4 ms·

That's the "punitive" side of things. Certainly, it seems "fair" to ensure the punishment is equal to the crime, but fair isn't the same as just. Why don't you

That's the "punitive" side of things. Certainly, it seems "fair" to ensure the punishment is equal to the crime, but fair isn't the same as just. Why don't you go Code of Hammurabi on someone, and inflict the same kind of injury? The logic still holds. Of course, it now requires people willing to commit torture and rape and the like, to equal the crime, but that's the logical conclusion of trying to be "fair". But even without taking it to its conclusion, I'd contend "fairness" as you define it there isn't necessarily the best outcome for society; an ex-hacker is probably an excellent choice when hiring for electronic security, an ex-robber an excellent choice for hiring for physical security, etc. Even a murderer can go on to great things that benefit society. I mean, hell, Miguel De Cervantes, author of Don Quixote, the first modern novel, wrote his first published work while in prison. The Birdman of Alcatraz (Robert Stroud), a murderer, published major works in ornithology, and found a cure for a bird disease. Rehabilitated criminals can still benefit all of us, as well as redeem themselves in their own eyes by doing good for themselves and their loved ones. But all that aside, you're saying you believe the additional punishment should be societal scorn carried out by vigilantes (i.e., average citizens deciding the person shouldn't hold a job even though they've paid the price the courts decided on)? That hardly seems just or 'fair'.

waterhouse 6y ago
There is a rights-based approach in which (a) yes, someone inflicting a harm on you gives you the right to inflict a proportionate harm on them; (b) you can then go to them and threaten to inflict this harm, and usually get them to agree to pay you a fine instead, thus benefiting both of you. Labor could be used to substitute for a fine if someone can't pay, although I think in today's prisons the prisoners don't necessarily do work. There are problems. For example, breaking a professional tennis player's arm may be much more career-damaging, and arguably "worse", than breaking a professional chess player's arm; and excessive retaliation is itself a crime. In that case, it may be good to get a judge or some such to evaluate the severity before carrying out the retaliation. That also goes for judging the evidence—obviously, punishing someone for a crime they didn't commit is itself a crime. So one could imagine this turning into something at least vaguely resembling today's court system.
- RobertKerans 6y ago
  This is a jaw-droppingly horrific system you're imagining. Amongst other things you've effectively insulted rich criminals from any repercussions, and basically given them a slave underclass (please, no snarky comments about current justice system). Do you genuinely think this a good idea?
  - waterhouse 6y ago
    Our current legal system has evolved over many hundreds of years. I merely describe a set of initial conditions and a few possible early developments. The space of things it might evolve into seems pretty wide. I do suspect some of those things would be good. That said, in the meantime: There have existed societies in which the penalty for murder was to pay a fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild Also, this doesn't insulate rich criminals from all repercussions. If they have enough money to pay the fines when murdering tens of people... well, you could try killing the criminal directly. You can do that today as well, if you're prepared to pay the price. A really rich criminal could hire bodyguards, of course, but those would be costly, imperfect, and have some chance of turning against their employer. Ultimately it would become a rich guy in charge of an organized criminal gang, which... is also something that exists today.
    - RobertKerans 6y ago
      We know how this goes, because forms of it are what the current system evolved into; there are obvious descendents of what you say in the legal system. But that doesn't mean applying it literally, as with your "early developments", wouldn't have awful consequences. > ...If they have enough money to pay the fines when murdering tens of people... It's not about "murdering tens of people". It's killing someone whilst drunk driving, or murdering someone in an argument. These situations clearly still happen in the current system. But with what you're saying codifies that, if someonene is rich, as long as their crime is not against someone else rich, they can generally avoid any repercussions. Blood libel is still a thing, can literally see it in action in countries which have legal systems that allow it.
- 6y ago

waterhouse 6y ago

There is a rights-based approach in which (a) yes, someone inflicting a harm on you gives you the right to inflict a proportionate harm on them; (b) you can then go to them and threaten to inflict this harm, and usually get them to agree to pay you a fine instead, thus benefiting both of you. Labor could be used to substitute for a fine if someone can't pay, although I think in today's prisons the prisoners don't necessarily do work. There are problems. For example, breaking a professional tennis player's arm may be much more career-damaging, and arguably "worse", than breaking a professional chess player's arm; and excessive retaliation is itself a crime. In that case, it may be good to get a judge or some such to evaluate the severity before carrying out the retaliation. That also goes for judging the evidence—obviously, punishing someone for a crime they didn't commit is itself a crime. So one could imagine this turning into something at least vaguely resembling today's court system.

RobertKerans 6y ago
This is a jaw-droppingly horrific system you're imagining. Amongst other things you've effectively insulted rich criminals from any repercussions, and basically given them a slave underclass (please, no snarky comments about current justice system). Do you genuinely think this a good idea?
- waterhouse 6y ago
  Our current legal system has evolved over many hundreds of years. I merely describe a set of initial conditions and a few possible early developments. The space of things it might evolve into seems pretty wide. I do suspect some of those things would be good. That said, in the meantime: There have existed societies in which the penalty for murder was to pay a fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild Also, this doesn't insulate rich criminals from all repercussions. If they have enough money to pay the fines when murdering tens of people... well, you could try killing the criminal directly. You can do that today as well, if you're prepared to pay the price. A really rich criminal could hire bodyguards, of course, but those would be costly, imperfect, and have some chance of turning against their employer. Ultimately it would become a rich guy in charge of an organized criminal gang, which... is also something that exists today.
  - RobertKerans 6y ago
    We know how this goes, because forms of it are what the current system evolved into; there are obvious descendents of what you say in the legal system. But that doesn't mean applying it literally, as with your "early developments", wouldn't have awful consequences. > ...If they have enough money to pay the fines when murdering tens of people... It's not about "murdering tens of people". It's killing someone whilst drunk driving, or murdering someone in an argument. These situations clearly still happen in the current system. But with what you're saying codifies that, if someonene is rich, as long as their crime is not against someone else rich, they can generally avoid any repercussions. Blood libel is still a thing, can literally see it in action in countries which have legal systems that allow it.
6y ago