city as a means of punishment in the afterlife.Suicide legislation - WikipediaOut of all the suicide laws, however, none were more graphic and barbaric than the one introduced in France under the reign of Louis XIV. According to Emile Durkheim’s 1897 book, Suicide the crime of suicide in seventeenth and early eighteenth century France was especially graphic, and the penalty for suicide under the Sun King’s reign were detailed.In 1670, a law was made whereby anybody that died by suicide would have their bodies brought to court and be formally sentenced as though they were still alive (this practice was also done for other crimes, such as treason). At the end of sentencing, the dead person would have chains tied around their ankles or wrists and be placed face down, where their corpse would be dragged publicly for bystanders who so wished to hit, spit and mutilate the body after death.Afterwards, the body was simply tossed in the local garbage dump and left to rot with no religious rites or burial ceremony given. In extreme cases, those that merely attempted suicide but failed to kill themselves would be subjected to the same fate and they would ultimately be left to die in the city garbage dump after being sentenced and dragged around their community. Additionally, if the suicide victim had family members, their family forfeited all finances, property and personal belongings owned by the suicide victim to the state (and those that know anything about Louis XIV know his infamous words “I am the state.”)Émile Durkheim - WikipediaSuicide (book) - WikipediaIn other countries, suicide could sometimes be punished with decapitation or burning after death. In ancient Israel, for example, there were cases in which those that committed suicide were denied a traditional burial after death and their bodies were either cremated or thrown into the wilderness to be eaten by insects and animals. However, this practice was abolished either just before or after the historical crucifixion of Jesus Christ.And in all the millennia, did these laws prevent people from committing suicide? Even with the looming threat that in some places, family members of a suicide victim could be imprisoned or killed themselves did not deter others from going through with it. Until the early 1800s, a failed suicide attempt in England, especially those taking place in public (such as jumping off a building or bridge) was a crime punishable with hanging and decapitation after death (decapitation in England was abolished in 1817 after the hanging of Jeremiah Brandreth). While the number of people actually executed in England for suicide itself was practically unheard of, imprisonment was a far different story, and the death penalty for attempted suicide in England was not officially repealed until 1961.Attempted Suicide Was Punishable By Hanging In Great Britain Until 1961 - Unreal FactsHistorically speaking, failed suicide attempts in the commonwealth carried a maximum sentence of fourteen years’ imprisonment. By the turn of the 20th century, prosecutors rarely if ever treated suicide attempts as a capital offence, even though attempted suicide in England was still a capital offence until the 1960s when the Suicide Act of 1961 was enacted. In Canada, suicide was only decriminalised in 1972, with the maximum sentence of fourteen years’ imprisonment being in concurrence with British law at the time. Of course, in practice, one rarely served fourteen years in prison for suicide, as even the average time spent in prison for traditional murder in England at the time was eight years (with some of those convicted of murder being let out in under three years).https://books.google.ca/books?dq=in+1957+a+life+sentence+in+the+uk+was+eight+years&hl=en&id=qONDBgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA74&ots=kjJIq8L9Yr&pg=PA74&sa=X&sig=u657ejsjV8PAfKiqR3aO0Cb3H74&source=bl&ved=0ahUKEwjY9vaLnKHWAhXDx4MKHQBtDJIQ6AEIMTAC#v=onepage&q=in%201957%20a%20life%20sentence%20in%20the%20uk%20was%20eight%20years&f=trueJust because suicide is no longer criminally punished in most countries does not mean that suddenly everybody decided to go leap off the nearest bridge the first chance they got. In the same way, the number of people being murdered did not go up once the death penalty was abolished (contrary to the unfounded claims of death penalty supporters, such as Nancy Reagan and Isaac Ehrlich) as people that murder are either not thinking before doing so or they believe they are justified, and so they will do it regardless of the legal consequences.When it comes to abortion, people have also been killing their unborn for thousands of years. Some laws, such as the Malicious Shooting Stabbing Act of 1803 in the United Kingdom, tried to further discourage abortion by increasing the penalties for abortion, including the possibility of the death penalty for those convicted of carrying out the abortion, or being a party to it.Malicious Shooting or Stabbing Act 1803 - WikipediaPersonally, I am greatly opposed to abortion and I would be quite favourable to legislation that would at least allow proper authorities to intervene and prevent them from happening in the first place, but it still does not change the fact that abortions continued before and after it became legal. It also has not changed the fact that the majority of pregnancies do not result in abortion, despite it being legal to do so at this time in most industrial countries. Ironically, the Netherlands, which was one of the first countries in the world to make abortion legal, currently has one of the lowest rates of abortion. This is likely a combination of economic factors added by the fact that support for abortion today is actually much lower than it was in the 1980s and 1990s when an overwhelming majority supported it.Contraception in The Netherlands: the low abortion rate explained.This is also true in countries such as Canada and the USA, where abortion rates are now