3 ms·

Aren't all punishments deterrents tho?

geofft 7y ago
No - 'rayiner gave the example of punishing someone who killed their abusive spouse. First, the actual punishment certainly doesn't deter them from committing the same crime again in the future (they are, statistically at least, not particularly likely to marry another abusive spouse). Second, the threat of future punishment is almost certainly insufficient to dissuade them from the original act: if they feel like they're in immediate physical danger, they probably are reasoning that it would be worth it for them to risk punishment. Besides desperation, there's also passion and mental instability. There's enough cases where you might just not be thinking about the potential punishment at all when committing a crime, meaning it doesn't deter you. For mental instability, we as a society have mostly decided we're okay with reducing/eliminating punishment (and perhaps that you should be institutionalized instead); for passion we generally haven't decided that, except perhaps with the concept of "temporary insanity."
Normal_gaussian 7y ago
No. A punishment fails as a deterrent if: + it is not expected + it is not understood + it is not net negative The first, not expected, fits when; one believes their actions are legal and then they are found not to be (correctly or incorrectly); one expects a different punishment to the one given, and the expected punishment was not a deterrent (often seen in fraud cases). The second, not understood, fits when one expects the punishment but failed to understand its impact on them. For example, those incarcerated may misunderstand the lasting trauma of loss of privacy, agency, and family. The third, not a net negative applies in cases where the punishment is deemed an acceptable risk or cost, or even desirable. Desirable has repeatedly been the case for the extremely impoverished or ill. Acceptable cost is seen in many corporate dealings, but mainly speeding and parking tickets for the individual. Acceptable risk is even more the corporate case (legal departments evaluate legal risk constantly) but is also the case for career criminals and moonshot criminals.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  I'd argue that you often only need one of those criteria. Witness Vinod Khosla and his battles: he has expected fines, understands them (though disagrees), and the net negative is (in his case) so trivial as to be negligible. "Oh, you want to fine me $10,000/day? Well, go for it. By the end of my life that might amount to 3% of my net worth".
  - Normal_gaussian 7y ago
    That was in fact what I was attempting to convey. It was unfortunate that each point was formatted onto one line - I forgot that HN does not use markdown!
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > A punishment fails as a deterrent if: > + it is not expected + it is not understood + it is not net negative Also if it is not expected to be avoided if the behavior sought to be deterred is avoided. The perception that a punishment is applied arbitrarily or with prejudice on grounds other than the behavior notionally justifying it defeats its value as deterrent as surely as a lack of perception that it will be applied if the behavior occurs.

No - 'rayiner gave the example of punishing someone who killed their abusive spouse. First, the actual punishment certainly doesn't deter them from committing the same crime again in the future (they are, statistically at least, not particularly likely to marry another abusive spouse). Second, the threat of future punishment is almost certainly insufficient to dissuade them from the original act: if they feel like they're in immediate physical danger, they probably are reasoning that it would be worth it for them to risk punishment. Besides desperation, there's also passion and mental instability. There's enough cases where you might just not be thinking about the potential punishment at all when committing a crime, meaning it doesn't deter you. For mental instability, we as a society have mostly decided we're okay with reducing/eliminating punishment (and perhaps that you should be institutionalized instead); for passion we generally haven't decided that, except perhaps with the concept of "temporary insanity."

Normal_gaussian 7y ago

No. A punishment fails as a deterrent if: + it is not expected + it is not understood + it is not net negative The first, not expected, fits when; one believes their actions are legal and then they are found not to be (correctly or incorrectly); one expects a different punishment to the one given, and the expected punishment was not a deterrent (often seen in fraud cases). The second, not understood, fits when one expects the punishment but failed to understand its impact on them. For example, those incarcerated may misunderstand the lasting trauma of loss of privacy, agency, and family. The third, not a net negative applies in cases where the punishment is deemed an acceptable risk or cost, or even desirable. Desirable has repeatedly been the case for the extremely impoverished or ill. Acceptable cost is seen in many corporate dealings, but mainly speeding and parking tickets for the individual. Acceptable risk is even more the corporate case (legal departments evaluate legal risk constantly) but is also the case for career criminals and moonshot criminals.

FireBeyond 7y ago
I'd argue that you often only need one of those criteria. Witness Vinod Khosla and his battles: he has expected fines, understands them (though disagrees), and the net negative is (in his case) so trivial as to be negligible. "Oh, you want to fine me $10,000/day? Well, go for it. By the end of my life that might amount to 3% of my net worth".
- Normal_gaussian 7y ago
  That was in fact what I was attempting to convey. It was unfortunate that each point was formatted onto one line - I forgot that HN does not use markdown!
dragonwriter 7y ago
> A punishment fails as a deterrent if: > + it is not expected + it is not understood + it is not net negative Also if it is not expected to be avoided if the behavior sought to be deterred is avoided. The perception that a punishment is applied arbitrarily or with prejudice on grounds other than the behavior notionally justifying it defeats its value as deterrent as surely as a lack of perception that it will be applied if the behavior occurs.