3 ms·

> I don't care about a populations' propensity to reoffend at a societal level, I care that a specific individual hurt me and they need to make it right somehow

by cbanek 9y ago

> I don't care about a populations' propensity to reoffend at a societal level, I care that a specific individual hurt me and they need to make it right somehow or suffer consequences. This seems pretty shortsighted to what incarceration can do to say, families. While you say you _demand_ people be punished if they hurt you, you're also demanding their family and kids be punished as well. Did the kid ask for this? This is the kind of cycle that easily repeats. Children from broken / distressed homes have more trouble in life and are more likely to offend. And the cycle begins again. Making everyone worse.

smallnamespace 9y ago
By that logic, you wouldn't fire an underperforming employee, because it could negatively affect their family and kids? I'm not saying getting fired and going to prison have equivalent effects, but expecting that no person should be punished because it can detrimentally affect people close to them doesn't seem like a reasonable argument.
- cbanek 9y ago
  That's an interesting point. The big difference between prison and business are that the business is out to make a profit from you being there. If that's not happening, then sure, you should be let go. You could say the same thing about downsizing employees, since they are not even underperforming, but you don't need them anymore. It's not a business place to take up the slack for society. That's government's job. Do I think there's a place for government to provide unemployment and welfare benefits for families? Yes, and they do. The point I was trying to make is that there's a difference between being punished because it's good for society, and punished to provide a sense of vengeance or justice for the victim. We should isolate people that are a danger to society, like murderers. But as soon as it's about the "feeling of justice" for the victim, emotions get complicated and are hard to measure and be fair about. What we really need is all this in balance and to look at the macro level, as well as the micro, and try to find something that works.
- jononor 9y ago
  If the employee didn't have any other good options, and the company could survive it, then certainly. Of course this is easy for me to say.. In Norway unemployment benefits are good an unemployment rate low, so it's quite likely that the person would be fine. But even so, it is less likely that someone would be fired for 'underperforming' compared to say the US.

by cbanek 9y ago

smallnamespace 9y ago

By that logic, you wouldn't fire an underperforming employee, because it could negatively affect their family and kids? I'm not saying getting fired and going to prison have equivalent effects, but expecting that no person should be punished because it can detrimentally affect people close to them doesn't seem like a reasonable argument.

cbanek 9y ago
That's an interesting point. The big difference between prison and business are that the business is out to make a profit from you being there. If that's not happening, then sure, you should be let go. You could say the same thing about downsizing employees, since they are not even underperforming, but you don't need them anymore. It's not a business place to take up the slack for society. That's government's job. Do I think there's a place for government to provide unemployment and welfare benefits for families? Yes, and they do. The point I was trying to make is that there's a difference between being punished because it's good for society, and punished to provide a sense of vengeance or justice for the victim. We should isolate people that are a danger to society, like murderers. But as soon as it's about the "feeling of justice" for the victim, emotions get complicated and are hard to measure and be fair about. What we really need is all this in balance and to look at the macro level, as well as the micro, and try to find something that works.
jononor 9y ago
If the employee didn't have any other good options, and the company could survive it, then certainly. Of course this is easy for me to say.. In Norway unemployment benefits are good an unemployment rate low, so it's quite likely that the person would be fine. But even so, it is less likely that someone would be fired for 'underperforming' compared to say the US.