4 ms·

> if there was "evidence" that not punishing murderers was the "best thing for society" (in terms of rehabilitation, crime rate, etc) would you support that pol

> if there was "evidence" that not punishing murderers was the "best thing for society" (in terms of rehabilitation, crime rate, etc) would you support that policy? For most people, a society that doesn't punish criminals is simply uncivilized. I tend to agree. This is a pretty interesting and concise way to frame this, because I definitely would support such a policy. Punishments carried out by justice systems are a means to an end. It's sad that even today it's considered the most effective tool for general safety and protection of society. It strikes me as really strange to consider punishments for crimes as a sort of state-sponsored revenge.

slibhb 5y ago
It's the fundamental question here. Is justice a "means to an end" or "an end in itself"? You're with the former, I'm with the latter. I would also attack the notion of "evidence" here. The previous poster is not making an empirical argument at all, he's only pretending to. If Scandinavia had more crime than SF, he would pick another example (notice how he dismisses Singapore for...reasons). He's defending an a priori belief, as am I. Empiricism fails us here, we're arguing over values. > It strikes me as really strange to consider punishments for crimes as a sort of state-sponsored revenge. Justice is carried out by a disinterested third party (the state), revenge is not.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  >notice how he dismisses Singapore for...reasons My point wasn't that punishment doesn't deter crime (it clearly does), but that crime rates are far more dependent on social and economic factors. Singapore and Scandinavia are quite similar in this regard (socially harmonious and prosperous, with a well educated lower class), even though they differ completely on attitudes towards crime and punishment. Both nations have low crime. America and Brazil (for example) both have a poorly educated, struggling-to-survive underclass whose needs are broadly ignored by the rest of society. Both have high crime rates. Give me a country with a despised underclass and low crime and I'll gladly concede.
  - thenanyu 5y ago
    > Give me a country with a despised underclass and low crime and I'll gladly concede. China?
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      Fair cop.
    - nradov 5y ago
      China has a low rate of violent crime and shoplifting. But corruption is off the charts.
      - mmmBacon 5y ago
        And China also executes more people than any other and has the harshest penalties for crime. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/04/china-must-come-clean-about-capital-punishment/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/04/china-must-co...
        ransom1538 5y ago
        Westerner: "Did you see that drug bust in Shanghai China yesterday? Two pounds of marijuana!". Chinese National: "Yes. I hear they received 2 days." Westerner: "2 days! That isn't that bad. You can do a lot more time in the states -- well at least in Texas. It's legal now on the entire west coast." Chinese National: "No. No. 2 days to live."
    - nemothekid 5y ago
      I’m not sure China fit the bill “despised under class”. It would seem to me that China’s (Han Chinese) underclass, at least in urban cities, have a lot more access to welfare, like the GP was saying about Singapore
      - thenanyu 5y ago
        In China, the underclass are literally second class citizens who risk being exiled from major cities should they get into trouble. Social services are not available to them.
- TomatoDash 5y ago
  "justice ... Empiricism fails us here, we're arguing over values." Values can depend on descriptive background assumptions and in such cases value arguments can improve by making progress on factual topics. In the case of the justness of punishment: the topic of determinism. The recent discussion by Daniel Dennett and Greg Caruso in their book "Just Deserts - Debating Free Will" is a useful read.
- danielheath 5y ago
  Even with different values, there’s room for common ground. For instance, you could both support programs to prevent people turning to crime (proactively), without changing the strictness of enforcement. Assuming they were effective, that would make progress on both the safety and social justice angles. This is how you create effective change at scale - not focusing on the points where your values guarantee conflict, but finding approaches that can have broad support.
- notSupplied 5y ago
  If you learned that punishment produced no useful benefit to society, and you want to punish anyway, then what you’re seeking is revenge, not justice.
- 8note 5y ago
  I would think the state is a very interested party
mushbino 5y ago
Crime rate is strongly related to poverty. Stronger punishments don't change that and in fact have the opposite affect. If we work on that we can make some progress. The US has the largest prison population in the world by a large margin and we still have a relatively high crime rate overall, especially when it comes to violent crime. Putting more people in prison is not a solution to our problems as we can clearly see. It really helps to look at the numbers to wrap your head around it, but here is a lot of good data to start understanding the issue. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html There is a lot of data and research out there regarding these issues, that's the good news. The bad news is that few people want to take the time to read it. One more: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-prisons-make-us-safer/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-prisons-make-u...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
  The two approaches are not mutually exclusive No one wants to put more people in jail. I think poster is saying instead, policy should not encourage more criminals. If you have X pool of existing law breakers, policy goal is to keep a % subset of X out of the prison system. However, policy is increasing the size of X, to X+1.