actually lower than they were in the years before Roe v. Wade was implemented, and these rates are likely to continue falling as abortion itself is becoming less popular, and the overall standard of living is also much higher today than back then, giving lower-economic individuals far less reason to justify an abortion.Abortions Reportedly Drop To Lowest Rate Since 1970sThe United States, having one of the harshest legal systems witnessed in modern history, also has a homicide rate that is unrivalled by other industrial countries. Even some countries that are less developed in terms of technology are not being impacted with a homicide rate as high as the United States, giving even further reason to question the significance of a draconian penal code.For instance, countries such as Norway have one of the most lenient homicide laws in modern times, yet their homicide level is also lower than most countries and significantly lower than the United States. Meanwhile, countries such as Russia and the United Kingdom have one of the highest homicide rates in Europe (with Russia’s actually being higher than the USA) despite their penal system being far harsher than most European countries. Nonetheless, it should be noted that both countries also have homicide laws that are still far more lenient than the laws currently practiced in the United States.One question I do have for readers is this: if something that was once illegal, even punishable by death in some cases, is now either legal or treated as a mental health issue — why should we even have a criminal code at all?When people are suicidal, we currently have a policy, at least in practice, that such people are “mentally” imbalanced and that they should be given some form of health treatment. Lately, there has been a similar course of action taken for those with homicidal feelings that have not yet actually acted out on them. However, when a suicide attempt results in someone else getting killed or injured — whether it was intentional or not — or a homicidal thought turns into reality, suddenly most people are anything but sympathetic, and suddenly it is no longer a “mental” health concern.Take for example the January 26, 2005 Glendale train crash. The incident, involving three separate trains each carrying several dozen passengers, killed eleven people and it injured 177 others, many of them critically. The person responsible for the event was a 25 year old by the name of Juan Manuel Alvarez, who had decided to commit suicide by parking his vehicle on the train tracks so that the first passing train could kill him.In the same way that some bridge jumpers have later admitted to changing their mind about committing suicide either when they were at the bridge, or after they had let go, Alvarez changed his mind about committing suicide at the last possible moment. Knowing that there was no time to get his vehicle started, he jumped out of his vehicle just before the collision. Even though it is very rare for fatalities on a train to occur when colliding with a vehicle — let alone, causing a derailment — both of these occurred in a very rare example of a train colliding with a vehicle and resulting in mass fatalities.Despite the fact that Alvarez’s motive for being there was to commit suicide, prosecutors turned around and decided to ask for the death penalty. The jury rejected the death penalty, but they nonetheless sentenced Alvarez to 11 consecutive life sentences without parole on August 20, 2008. (Life without parole has been mandatory for capital murder or any other death penalty offences in California since 1978.)2005 Glendale train crash - WikipediaTo demonstrate how rare such fatalities actually are from train collisions, I will mention a similar event which occurred only a few blocks away from my residence and it happened only metres away from a major bus station. On September 18, 2013, there was a double-decker bus that was driving with around eighty passengers plus the bus driver away from the Fallowfield bus station. It was a morning express bus that was bringing people downtown when the double-decker was suddenly rammed from the side by an incoming VIA train.The visibility in that area is very blurry and it is hard to see incoming trains. Plus, the train signals were not working for some time before the incident and it took a couple of years to get the signals fixed. (I know because I myself was nearly run down by trains a few times during this period because of the defective train signals.) On the bus, six people were killed and 35 others were injured — or roughly half of those on the bus at the time becoming casualties, including the bus driver who was killed instantly.2013 Ottawa bus-train crash - WikipediaOn the other hand, not only was the VIA train not derailed in the way witnessed in the Glendale incident, despite the double-decker being a much bigger vehicle than the one Alvarez used, nobody on the train was even injured. In fact, some of the passengers on the train later admitted to news reporters that they slept right through it and were only woken up by the commotion of other passengers and staff. While there is no evidence to indicate that the 2013 incident was a suicide attempt, it does testify to the fact that it is very unusual for a train to be derailed from a collision. That is also why in countries such as Japan, trains are practically never derailed, even when an earthquake destroys everything else around it.Had the Glendale incident not resulted in anything more than Alvarez’s vehicle being destroyed, I would not be surprised if suddenly his suicide attempt would have been treated as yet another “mental” health concern, rather than a capital punishment concern. That is also why at the Golden Gate Bridge, which is located in the same state as where the Glendale train crash occurred, suicide barriers are being built in order to discourage people from killing themselves. However, many of these jumpers also jump