2 ms·

I used to feel this way too - I remember writing up drunken notes when I was at college saying exactly the same thing. Punishments from crime have decreased su

I used to feel this way too - I remember writing up drunken notes when I was at college saying exactly the same thing. Punishments from crime have decreased substantially - nobody gets transported or hung for sheep theft anymore. The world has never been a safer place. States with the death penalty are no safer than those without. Fewer people genuinely believe in a Christian (or whatever) hell than in years past. At the same time, religion has faltered as a source in many people's lives. I would argue this means that circumstances that lead people in to crime have decreased rather than a suggestion that people are making choices to commit crime but don't based on deterrence. I appreciate there exist counter arguments to this too, but also feel that if we treated crime as a function of situation rather than morality, we'd find ways to decrease it more cheaply.

jfoutz 10y ago
I guess i'd ask the same question i asked of jeremyjh. With no notion of free will, how do we distinguish between manslaughter and murder? When someone dies, the cost to society is the same either way. A consequence of no free will seems to be it's a distinction without difference. I disagree, but it might just be deeply embedded beliefs that are wrong.
- devishard 10y ago
  > With no notion of free will, how do we distinguish between manslaughter and murder? I'd argue that the distinction is not indicative of a phenomenon that exists. I think a much better model would be predictive and preventive rather than punitive--the level assignment to rehabilitation should be based on the probability and severity of recidivism, rather than the level of punishment being based on the severity of the crime.