Before the 1950s, such perpetrators would face life in prison or as lobotomised inmates of an insane asylum, or execution - if they were native or migrant wouldn't make any difference.
By keeping out problem-races and by consistently getting rid of wrongdoers, all white nations had already low and dropping rates of violent crime, until the 1960s when that development plateued, and the started to rise during the late 1970s after migration of problem-races became more and more commonplace.
It really is that easy, and that also suggest the only real solution.
If using today's methods, yes, if it can be done at all.
But as somewhat scientific-minded, we know that if it is so, you change the methods.
On one hand, virtually closed borders and tightly controlled migration. Rebuild cargo-stations and have all cargoes be re-loaded while being checked by customs. Make the importer/exporter and the logistics company fully financially responsible for costs associated with smuggling goods/persons, including immediate asset seizure. That's just one example of what would take less than a year to set up, and it would have immediate effects.
There are only so many ships and trucks oligarchs funding the invasion are willing to buy.
For convicted felons of certain crimes, make execution/life in labour camp mandatory. If their home nation want them back, they will first pay weregeld: one full share to any victim, one full share to the crown.
To be prefectly blunt: if you execute the most violent 10% of repeat offenders, you drop violent crime by 90%.
When Linnéaus travelled through western Dalarna close to Norway in the 1730s, he noted that wracks with victims upon them were used as border markers. We need not go that far, but the idea is right.
Even if we used 'modernised' methods, it would take decades.
Logistics and possibilities aside, such a policy decision would need to be implemented by successive administrations, irrespective of preferences. And in this latter regard, take Brexit as cautionary tale: they said it's about 'taking back control', esp. w/respect to EU-mediated/facilitated 'immigration' (which isn't the same as 'migration' to begin with). Immigration from non-European countries has increased since Brexit…
You write: 'To be perfectly blunt: if you execute the most violent 10% of repeat offenders, you drop violent crime by 90%.'
That's probably quite 'true', esp. w/respect to any cost/benefit calculation of incarcerating/institutionalising said share of the population.
What you're proposing re: labour camps/execution is eerily reminiscent of about a century ago when no-one would voluntarily take any expellees. Since you also mentioned the 18th-century experience of Linnéaus, well, in Austria Joseph II proposed working to death those condemned to death so society could squeeze some use out of them (he decreed convicts to pull freight barges upstream; life expectancy stood around 6 months).
One doesn't have to agree with M. Foucault (of all people), but 'disciplining' and 'punishment' do go hand-in-glove. Today, we do neither, which invites: desaster.
Well yes - if we are to do it with the (political) constraints of today.
Otherwise, no. Five years, maximum.
No need to work convicts to death or anything like that. Such a system is, besides from being inhumane, /more/ resource intensive than a less inhumane one. The main point is separating the real criminals from the population at large, which can be done quite efficiently: work to keep the camp self-sufficient in firewood, water and food (no livestock, vegetables, hens and bees only) or starve and freeze.
What we do know for certain is this: prison and crime politics and their results since the 1950s are worse when we measure efficiency (to increased cost at that), than before the 1950s (for Sweden at least).
I had hoped that the absence of Austria-Hungary as a colonial power in Africa, India, South America or Asia, along with Austria's payments for being on the wrong side of history in the 20th c, would together have meant a more peaceable and sane nation than the rest of the "West" by the 21st c. It sounds like it's a bloated woke government. Looking from across the pond, I can not tell exactly what I'm seeing. Maybe we should judge a country as hospitable or not based entirely on their public transportation.
Fair point, it's, as shown, not too different in Austria (although the traditional 'at least it's not yet as bad as in Germany' vibe). I do agree that it's hard not to infer ulterior motives these days…
The tragedy of individual cases aside, the immediate politicisation (usually from both sides) is distracting from the facts. Never have human beings lived in safer societies than thos of present-day Europe. There are around 70 murders per year in Austria. Yes, women are always in the majority among the victims but this flips if attempted murder is added to the picture (at least in Germany). Nevertheless, if I type "Mordversuche Österreich" (attempted murders Austria) into google.de, the first 11 (!) hits (and the majority of the top 50) refer to "femicides" specifically... of course, evolutionarily speaking, it makes a lot of sense to care more about the lives of women - but the wokeria, read-as-divine person bless them, will not come near evolutionary, i.e. biological, arguments...
I'm pretty sure some East Asian countries are safer than Europe. That's not really the point, though. The point is: are things getting better or worse in Europe?
It is quite easy, in theory.
Before the 1950s, such perpetrators would face life in prison or as lobotomised inmates of an insane asylum, or execution - if they were native or migrant wouldn't make any difference.
By keeping out problem-races and by consistently getting rid of wrongdoers, all white nations had already low and dropping rates of violent crime, until the 1960s when that development plateued, and the started to rise during the late 1970s after migration of problem-races became more and more commonplace.
It really is that easy, and that also suggest the only real solution.
