4 ms·

This assumes criminals are thinking their actions through. Most probably haven't, yet we treat them as though they have when we apply a punishment..

• toss1 8y ago
  Are you saying that punishments should be lighter because some criminals don't think things through? In some cases they already are, e.g., killing someone by accident or in a fit of passion vs a premeditated murder are usually charged differently. Beyond that, it seems not unreasonable to apply the maxim that "maybe you should stay in jail here as if you'd thought it through, so you might actually think it through next time...".
  • jopsen 8y ago
    Maybe the entire concept of punishment is a mistake? I don't have a solution or a better alternative, just saying that punishment only really makes sense if agents in the system are rational.
    • toss1 8y ago
      Well, that's a whole different discussion. Assume that the criminals are 100% irrational, random, and not influenced by external inputs; even then, inprisonment has a value to society of containing the possibility of bad actions by those bad actors during the prison term. The fact that the recidivism rate is far less than 100% also tells us that criminals are not 100% random, irrational, and unresponsive to external inputs. A significant number do actually rehabilitate, whether by taking advantage of counseling, rethinking their choices, or simple fear of re-inprisonment. So yes, it seems that until we come up with something better, making the system more accurate is the way to go.