when surfers or other civilians are nearby. Surfers often report that jumpers have come so close to hitting them that the splash from a jumper would strike them upon impact with the water.Golden Gate Bridge suicide barriers going up after 1,500 deathsOn March 10, 2011, Luhe Vilagomez jumped off the bridge in front of his classmates as a dare and managed to survive his fall with fairly minor injuries. However, many surfers later reported being unhappy, as he came within only a few metres of striking some of the surfers who just happened to be going by the bridge when the jump occurred. Even though he was eventually released from hospital, it is very likely that had his jump injured or killed someone else during the jump, regardless of his intention, that suddenly any “mental” issues he may have had would, at best, be seen as insignificant compared to the criminal charges he would have been facing.Above: News of Luhe Vilagomez’s “Stunt”It is also the same when proponents of abortion say on the one hand that abortion should be left for the mother to choose, yet if the mother decides to kill their baby after birth, then suddenly it is no longer a choice but a murder with penalties ranging from fines to the death penalty, depending where the incident occurred. The double-standard when it comes to how homicide laws are applied have had similar dire consequences when it comes to other “crimes” such as rape, assault, drug offences or simply not updating your driver’s license.Many things that are a crime today should, at worst, be seen as immoral. We allow people to smoke cigarettes, despite the harm it causes to the smoker, those around them, as well as the environment, yet we criminalise those that smoke marijuana or other drugs when there is no evidence that smoking is any less harmful than other types of drugs that are criminalised and regularly enforced. Personally, I am opposed to drug consumption, except for medical purposes, and would discourage people from using recreational drugs if I was asked in the same way I would discourage smoking and excessive drinking.However, just because I am opposed to drug use does not mean that I feel as though the state should have the power to throw somebody in prison for years and then ruin the rest of their lives by restricting their employment through some absurd criminal record law, especially when there is no evidence that such policies are making life any better for the one being criminalised or for their families, community and the general population.Going back to traditional murder laws, most jurisdictions today have several levels of homicide ranging from negligent manslaughter, criminal manslaughter, aggravated manslaughter, second degree murder, first degree murder, as well as capital murder in jurisdictions where the death penalty is still applicable (though its use is becoming rarer as more countries are repealing it). The types of sentences given for these types of homicides varies by country or even jurisdiction, as not only the sentence itself, but the definition of what constitutes a particular homicide can vary with different legal outcomes.In places such as Florida, one does not even have to intentionally kill somebody for it to constitute as first degree murder. In fact, there have been some cases of first degree murder where the person convicted of first degree murder was not present at all. For instance, on March 10, 2003, a 20 year old by the name of Ryan Holle lent his car to a friend who picked up three other friends and they went to a house to get some marijuana. However, during the marijuana burglary, one of those in the house encountered one of the residents by the name of Christine Snyder and hit her on the head with a shotgun.Whether the intention really was to kill her or knock her out did not matter under Florida’s felony murder law which is notorious for being by far the harshest not only in the United States but quite possibly the entire world. In addition, Ryan Holle was himself arrested later when it was found that he suspected that they might be using his car to steal some drugs, even though he also said he assumed that they were just joking about it. Nonetheless, Ryan Holle was himself sentenced to life imprisonment without parole and legally treated as though he himself personally planned the murder and physically carried it out alongside the others that were present.Unlike many felony murder offenders in Florida, Holle was lucky in that he is among the few to have had his sentence commuted to a 25 year sentence in 2015, twelve years after being sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison. A twenty-five year sentence is still harsher than even traditional murder in most countries, but still a better sentence than has been typical in the state when it largely abolished parole for lifers in 1983.Ryan Holle - WikipediaMeanwhile, Anders Bering Breivik committed a massacre far worse than any offender in modern American history. In fact, even Timothy McVeigh’s offence was incomparable, despite the latter killing more people, as Timothy McVeigh’s motive was largely done as revenge against what he perceived as an injustice by the American Government at Waco two years before. He also did not intend to kill children (he was not even aware that a daycare centre was there), and he also did not celebrate the event afterwards as though it were a proud accomplishment.By contrast, Anders Bering Breivik perpetrated two separate attacks — one in Oslo, and the other on Utoya Island — and he was also engaging in close-quarter killing for the better part of an hour in the latter case with the specific aim to kill as many children on the island as possible before law enforcement could arrive. After it was done, he was also seen mocking those around him before, during and even after the trial. It should also be noted that Anders Bering Breivik was also several years older than Timothy McVeigh at the time each of