1) The problem is that the U.S. is so large that even a single state is often larger than entire European countries. As such, there's a large amount of income and crime disparity between states. Michigan, for example, has a high crime rate because it contains Detroit, which would qualify as a third-world country by most standards. Other states have significantly lower crime rates. Just as in Russia, some regions are far more prosperous (and safe) than others.

For example, Minnesota has a comparable population to Norway. As of 2012, it had a murder rate of 1.8, which is admittedly higher than that of Norway. However, Louisiana had a murder rate of 10.8 and actually has a smaller population than either of the aforementioned regions. The murder rates per state ranged from 1.1 to 10.8. That's a huge range in this context. Both states are part of the U.S. If the U.S. only consisted of one state, the murder rates would be radically different based on which state it was. That's the inherent problem with comparing small countries to the U.S. The sample size of the European countries is so small that you can't derive any meaningful data for comparison.

2/3) A large amount of violence is the result of drugs. Either people committing crimes to obtain drugs, people committing crimes because they are on drugs or cartels committing crimes to distribute drugs and maintain their stranglehold on the market. Would legalizing narcotics alleviate these issues? Maybe. They might also cause a rise in other issues, like traffic accidents. Alcohol already causes an absurd amount of lethal and non-lethal accidents on the road and no doubt legally-obtainable PCP, cocaine, heroin, meth, LSD, etc, would only exacerbate that.

To be fair, Judge Dredd was pretty effective at reducing crime.

If there's irrefutable evidence that a suspect is guilty, a trial is an utter waste of time and taxpayer money. Executions themselves don't have to be expensive either. Get rid of death row, get rid of fancy lethal injections. Just break the criminal's neck and dump him in a hole or incinerate him. That would be far, far cheaper than providing him with food, shelter, medical care, etc, for the duration of his sentence.

The reliability of our judiciary system is another matter entirely and separate from the matter of punishment. It's definitely flawed and would need to be reworked before enacting any of the changes I've proposed.

@RedSky

1) I never said that wasn't any research showing that rehabilitation can reduce recidivism. I said there's not enough research. The cultural and economic situation of a small European country isn't quite analogous to the current state of the U.S. Also, how does the death penalty not eliminate recidivism entirely? You can't commit crimes if you're dead. Thus, guaranteed results.

2) So by "first-world," you're basically talking about Europe. Does Greenland qualify? They have a murder rate of 19.4. I'll concede that the U.S. has a higher murder rate than Europe. Is that due solely to how we deal with criminals? Possibly, but I doubt it. It certainly doesn't prove that increasing surveillance, enforcement and punishment wouldn't reduce crime rates.

3) Like I said before, most criminals are fully aware of the severity of their crimes. The problem is that they think they can get away with it. Harsher penalties mean nothing without the enforcement to back them, which is why I suggested increasing surveillance and enforcement in addition to harsher penalties. You need both in order to provide an effective deterrent.

4) If you can provide more data than Scandinavia's recidivism rates, I'll gladly accept that rehabilitation can work in the U.S. But even then, rehabilitation will never reduce recidivism completely whereas death would. Is it realistic to expect the U.S. government to enact the death penalty for all crimes? No, not at all. It's unrealistic to expect them to enforce breeding restrictions too. That doesn't change the fact these things would reduce crime rates. If we're stuck on realism, the likelihood of the government ever adopting a rehabilitation policy like in Norway's is pretty low.

5) One could just as easily argue that crime in Venezuela is a result of drug trafficking dominating the country, resulting in corrupt police and politicians that let the cartels do whatever they want. You exclude third-world countries because they undermine your argument. Third-world countries have a lot of poverty, yes, and nobody is going to deny the correlation between poverty and crime. However, they also suffer from a distinct lack of police surveillance and enforcement, either because the police are corrupt or there simply aren't enough to sufficiently enforce the law in all areas.

How do you define "small" when it comes to narcotics? If I have a pound of cocaine, is that small? What about meth? PCP? LSD? Heroin? Narcotics are banned because they are harmful. Not just to yourself but to others. They are also addictive. Do you really think a junkie will be satiated by the small portions allowed by your proposed law? Nope. They'll always be looking for more and will do anything to get it. That's why drug-dealing is such a profitable business. A better solution is execution. If you're convicted of possession or abuse (no trial necessary if there's irrefutable evidence), you're dead. No further expenses beyond the execution (via cow puncher or some other cost-effective means) and body disposal (incineration seems most efficient). Zero chance of relapse.

