3 ms·

Why do you say "probably not deterrence" and then write a paragraph arguing in favor of deterrence?

rayiner 9y ago
Usually what people mean by deterrence is the idea that people won't commit crimes because of the fear of punishment weighted by the risk of getting caught. I don't think that has much real effect, because the risk of getting caught is generally low. I'm talking about something somewhat different, which is that we use punishment of certain conduct to reinforce (or to establish) the social norm that the conduct is bad and shameful. Take something like sexual harassment. Overt sexual harassment was much more common in the 1980s than today. One could hypothesize that this is because we started punishing sexual harassment by firing people for doing it. That begs the question: would men sexually harass their coworkers if there was no risk of punishment? Most men would say no. But are men today just better people than men 40 years ago? Probably not. Rather, what we've done through punishment is create a social norm. In most people, violating a social norm creates negative feelings even in the absence of punishment. What I'm describing is like deterrence, but different in important ways. Classic deterrence suggests a rational calculus: if the benefit is greater than the punishment weighted by the risk of getting caught, people will engage in the behavior. That suggests that you can decrease crime through harsher sentences and more aggressive enforcement. But that doesn't square with observed reality: in many European countries, for example, the maximum sentence for murder is only 15 years, but people commit far fewer murders than in the U.S. If you view the point of the criminal justice system as establishing social norms, then the length of punishment and aggressiveness of enforcement matter a lot less. So long as both are enough to clearly establish the social norm, that's sufficient to discourage ordinary people from engaging in the undesirable conduct.
- speedplane 9y ago
  > If you view the point of the criminal justice system as establishing social norms, then the length of punishment and aggressiveness of enforcement matter a lot less. The more basic type of deterrence is a strong justification for our justice system, but your point that it also exists to adjust social norms is excellent, and often not considered. You referred to prosecutors, but it's not just the government that doles out social norms... Back in the 1950s and 60s, civil rights leaders would drive from town to town defending black people accused of crimes. They were great lawyers, but due to a variety of reasons (the big one being racism), they lost case after case. The vast majority of their cases actually. Even though they lost many cases, the very fact that these well spoken lawyers were representing people of color started setting social norms. They were fighting back. They cross-examined white witnesses, and showed everyone was entitled to a good lawyer, and that the word of a white person could not be trusted any more than a person of color. The point is that courts are often used as a vehicle for larger social change. It's generally free to engage (minus your time), you get an public audience, you get agents of the state to make official pronouncements (e.g., the judge, jury, prosecutor), and even the accused and lawyers get to say their bit in a (relatively) safe environment.

Usually what people mean by deterrence is the idea that people won't commit crimes because of the fear of punishment weighted by the risk of getting caught. I don't think that has much real effect, because the risk of getting caught is generally low. I'm talking about something somewhat different, which is that we use punishment of certain conduct to reinforce (or to establish) the social norm that the conduct is bad and shameful. Take something like sexual harassment. Overt sexual harassment was much more common in the 1980s than today. One could hypothesize that this is because we started punishing sexual harassment by firing people for doing it. That begs the question: would men sexually harass their coworkers if there was no risk of punishment? Most men would say no. But are men today just better people than men 40 years ago? Probably not. Rather, what we've done through punishment is create a social norm. In most people, violating a social norm creates negative feelings even in the absence of punishment. What I'm describing is like deterrence, but different in important ways. Classic deterrence suggests a rational calculus: if the benefit is greater than the punishment weighted by the risk of getting caught, people will engage in the behavior. That suggests that you can decrease crime through harsher sentences and more aggressive enforcement. But that doesn't square with observed reality: in many European countries, for example, the maximum sentence for murder is only 15 years, but people commit far fewer murders than in the U.S. If you view the point of the criminal justice system as establishing social norms, then the length of punishment and aggressiveness of enforcement matter a lot less. So long as both are enough to clearly establish the social norm, that's sufficient to discourage ordinary people from engaging in the undesirable conduct.

speedplane 9y ago
> If you view the point of the criminal justice system as establishing social norms, then the length of punishment and aggressiveness of enforcement matter a lot less. The more basic type of deterrence is a strong justification for our justice system, but your point that it also exists to adjust social norms is excellent, and often not considered. You referred to prosecutors, but it's not just the government that doles out social norms... Back in the 1950s and 60s, civil rights leaders would drive from town to town defending black people accused of crimes. They were great lawyers, but due to a variety of reasons (the big one being racism), they lost case after case. The vast majority of their cases actually. Even though they lost many cases, the very fact that these well spoken lawyers were representing people of color started setting social norms. They were fighting back. They cross-examined white witnesses, and showed everyone was entitled to a good lawyer, and that the word of a white person could not be trusted any more than a person of color. The point is that courts are often used as a vehicle for larger social change. It's generally free to engage (minus your time), you get an public audience, you get agents of the state to make official pronouncements (e.g., the judge, jury, prosecutor), and even the accused and lawyers get to say their bit in a (relatively) safe environment.