them committed their own separate offences.Nonetheless, Norway, unlike the United States, currently has a system in place where their legal system is far closer to being focused on preventive as opposed to punitive sentencing. Unlike many people in 2011 who were unaware of Norway’s sentencing laws at the time of Breivik’s arrest, I knew full well what the sentence was going to be, having studied the criminal laws of other countries, and I also knew that this sentence would be seen as so alien even for other European countries that it would no doubt begin a long debate on what prison itself should be about. This question has garnered heated debate lasting to the present, and I am sure that the Oslo Bombing and Utoya Island Massacre are among the main reasons for this.Had Anders Beiring Breivik done what he did in the United States, he would have been treated as an imperative example as to why the death penalty and American-style maximum-security prisons need to exist. He would undoubtedly have either been sentenced to hundreds of consecutive life sentences without parole; been sent indefinitely to death row; or he would have already been executed by now. If this would have occurred in the United States as opposed to Norway, I sincerely doubt that there would be as much debate about the outdated North American penal system as there currently is.Personally, I believe even Norway’s system could do much better, as Norway still does follow some outdated penal concepts, even though their system is still among the most progressive in the world currently in practice. While Norway’s system might revolve around a fairly humane and stable environment, shorter sentences and a far lower rate of incarceration compared to other countries, such as the United States: Norway nonetheless still uses prisons for punitive purposes; they have minimum sentences; and criminal records are still widely enforced, though not to the same extent as seen in anglophone countries.On the other hand, if we treated common murders in a similar way as we do with suicide attempts, we would have several things that would instantly change:Those accused or convicted of murder would remain publicly anonymous (as is already the case in countries such as Greece)There would be no minimum nor maximum time in regards to when somebody would be allowed to go free in the same way those at high risk of suicide are treatedThe need for formal sentencing and prosecution would also cease to exist for murder, since it would be treated as more of a health and risk concern as opposed to a criminal oneThe nature of policing would also likely change from one involving law enforcement and militaristic training to something closer to a medical profession, minus the physical hospital settingThe United States does not have laws that are notoriously harsh solely for murder, but for a voluminous amount of offences ranging from aggravated rape and terrorism down to drug offences and simple assault. Despite the long list of crimes the USA has enacted (many of which are legal just about anywhere else), alongside the stiff sentences that come with it: these laws have not proven to make life safer for anybody. In fact, it has probably caused a lot of people to kill under circumstances in which they likely wouldn’t have, due to the fact that in most states, even simple theft can result in decades or even life imprisonment, especially if this is a repeat offender.At one time, burglary was legal in China because the Chinese believed themselves that having the death penalty for burglary would deter people from burglarising homes. Not only did no such deterrence come about, but the Chinese Government had to eventually repeal the death penalty for ordinary burglary, because many burglars felt that they had nothing to lose by murdering all the occupants in order to ensure that nobody would live to testify against them later on.中国法学网The death penalty in China has, since the 1990s, been largely reduced. While dozens of crimes are still punishable by death in China, it is rare for them to be carried out these days, except for certain cases of murder, and even capital murder cases are becoming increasingly uncommon as the Chinese courts have become more reluctant in enforcing it. China’s choice to downscale the use of the death penalty for the first time in decades came about a combination of growing support in favour of its abolition, added by the fact that often times normal offences were turning into murder or even massacres when an offender would choose to try shooting at the police and civilians alike as opposed to allowing themselves to be captured and face a possible death sentence.China outpaces the world in executions despite decline, report saysWhile the United States may not be using the death penalty on the same scale as China, the United States uses life without parole and other excessively long sentences on a far larger scale than the zenith of China’s death penalty in the 1990s. Furthermore, prison sentences in the USA are typically far longer than they would be in China or anywhere else. As a result, many would-be prisoners tend to be far less reluctant to kill police or other nearby civilians to try and escape when they know that even something as simple as cheating on your driver’s test has gotten people in the United States sent to prison for the rest of their lives.Santos Reyes (prisoner) - WikipediaIn contrast, in most European countries, simple offences are usually given nothing more than a slap on the wrist, and even homicide cases are treated far more leniently than in the United States. Therefore, offenders in Europe are usually much more willing to give themselves up than in a country such as the United States, since offenders in the former example know that they will soon be able to get back on with their lives. In the case of the latter, they know that there is a good chance that rather than going on with their lives, they will get