3 ms·
> The point is to not make it an affordable option, no matter how rich you are. The only thing the sufficiently rich can't call-and-raise you on is time. Ficti
by eropple 6y ago
> The point is to not make it an affordable option, no matter how rich you are.
The only thing the sufficiently rich can't call-and-raise you on is time. Fictional sums of money, sums that may be less than likely to ever really be paid, are more easily reckoned with than jail time.
- Spivak 6y agoStill not a great system unfortunately. Time based punishments still disproportionately punish the poor who have less of it. Suffering based punishments hurt everyone equally, they don’t waste a person’s time they could be contributing something positive to the world and can be scaled to fit the crime. One hell of a deterrent too.
- eropple 6y agoEntirely true. There are crimes, particularly ones against the body politic, where it a reasonable disincentive on top of the reparative justice of paying for cleanup, though. Reparations are still important--but those reparations will just not raise enough of a threat to prevent it from being done again. Adding some blood is really the only option. Because, candidly, the poor aren't dumping toxic waste in factory quantities.
- naniwaduni 6y agoSuffering-based punishments disproportionately punish the chronically unhappy, who have less non-suffering.
- oauea 6y agoWait, are you advocating torture?
- Spivak 6y agoSorta? I say this only speaking for myself. Given the option between a jail or prison sentence and receiving corporeal punishment I would take the latter always. I draw the line at anything that causes permanent harm or actual torture (which is an "I know it when I see it kinda thing.") Things that would be absolutely miserable but I would do. * Physical exertion like having to run suicides. * Being forced to stand in an uncomfortable position hours. * Being belted/caned/shocked so many times. * Forced labor.
- learnstats2 6y ago> One hell of a deterrent too. Psychology says no.