3 ms·

Firstly: I don’t see punishment as separate from deterrence. If a different deterrence strategy works better, it should be used preferentially. Secondly: This

by jl2718 5y ago

Firstly: I don’t see punishment as separate from deterrence. If a different deterrence strategy works better, it should be used preferentially. Secondly: This doesn’t capture the need to remove people incapable of integrating with society. Rehabilitation does not capture the reality of the situation. US jails contain many people that do not have the mental faculties to resist overt victimization of vulnerable people. There may also be thoughtful people mixed in, but these groups are nothing alike.

paledot 5y ago
It should not be different, but it is. Strictness of punishment does not directly correlate to deterrence. However, laypeople don't know or care; they want their pound of flesh. The GP's list is very much laid out in priority order according to practical American policy, although it misses 0) profit for private prison operators.
- analyst74 5y ago
  > Strictness of punishment does not directly correlate to deterrence. I used to believe in this, but SF proved it wrong. Simplify writing up or catch-and-release has caused the city's crime rate to go through the roof.
  - jl2718 5y ago
    I think the point is that the deterrence effect has diminishing marginal gains. Works well for petty crimes with clear intention.
    - josephg 5y ago
      Yep. My understanding is that the strictness of penalties has almost no bearing on the murder rate. Most murders are either crimes of passion, or committed with the assumption the perp will never being caught. Murderers aren't thinking - "Hm, 20 years of prison I could handle but 25 years is too much. I suppose I won't murder my wife when I find her in bed with another man." Increasing the penalties for murder is an extremely ineffective way to reduce the murder rate.
Aerroon 5y ago
>Firstly: I don’t see punishment as separate from deterrence. I think the simplest way to see the difference between punishment and deterrence is in nature. We learn not to touch a hot stove by getting our hand burnt. It's usually not very painful, but because it happens immediately and every single time we quickly figure out that touching a hot anything is a bad idea. This creates deterrence without a heavy punishment. Sometimes a heavy punishment can also cause deference by itself though. Eg messing around with mains electricity. You probably won't get shocked if you're careful, but if you do then the damage can be very severe.

by jl2718 5y ago

paledot 5y ago

It should not be different, but it is. Strictness of punishment does not directly correlate to deterrence. However, laypeople don't know or care; they want their pound of flesh. The GP's list is very much laid out in priority order according to practical American policy, although it misses 0) profit for private prison operators.

analyst74 5y ago
> Strictness of punishment does not directly correlate to deterrence. I used to believe in this, but SF proved it wrong. Simplify writing up or catch-and-release has caused the city's crime rate to go through the roof.
- jl2718 5y ago
  I think the point is that the deterrence effect has diminishing marginal gains. Works well for petty crimes with clear intention.
  - josephg 5y ago
    Yep. My understanding is that the strictness of penalties has almost no bearing on the murder rate. Most murders are either crimes of passion, or committed with the assumption the perp will never being caught. Murderers aren't thinking - "Hm, 20 years of prison I could handle but 25 years is too much. I suppose I won't murder my wife when I find her in bed with another man." Increasing the penalties for murder is an extremely ineffective way to reduce the murder rate.

Aerroon 5y ago

>Firstly: I don’t see punishment as separate from deterrence. I think the simplest way to see the difference between punishment and deterrence is in nature. We learn not to touch a hot stove by getting our hand burnt. It's usually not very painful, but because it happens immediately and every single time we quickly figure out that touching a hot anything is a bad idea. This creates deterrence without a heavy punishment. Sometimes a heavy punishment can also cause deference by itself though. Eg messing around with mains electricity. You probably won't get shocked if you're careful, but if you do then the damage can be very severe.