slibhb 5y ago

It's the fundamental question here. Is justice a "means to an end" or "an end in itself"? You're with the former, I'm with the latter. I would also attack the notion of "evidence" here. The previous poster is not making an empirical argument at all, he's only pretending to. If Scandinavia had more crime than SF, he would pick another example (notice how he dismisses Singapore for...reasons). He's defending an a priori belief, as am I. Empiricism fails us here, we're arguing over values. > It strikes me as really strange to consider punishments for crimes as a sort of state-sponsored revenge. Justice is carried out by a disinterested third party (the state), revenge is not.

AussieWog93 5y ago
>notice how he dismisses Singapore for...reasons My point wasn't that punishment doesn't deter crime (it clearly does), but that crime rates are far more dependent on social and economic factors. Singapore and Scandinavia are quite similar in this regard (socially harmonious and prosperous, with a well educated lower class), even though they differ completely on attitudes towards crime and punishment. Both nations have low crime. America and Brazil (for example) both have a poorly educated, struggling-to-survive underclass whose needs are broadly ignored by the rest of society. Both have high crime rates. Give me a country with a despised underclass and low crime and I'll gladly concede.
- thenanyu 5y ago
  > Give me a country with a despised underclass and low crime and I'll gladly concede. China?
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    Fair cop.
  - nradov 5y ago
    China has a low rate of violent crime and shoplifting. But corruption is off the charts.
    - mmmBacon 5y ago
      And China also executes more people than any other and has the harshest penalties for crime. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/04/china-must-come-clean-about-capital-punishment/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/04/china-must-co...
      - ransom1538 5y ago
        Westerner: "Did you see that drug bust in Shanghai China yesterday? Two pounds of marijuana!". Chinese National: "Yes. I hear they received 2 days." Westerner: "2 days! That isn't that bad. You can do a lot more time in the states -- well at least in Texas. It's legal now on the entire west coast." Chinese National: "No. No. 2 days to live."
  - nemothekid 5y ago
    I’m not sure China fit the bill “despised under class”. It would seem to me that China’s (Han Chinese) underclass, at least in urban cities, have a lot more access to welfare, like the GP was saying about Singapore
    - thenanyu 5y ago
      In China, the underclass are literally second class citizens who risk being exiled from major cities should they get into trouble. Social services are not available to them.
TomatoDash 5y ago
"justice ... Empiricism fails us here, we're arguing over values." Values can depend on descriptive background assumptions and in such cases value arguments can improve by making progress on factual topics. In the case of the justness of punishment: the topic of determinism. The recent discussion by Daniel Dennett and Greg Caruso in their book "Just Deserts - Debating Free Will" is a useful read.
danielheath 5y ago
Even with different values, there’s room for common ground. For instance, you could both support programs to prevent people turning to crime (proactively), without changing the strictness of enforcement. Assuming they were effective, that would make progress on both the safety and social justice angles. This is how you create effective change at scale - not focusing on the points where your values guarantee conflict, but finding approaches that can have broad support.
notSupplied 5y ago
If you learned that punishment produced no useful benefit to society, and you want to punish anyway, then what you’re seeking is revenge, not justice.
8note 5y ago
I would think the state is a very interested party

mushbino 5y ago

Crime rate is strongly related to poverty. Stronger punishments don't change that and in fact have the opposite affect. If we work on that we can make some progress. The US has the largest prison population in the world by a large margin and we still have a relatively high crime rate overall, especially when it comes to violent crime. Putting more people in prison is not a solution to our problems as we can clearly see. It really helps to look at the numbers to wrap your head around it, but here is a lot of good data to start understanding the issue. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html There is a lot of data and research out there regarding these issues, that's the good news. The bad news is that few people want to take the time to read it. One more: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-prisons-make-us-safer/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-prisons-make-u...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
The two approaches are not mutually exclusive No one wants to put more people in jail. I think poster is saying instead, policy should not encourage more criminals. If you have X pool of existing law breakers, policy goal is to keep a % subset of X out of the prison system. However, policy is increasing the size of X, to X+1.