life (sometimes without parole).What incentive does somebody getting busted for drugs or other petty offences in the United States have in giving themselves up to a police officer if they know they are going to get a life sentence one way or the other?Even if a drug offender ever does get out, it is likely to be after years of abuse and trauma that they will experience within prison from other inmates and prison guards alike, and they will then have a criminal record attached to it and be promptly denied any financial assistance when they cannot find employment and be sentenced to either spend the rest of their lives homeless or going in and out of prison. Either way, such a fate is not much better than being locked up for life or even being outright executed. If I were in an American offender’s shoes and I knew my life was going to be over whether I cooperated or not, I would also be far more discreet in giving myself over.How did the whole American penal system get started?Answer: During the 1970s and 1980s, crooked politicians saw an opportunity to create private prisons by scaring the public about some phony “crime wave” that would occur unless they began locking people up instantly for longer periods. It turns out that not only had crime in general been in decline long before these policies were introduced, the 1980s and early 1990s actually saw an increase in crime by offenders becoming less reluctant in killing people when knowing that they were facing life imprisonment under the new Three Strikes Laws whether they killed someone or not. The rise in crime during this period was also partially in response to the recession witnessed in North America and other countries during this period.And often times, people being sentenced under the Three Strikes Laws were people being busted for drug possession, vandalism, shoplifting, or hitting somebody, possibly at a bar. Santos Reyes was given 26 years to life under this law for cheating on a driver’s test, while Leandro Andrade was also given 50 years to life for shoplifting VHS tapes at two Kmart stores.Lockyer v. Andrade - WikipediaPrior to this time, however, there were typically no minimum sentences for any crime, whether it be ordinary municipal offences, or first degree murder. This also meant that a parole board could free somebody at any time, and the parole board in the United States was known for using that right far more often during the late 1800s when modern parole boards were first introduced, and up until the 1970s and 1980s than they are today.In fact, due to the introduction of life without parole and other mandatory-minimum sentences being introduced, the modern parole board does not have any say when it comes to a large portion of the prison population. And even in cases where they do, the parole board is far less likely to grant parole, as the modern parole board in most American states are comprised of politicians trying to be “tough on crime” by turning applicants down, alongside family members of crime victims who are also less likely to show any sympathy. During the 1990s, states such as California also introduced laws permitting governors to overturn any approvals made by the parole board, further reducing the amount of people being released while simultaneously increasing the amount of time to be served.Governor Can Grant or Deny Parole in California | Wallin & KlarichThe old American system of not having minimum sentences when it came to allowing the parole boards to have full discretion is largely based on the old British model which also did not have minimum sentences for crimes such as murder until 1965. At the start of the 20th century, many states did not actually have life imprisonment as a sentencing option, meaning that all prison sentences were given a determinate number of years which could be later commuted through parole.For instance, Louisiana did not formally introduce life imprisonment until 1916. Prior to 1916, the harshest prison sentence allowed in the state was a sentence of 30 years with the possibility of parole after 10 years (since all crimes in the state at the time came with parole after one-third of sentence was completed). Due to there being no minimum time to serve, parole boards routinely released prisoners far sooner than the minimum sentence if it was decided that a prisoner was a low-risk offender, even if their reason for being imprisoned in the first place was for rape or murder.Even prisoners convicted of crimes such as first degree murder were often times released in 5 years or less throughout the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and many other countries if a prisoner was deemed low-risk while those convicted of second degree murder were often times able to avoid prison altogether if they could show that they were not dangerous.Robert Pete Williams - WikipediaThe first early signs that minimum sentences were being introduced in American law largely occurred during the 1940s when states began imposing minimum sentences for certain crimes as a way to prevent applicants from flooding the parole board with applications that were almost guaranteed to be rejected. For instance, in 1942, states such as New Mexico, Michigan and Colorado each introduced a new law which made it so that all life sentences now came with a minimum 10 year sentence with the possibility of that 10 year sentence being reduced to as little as 5 years through a one day off for every good day of behaviour.