Even if we started today, whatever we do will take decades to remedy.
If using today's methods, yes, if it can be done at all.
But as somewhat scientific-minded, we know that if it is so, you change the methods.
On one hand, virtually closed borders and tightly controlled migration. Rebuild cargo-stations and have all cargoes be re-loaded while being checked by customs. Make the importer/exporter and the logistics company fully financially responsible for costs associated with smuggling goods/persons, including immediate asset seizure. That's just one example of what would take less than a year to set up, and it would have immediate effects.
There are only so many ships and trucks oligarchs funding the invasion are willing to buy.
For convicted felons of certain crimes, make execution/life in labour camp mandatory. If their home nation want them back, they will first pay weregeld: one full share to any victim, one full share to the crown.
To be prefectly blunt: if you execute the most violent 10% of repeat offenders, you drop violent crime by 90%.
When Linnéaus travelled through western Dalarna close to Norway in the 1730s, he noted that wracks with victims upon them were used as border markers. We need not go that far, but the idea is right.
Even if we used 'modernised' methods, it would take decades.
Logistics and possibilities aside, such a policy decision would need to be implemented by successive administrations, irrespective of preferences. And in this latter regard, take Brexit as cautionary tale: they said it's about 'taking back control', esp. w/respect to EU-mediated/facilitated 'immigration' (which isn't the same as 'migration' to begin with). Immigration from non-European countries has increased since Brexit…
You write: 'To be perfectly blunt: if you execute the most violent 10% of repeat offenders, you drop violent crime by 90%.'
That's probably quite 'true', esp. w/respect to any cost/benefit calculation of incarcerating/institutionalising said share of the population.
What you're proposing re: labour camps/execution is eerily reminiscent of about a century ago when no-one would voluntarily take any expellees. Since you also mentioned the 18th-century experience of Linnéaus, well, in Austria Joseph II proposed working to death those condemned to death so society could squeeze some use out of them (he decreed convicts to pull freight barges upstream; life expectancy stood around 6 months).
One doesn't have to agree with M. Foucault (of all people), but 'disciplining' and 'punishment' do go hand-in-glove. Today, we do neither, which invites: desaster.
Well yes - if we are to do it with the (political) constraints of today.
Otherwise, no. Five years, maximum.
No need to work convicts to death or anything like that. Such a system is, besides from being inhumane, /more/ resource intensive than a less inhumane one. The main point is separating the real criminals from the population at large, which can be done quite efficiently: work to keep the camp self-sufficient in firewood, water and food (no livestock, vegetables, hens and bees only) or starve and freeze.
What we do know for certain is this: prison and crime politics and their results since the 1950s are worse when we measure efficiency (to increased cost at that), than before the 1950s (for Sweden at least).
Can even speak these ideas in the U.S..
I had hoped that the absence of Austria-Hungary as a colonial power in Africa, India, South America or Asia, along with Austria's payments for being on the wrong side of history in the 20th c, would together have meant a more peaceable and sane nation than the rest of the "West" by the 21st c. It sounds like it's a bloated woke government. Looking from across the pond, I can not tell exactly what I'm seeing. Maybe we should judge a country as hospitable or not based entirely on their public transportation.
https://www.berghahnbooks.com/title/BachTropics#:~:text=Description,century%20England%20and%20France%20were.
In Germany, child assault rapists with Northafrican etc background routinely get probation sentences, ... this is not "by chance".
Fair point, it's, as shown, not too different in Austria (although the traditional 'at least it's not yet as bad as in Germany' vibe). I do agree that it's hard not to infer ulterior motives these days…
The tragedy of individual cases aside, the immediate politicisation (usually from both sides) is distracting from the facts. Never have human beings lived in safer societies than thos of present-day Europe. There are around 70 murders per year in Austria. Yes, women are always in the majority among the victims but this flips if attempted murder is added to the picture (at least in Germany). Nevertheless, if I type "Mordversuche Österreich" (attempted murders Austria) into google.de, the first 11 (!) hits (and the majority of the top 50) refer to "femicides" specifically... of course, evolutionarily speaking, it makes a lot of sense to care more about the lives of women - but the wokeria, read-as-divine person bless them, will not come near evolutionary, i.e. biological, arguments...
I'm pretty sure some East Asian countries are safer than Europe. That's not really the point, though. The point is: are things getting better or worse in Europe?
They are getting worse. But maybe they have to, in order to then get better again.
Here's hoping.
Exactly.
Also, I’d argue that the rule of law is built on the presumption of equality under the law.
Therefore, you cannot have media demonise one (identity) group arbitrarily.
Ultimately, this is a political failure as those who abet this behaviour fuel its next-stage evolution.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-did-a-judge-fall-for-abdul-ezedis-lie-that-he-was-a-christian/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Editorial&utm_campaign=BLND%20%2020240327%20%20HOUSE%20ADS%20%20IH+CID_33c1a5b36e43593a19d5a4b6dc1ef11e