4 ms·

Please read the article! He gives them the choice between the "standard" punishment (days in jail and such) and his "unorthodox punishments". And the later are,

Please read the article! He gives them the choice between the "standard" punishment (days in jail and such) and his "unorthodox punishments". And the later are, as close as possible, focused on repairing the problem, not punishing.

koboll 7y ago
I don't know, his punishments seem to vary in quality quite a bit. On one hand, making a nanny who hit a child research and write a report on the effects of child abuse seems like an extremely good way to deter recidivism, and make an impression on the defendant. On the other hand, making someone do an embarrassing public stunt seems like it would make them famous for the wrong reasons, severely handicapping their ability to find work in the future, to the point that it's ultimately worse than a short jail sentence. Embarrassing someone doesn't fix anything for them.
- ryanmarsh 7y ago
  Situations vary quite a bit.
- papln 7y ago
  Indeed. At least in the examples in Wikipedia, the punishments seem to focus more on making the defendant feel bad (in a hopefully educational way, not merely suffering), which is less good than making some form of reparation or restoration. The legal system already has a notion of community service as an alternative to jail; there is a lot of room for community service that uplifts victims while educating perpetrators. For example, a nanny who hit a child could be sentenced to XX hours of sewing blankets for children in hospitals and orphanages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice
ceejayoz 7y ago
You're missing the point, though. Having the freedom to issue unusual punishments can be beneficial when the judge is positively motivated, but the same powers in the hands of a cruel or vindictive judge offer enormous potential for abuse.
- burkaman 7y ago
  I agree, but I think mandatory minimums and other forced sentencing requirements have much worse consequences. Having humans in the justice system with the freedom to make judgement calls is just a fact of life we have to live with.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    There's ways we can mitigate the potential damage. For example, give judges the power to issue unusual sentences, or ones violating the minimums, but have those sentences trigger an automatic review by an independent panel (perhaps a couple of appeals judges or something).
- papln 7y ago
  People in power can be "positively motivated" to do terrible things. This is the history of abuse of power. The unusual punisments can be beneficial when the judge and also the defendant, and victims (or their representatives) agree agree that the punishment is restorative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice
morley 7y ago
I did read that. Giving a choice is better than not giving a choice, but I think my point still stands: a judge with malevolent creativity can do harm, whether they offer a choice or not. Consider a case where someone purposefully gives a bad alternative, or one that sounds worse to defendants, and later points out "I gave them a choice, they still took the years willingly."
wott 7y ago
> And the later are, as close as possible, focused on repairing the problem, not punishing. From the list, it seems that many belong to the "an eye for an eye" category rather than to the "repairing a problem" category.

koboll 7y ago

I don't know, his punishments seem to vary in quality quite a bit. On one hand, making a nanny who hit a child research and write a report on the effects of child abuse seems like an extremely good way to deter recidivism, and make an impression on the defendant. On the other hand, making someone do an embarrassing public stunt seems like it would make them famous for the wrong reasons, severely handicapping their ability to find work in the future, to the point that it's ultimately worse than a short jail sentence. Embarrassing someone doesn't fix anything for them.

ryanmarsh 7y ago
Situations vary quite a bit.
papln 7y ago
Indeed. At least in the examples in Wikipedia, the punishments seem to focus more on making the defendant feel bad (in a hopefully educational way, not merely suffering), which is less good than making some form of reparation or restoration. The legal system already has a notion of community service as an alternative to jail; there is a lot of room for community service that uplifts victims while educating perpetrators. For example, a nanny who hit a child could be sentenced to XX hours of sewing blankets for children in hospitals and orphanages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice

ceejayoz 7y ago

You're missing the point, though. Having the freedom to issue unusual punishments can be beneficial when the judge is positively motivated, but the same powers in the hands of a cruel or vindictive judge offer enormous potential for abuse.

burkaman 7y ago
I agree, but I think mandatory minimums and other forced sentencing requirements have much worse consequences. Having humans in the justice system with the freedom to make judgement calls is just a fact of life we have to live with.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  There's ways we can mitigate the potential damage. For example, give judges the power to issue unusual sentences, or ones violating the minimums, but have those sentences trigger an automatic review by an independent panel (perhaps a couple of appeals judges or something).
papln 7y ago
People in power can be "positively motivated" to do terrible things. This is the history of abuse of power. The unusual punisments can be beneficial when the judge and also the defendant, and victims (or their representatives) agree agree that the punishment is restorative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice

morley 7y ago

I did read that. Giving a choice is better than not giving a choice, but I think my point still stands: a judge with malevolent creativity can do harm, whether they offer a choice or not. Consider a case where someone purposefully gives a bad alternative, or one that sounds worse to defendants, and later points out "I gave them a choice, they still took the years willingly."

wott 7y ago

> And the later are, as close as possible, focused on repairing the problem, not punishing. From the list, it seems that many belong to the "an eye for an eye" category rather than to the "repairing a problem" category.