(Below I have a link to a question I answered which talks about these laws in greater detail)Why do judges sometimes add "plus 1000 years" on a life sentence?This system of minimum guidelines that was implemented in the 1940s throughout the rest of the United States meant that lifers convicted of first degree murder would not be able to apply for parole as soon as they were sentenced as had been the case prior to these new laws. Even after these laws were introduced, most states allowed the parole board to grant a release for a prisoner even before they served their minimum sentence as a way to retain the policy of there being no minimum sentence while simultaneously making the lives of parole board members easier.Parole boards were also allowed to grant furloughs and day parole for prisoners that had not met their minimum sentence as a way to encourage good behaviour and to make it easier for prisoners to transition to a stable life after being granted full parole. In some states, prisoners convicted of offences before furloughs and day parole were abolished are still allowed to serve part of their sentence in the general population. For instance, in the state of Ohio, lifers convicted of a crime before October 19, 1981 are still entitled to furloughs and day parole while lifers convicted of other crimes at a later date may or may not be eligible, depending on when the state abolished the right to a furlough and day parole for that particular offence.Would you rather have gone to prison for seven years in 1900 or be in prison for the remainder of your life today?Despite the implementation of harsher sentencing across the board, it is very unlikely that American society became safer as a result. The only things that would have happened, are that prisoners were now serving sentences far longer than those convicted of a similar offence had done in previous generations, added by the fact that many children are probably growing up without parents, often times for offences which would at one time resulted in a stern yelling by a judge at worst.Children in the United States are also being given far harsher sentencing than in the past due to the number of juveniles being tried as adults at a time when sentencing for adults has become more severe, added by the growing number of children being added for life to the sex offender registry, often times for things as trivial as making sex noises around other children or pulling down another kid’s pants.Sex offenders registry may put man back in prison for offence committed as childWhen Kids Are Accused of Sex CrimesDespite the fact that there is little evidence to indicate that children in the United States are born any differently than children in other countries and that it is probably the culture and environment they are being exposed to that is causing this unusual behaviour in many American children: the majority of the American adult population will claim that it is not and that their circumstances are “unique” as a way to justify why they also refuse to overturn their current incarceration system to a model that would be far more effective. When many Americans see prison models in places such as Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark) they will make the excuse that their “culture” is different or that their population is smaller (the latter excuse being especially laughable).Above: American Warden Visits Scandinavian PrisonsIn the case of the former: perhaps if your biggest concern for why such a system cannot work in your country is because of “cultural” reasons, then perhaps that is also a good sign that your country’s way of doing things are outdated and are in need of change. We clearly see that the regime of harsh sentencing has not done any good for the average American. If proponents of harsh sentencing for murder or other offences do not want to repeal their current laws, no matter how much evidence there is to show how harmful it is, then those people also have nobody else to blame for their woes and high crime rate but themselves.Before I get to some of my closing arguments, I also want to point out that the argument that legalising murder would result in more murders is about as dubious as claiming that making murder illegal would stop murders. People will murder one way or the other, so it is implausible that if murder were decriminalised that suddenly everybody would be running amok trying to kill one another. Societies where murder was often times punishable by torture prior to execution did not see a lower murder rate than those that didn’t. In fact, the opposite was often times the case as studies indicate that as many as 15% of Paleolithic and Neolithic people and 10% of medieval people died by homicide, a rate far higher than in El Salvador, which today has the highest national homicide rate.Changing Minds: How My Views on Paleolithic Violence EvolvedHistorical Study of Homicide and Cities Surprises the ExpertsHomicidesThe homicide rate during the 1800s and early 1900s was also much higher than it is today, added by the fact that homicide rates had been declining for decades before the United States enacted “tough on crime” laws during the 1970s and 1980s. The current population of prisoners incarcerated for murder is not due to a higher rate of homicide than in the past, but because people convicted of such crimes in the USA today are typically incarcerated for much longer (often times for life) than in earlier American history. Therefore, the United States has witnessed an increase in their prison population at a time when every other country saw a decline in their prison population.When Prohibition during the 1920s to 1940s was enforced, people did not simply stop drinking alcohol just because they were worried that Eliot Ness was going to come running in with his cop buddies and start smashing their liquor bottles and arresting everybody present.Until 1903, Coca-Cola even had cocaine in their beverages. This was disbanded in the wake of new laws prohibiting the use of drug consumption. Nonetheless, people continued to use drugs long after it was banned. In fact, marijuana is the only type of recreational drug that is on the rise. It has come at a time when some of the more dangerous and destructive alternatives, such as cocaine, meth and even cigarettes are in decline. While I still personally believe that it is a poor choice to be using any recreational drugs, other than