As for money, sure, we could cut military funding. That would give us some money, though most of it would go towards rehabilitating criminals and paying off our numerous debts. We could increase taxes on the rich, even though they already pay the majority of taxes in the country. We could increase taxes for everyone, which we would inevitably need to do if we want top-quality education and healthcare for everyone.

As to your other points, we already have free healthcare. Well, relatively free in the form of Obamacare. We already have free education too. Public schools are free and available in almost every city. Said schools already offer sex education as well. The issue isn't really about education. Any dunce knows that having unprotected sex will result in babies. The problem is apathy. Some people just don't care. They don't think in the long-term. They don't plan ahead. They don't consider the long-term repercussions of their actions. All they care about is the here and now. It's not hard to find a condom. It's much harder to convince an apathetic and irresponsible person to actually wear it. You can tell them about the risks but if they don't think the condom is comfortable or convenient, they won't wear it. On the other hand, put a gun to their head and they'll definitely wear it.

Good points, Redsky.

However, there hasn't been nearly enough research on the effects of rehabilitation to claim that it consistently reduces recidivism. You mention Scandinavian countries in particular. How many of those rehabilitated prisoners were guilty of violent crimes? If you want to reduce recidivism, the death penalty will offer guaranteed results.

As for the U.S.'s murder rates, they aren't the highest among first-world countries. Higher than European countries, sure, but Europe is tiny. Russia is more comparable to the size of the U.S. and it has almost double the murder rate. China claims to have a 1.0 but I'd question the reliability of any data provided by that government.

I'm also pretty sure that most criminals recognize the severity of their crimes. If they aren't insane, they'll know that jaywalking will result in a far lesser penalty than murder. What it comes down to is risk versus reward. If breaking the law is the most convenient way of getting what they want and the likelihood of them getting caught is low, they'll break the law. That's rational behavior. It's the reason why people people slow down when they see a cop on the freeway instead of speeding like they would normally do. It's the reason why people won't hesitate to download a pirated movie but would think twice before trying to steal a movie from Best Buy. If someone wants to rob a liquor store and they see a cop inside, they will most likely not rob that particular liquor store. Not all criminals are psychotic murderers. On the contrary, most criminals are perfectly sane and break the law on a regular basis. They just make sure that the risks are low enough so they don't get caught.

Severe penalties mean nothing if they aren't enforced and increasing surveillance increases the likelihood of enforcement. Increasing surveillance wouldn't be cheap but then, rehabilitating criminals isn't cheap either. Getting rid of the prison system entirely and replacing it with efficient executions (nothing overly elaborate like lethal injections) would cut costs dramatically and allow for greatly expanded surveillance and enforcement, in addition to dramatically increasing the risk for any given crime. If the penalty for speeding was death and there were more cops patrolling the roads and freeways, I guarantee 99.9% of drivers would stop speeding. There's no hard data for this, of course, but that's because no country has ever attempted it.

Venezuela currently has over ten times the murder rate of the U.S. It was the first country in the world to abolish the death penalty. Now, the country is riddled with corruption. Laws have no meaning because they are not enforced so criminals do whatever they want without fear of reprisal.

Innocent people being convicted has nothing to do with prisons. That's a problem with our legal system (and one that would be need to be remedied before enacting any major changes to the punishments for conviction).

As for the other things, I've already covered them pretty extensively in my previous posts. The punishment for illegal breeding would either be execution or forced sterilization. Sounds harsh but the ends justify the means in this particular case. We already do it to animals and animals breeding is a lot less dangerous than people breeding.

Substance addiction isn't an crime. Possessing illegal substances is a crime. If you consume an illegal substance, you are breaking the law.

As for creating a more equitable society... sounds great! Where do we start? Oh, right, it's not quite that simple after all. Too many people, not enough money to go around. Why are there too many people? Anyone, no matter how unqualified, can have as many children as they want. Barely make enough money to support yourself? No problem, go ahead and have some kids anyway! Can't afford to put your kids through college? Ah well, it's not like education plays an important role in the job market anyway! I'm sure your kids will do just fine when they grow up and aren't qualified to do anything but the most menial of jobs, at which point they'll probably start a family of their own and ensure that the cycle of stupidity continues.

Teaching people to make responsible decisions (like not living beyond your means or starting a family when you clearly can't support it) is the first step towards fixing society's many ills. Reactionary measures aren't going to cut it. Sure, we could triple the minimum wage but then there would be even fewer jobs available and they'd be even harder to get. We need to address the root of the issue and that's unqualified people being allowed to have children. Fix that and everything else will be much easier to handle.