for medical purposes: the state is making criminals for life out of people who may often times only try a drug out once and then get arrested and have a criminal record preventing them from getting proper employment even decades afterwards.Does Coca-Cola Contain Cocaine?Such people are more likely to become resentful, and their actions are likely to impact everybody around them, whether they end up dead or in prison because of it. There is a saying that actions speak louder than words, and I think that when it comes to the law that nothing could be more truthful, as what is written is powerless compared to what is reality. One may write a law and expect a certain outcome, however history has proven time and time again that it is rarely that straightforward. Crime rates actually tend to be much higher in societies with a more authoritarian government simply because standards of living in such countries tend to be much lower for the average citizen (a historically proven cause of much violence) added by people in general becoming more begrudged at what they feel to be an oppressive and uncaring environment.Therefore, if people do not want to see a world where murder runs rampant, they ought to stop focusing their time writing legislation on paper and instead begin taking real world positive actions. For instance, telling a homeless person that it is illegal to steal food is going to be far less of a deterrent than to actually give them food so that they no longer have any needs to do so. At the same time, telling somebody who is likely to commit suicide, carry out an abortion or perpetrate a traditional homicide that killing is wrong and backing that with the threat of penal consequences will also be far less of a deterrent than placing such people in more friendly environments where such thoughts and actions are less likely to occur in the first place.I digress, but I do not have much more to say other than to state that just because something becomes legal does not mean that it is encouraged or that it would not be condemned. Most countries have or at least pretend to give their citizens the right to free speech, including North Korea’s own constitution. That does not mean that abusing that right would not come without social and possible economic consequences. In the same way that suicide and abortion is greatly looked down upon by most of society, murder would be as well.There was a time when those found to have committed suicide were treated as being even bigger criminals than traditional murderers. Even religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam regarded suicide as a graver sin than traditional murder. Nowadays, most people see suicide as a form of stress response, rather than as some sort of malevolent act.However, it is also becoming quite clear that homicidal thoughts and actions are also stress responses, similar to those of suicide victims, with the only difference being that the one committing homicide ends up killing somebody else as opposed to themselves. Similar studies are also revealing that our emotions at the time we commit any action in our lives, whether it be choosing what we want to eat or killing somebody, are far more influential in our decision making than our moral code or character.Why You Shouldn't 'Go With Your Gut'Somebody could be jovial 99.999% of the time, only to end up in an unfortunate situation where they end up killing somebody. Having more lenient sentencing in the form of treating crime as a healthcare concern as opposed to a criminal one would not cause an increase in the number of homicides taking place. In fact, homicide offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rates of any prisoners when released, and out of those that do reoffend, their reason for arrest is almost always for assault or drug possession as opposed to another murder. During the 1930s, California and New York each released some 700 prisoners throughout the decade at a time when an average life sentence was closer to seven years. While a small number of them were later rearrested for committing a new offence, none of them were rearrested for murder.Similarly, another study was done in California during the 1960s and 1970s when 988 lifers were released, with none of them being arrested for a murder after release and fewer than 10% being arrested for any offence. (Only 1% of released murderers in California during this period were later arrested for a violent offence.)Once a criminal, always a criminal?Canada did a similar study where they tracked hundreds of homicide prisoners that were released between 1937–1970 and found only one of them committed another homicide after release, and that was due to a drunken bar fight. The myth that those that committed one homicide are more likely to commit a second one has been largely created by a few prisoners such as Kenneth McDuff being made a poster boy for the rare offenders that do continue to commit further homicides after their release. However, as a general rule, homicide offenders that are released typically go on to lead fairly normal lives, especially if they were given proper support during their period in custody and after their release.Above: Paul Bernardo Video Discussing Homicide RatesThe most likely people to commit murder are the ones that have not yet done so in the same way that the sex offender registry has been shown to be ineffective, not just because of the number of trivial offences which can result in someone being added to it, but also because of the low recidivism among those on there, added by the fact that those that commit a rape are those that have not yet done so. It is quite possibly one of the reasons why so many cold cases exist, since those that commit homicide rarely do so a second time, whether they are later caught or not, so it is much harder to find and gather evidence than when dealing with drug offenders and thieves who are statistically more likely to commit