You should read my complete post before posting reactionary statements. I never said current prison conditions are ideal. I said prison isn't working as a deterrent to criminals. As I said before, there are three potential ways of fixing that: make the punishment more severe, increase surveillance and enforcement or make prison safer and more comfortable in an attempt to rehabilitate criminals. The first two options are practically guaranteed to produce results. People litter, jaywalk, pirate and break traffic laws all the time because they know they can get away with it and even if they get caught, the punishment will be relatively minor. Conversely, it's much harder to get away with major crimes and the punishments are far more severe, which is why major crimes are committed far less often than minor ones. History has proven that fear is a very effective deterrent. Convince people that there are significant consequences for their actions and they'll think twice before doing something stupid.

Rehabilitation is less proven. If prison were comfortable, safe and enlightening, it could reduce crime rates as criminals are taught the error of their ways and spread their new-found wisdom amongst other potential criminals. Or it could increase crime rates as prisons become a refuge where the desperate get free food, shelter, healthcare and other conveniences.

The ideal solution would be to ensure that only qualified parents are allowed to reproduce. The majority of criminals are the result of poor upbringings, with negligent, ignorant and/or abusive parents unwilling or unable to train their children to become productive members of society. In an ideal world, there would actually be prerequisites to parenthood. Aspiring parents would need to meet certain criteria like minimum income, education and a clean record. If these requirements were somehow enforceable, crime rates would drop drastically.

What's really terrifying is how often people make silly Nazi analogies on the internet.

Our prison system is broken but not because of how it treats prisoners. It's broken because it's not acting as an effective deterrent. The whole point of prison (or any other punishment) is to deter people from committing crimes. Our current prison system isn't accomplishing that.

If we replaced prison with immediate execution (no more sitting on death row for years), crime rates would probably go down. If we increased surveillance and enforcement, crime rates would probably go down. If we made prison nicer and tried to rehabilitate instead of punish criminals, would crime rates go down? Good question. If I knew that prison would be a safe and comfortable experience, I'd definitely be more inclined to break the law. If my current living conditions were bad enough, I might even be inclined to break the law just to gain the benefits of such a prison. Free food, free shelter, free healthcare. Not a bad deal if you don't have to worry about being beaten, raped or killed. I'd love to see what would happen if all the prisons in the U.S. were as posh as the Halden Prison in Norway.

These videos never show the alleged crime or lack thereof. The cops claim the suspect was selling cigarettes illegally, the narrator claims that he simply broke up a fight. If that's the case, why does the video not show either?

All the video shows is a man resisting arrest and having a heart attack in the process. One could argue that this wouldn't have happened if the cops didn't try to arrest him. One could also argue that it wouldn't have happened if he had simply cooperated. Because the video doesn't show what happened beforehand, we don't know if the arrest or resistance was justified. Context is everything and the removal of context makes it easier to push your own agenda.

This seemed pointless. They tried to make the event more impactful by overdramatizing it (showing the cop talking to his wife about their daughter, drawing out the gunfight, having the cop mention his family right before getting killed, etc) but it just made it feel like a cheesy Hollywood drama. The actual dashcam footage is way, way more impactful and really shows how sudden and brutal murder can be.

It's all too easy to hate cops (and authority figures in general) but it's also easy to forget that even a routine traffic stop can be a life-or-death situation. Cops have no idea who is behind the wheel. It could be a soccer mom or it could be a violent psychopath.

"Mansplaining" may just be the dumbest term I've ever heard. And if you realize that it's dumb and even "apologize" for it, why continue to use it? It's inherently sexist, something you claim to be against. If you aren't interested in debate, that's fine. But when you just dismiss people's opinions as "mansplaining," are you really surprised when they respond defensively?

Personally, I hate it when people refuse to explain their opinions. It usually means they don't want to hear anything that might undermine their beliefs or force them to question their own reasoning.

These anti-bullying campaigns are always so worthless. No bully is going to suddenly stop bullying just because they are told not to do so. Crass as this may sound, school shootings are probably the most effective deterrent to bullying, though only if the bullies can establish a correlation between the two and believe that a shooting could actually occur at their school. Bullies only do what they do if they think they can get away with it, much like criminals. Fear of reprisal makes them think twice.

You must have the shortest attention span ever. You played like 10 minutes of a game before giving up on it. That's like watching 2 minutes of a movie and then walking out of the theater.