a new drug or theft offence than a murderer is to commit another murder, or any other offences for that matter.In 1957, Gerald Mason, a 23 year old from South Carolina, robbed four teenagers at gunpoint in California and then he allegedly raped one of them before taking off. About an hour later, he was pulled over by two police officers. They were initially pulling him over because of his registration plate, but he assumed it was due to what had occurred an hour earlier. While the two police officers were distracted, he opened fire and killed both of them before hastily driving out of state.Decades later, he was arrested when it was found that a burglary committed in New Orleans a year earlier had fingerprints of his matching the handgun used which was discovered in somebody’s backyard. Prior to his arrest, police were expecting somebody that committed an offence like what Mason was accused of doing to be somebody with a long criminal history. However, he was never arrested for anything else and apparently he also never received a parking ticket after that time. It is also quite probable that had he not committed the burglary incident just beforehand, that he likely would never have been caught when police arrived at his home in January 2003, nearly 46 years later.Gerald Mason - WikipediaAbove: Gerald Mason in CourtMany people that have never killed take for granted their stable environment. They also will make the argument that not everybody that grows up under harsh circumstances kills someone as a way to effectively discredit why others do it. However, not everybody that smokes dies from lung cancer, yet that does not make the reason why others perish from smoking any less of a causation. One thing which cannot be denied is that people from unstable environments are more likely to be exposed to circumstances that are more likely to make them a murderer or a victim of another murderer.Soldiers that come back from war are statistically far more likely to commit a violent offence than the general population, and that is especially true if the returning veterans are not happy or safe in their environment. Similarly, people that end up homeless or in a broken down home are more likely to fall foul of the same types of laws that are, in theory, supposed to make all of our lives better.Combat soldiers more likely to commit violent crimes: studyClearly, this is not the case at all, as I am sure that many homeless people would be setting up tents and other living arrangements rather than sleeping on a street corner if they could if there were no laws written and no police present to enforce those laws. This creates a scenario where the homeless person might become even more angry in general, and they might also begin resorting to theft and other means to support themselves if they don’t believe that the current legal system will benefit them.Above: Homeless Person in the SnowJust because we make theft illegal in writing does not mean that people are not going to resort to it, especially when it becomes a life or death situation. If we want to reduce the number of people committing theft, we must then be willing to give such people a more stable environment, including proper housing, utilities, employment and food and not steel bars and a cot. Besides, providing the former is also much cheaper than the latter, on top of being far more humane and beneficial for everybody other than private prison CEO’s.When it comes to suicide, most countries may no longer criminalise it, but they still are likely to have someone with serious thoughts or attempts hospitalised and quite possibly prohibit them from having access to a firearm for an indefinite period of time. Such individuals may or may not be prescribed medications and be forced to see a psychologist and/or psychiatrist, alongside other conditions after their release. Therefore, in the same regards that free speech is not generally criminalised in most countries, the attempt to commit suicide still comes with consequences, despite it no longer being a criminal offence in all but a handful of countries.If homicides were to be treated similarly as suicide is today, I would expect that it would also be treated far more seriously as a social problem, rather than an individual one, and the rate of homicides would become even less common in the same way that suicide rates in most countries are lower today than they were even a decade ago, once homicidal behaviours and patterns themselves become better understood.Just because we make something legal does not mean that it is encouraged, nor does it mean that one would be free to do so without forfeiting other rights in return. People have the right to verbally attack others based on their religion, race or nationality, but that does not mean everybody does it, nor does it mean that those that choose to do so shouldn’t expect a negative response from those around them because of it.In a world where homicide was treated similarly to suicide is today, the only difference between the two would be that a homicide offender would be considered a higher-risk, at least in the short-term, and likely not be freed as quickly as one who attempts suicide, due to their actions in taking a life being successful, added by the action directly impacting someone else as well. Regardless, it has been shown in studies worldwide that homicide offenders that are given a more stable environment after their release have the lowest recidivism rate and that whereas somebody that has attempted to commit suicide before is more likely to try again than someone that has not, the exact opposite is true when it comes to homicide.Myths About Suicide - Tennessee Suicide Prevention NetworkPerhaps if society were more concerned about fixing the current problems in our world today, rather than focusing on different types of criminal punishments for tomorrow, then the debate on criminalising or legalising murder would be quite moot.