2 ms·

I’m using really a weird definition of punishment. That’s my fault. Maybe I should stop doing that. I’m ok with punishment if we know (or if it is at least pla

by ugh 15y ago

I’m using really a weird definition of punishment. That’s my fault. Maybe I should stop doing that. I’m ok with punishment if we know (or if it is at least plausible) that it’s a deterrence. I’m not ok with punishment for the sake of punishment. I’m also not ok with drastic increases in punishment for little or questionable gains in deterrence. To pick an absurd example: If we were to find out that not imprisoning or otherwise punishing murderers would decrease the murder rate I would be all for stopping punishing murderers. If something is an effective way of preventing crimes – even if it’s not punishment – I’m all for it.

pbhjpbhj 15y ago
>If something is an effective way of preventing crimes – even if it’s not punishment – I’m all for it. // OK I think I got that from your previous comment. What I can't see is if there is actually an instance that matches your preference at all. For example in my country minor criminals might be persuaded to meet the people they've offended against. Some may not define this as punishment but it can be a type of humiliation and so I'd class it as a (very minor) punishment. I'd guess you'd be thinking of something like giving free drugs to addicts that rob people to stop them robbing and at the same time just leave the victims to sort themselves out and pay for the crime (ie no levy, no fine, etc.)?? FWIW this example seems injust to me.
- ugh 15y ago
  Again, I’m opposed to punishment for punishment’s sake and civil law doesn’t really have anything to do with that. Of course you should be entitled to damages if someone steals something from you. Paying damages isn’t really what I would call punishment. (It’s just that drug addicts usually won’t be able to actually pay you anything. But that’s just how it is.) I do not know whether there are crimes that can actually be prevented by doing something besides punishment. I just wanted to make clear that I’m open to the possibility.

by ugh 15y ago

pbhjpbhj 15y ago

>If something is an effective way of preventing crimes – even if it’s not punishment – I’m all for it. // OK I think I got that from your previous comment. What I can't see is if there is actually an instance that matches your preference at all. For example in my country minor criminals might be persuaded to meet the people they've offended against. Some may not define this as punishment but it can be a type of humiliation and so I'd class it as a (very minor) punishment. I'd guess you'd be thinking of something like giving free drugs to addicts that rob people to stop them robbing and at the same time just leave the victims to sort themselves out and pay for the crime (ie no levy, no fine, etc.)?? FWIW this example seems injust to me.

ugh 15y ago
Again, I’m opposed to punishment for punishment’s sake and civil law doesn’t really have anything to do with that. Of course you should be entitled to damages if someone steals something from you. Paying damages isn’t really what I would call punishment. (It’s just that drug addicts usually won’t be able to actually pay you anything. But that’s just how it is.) I do not know whether there are crimes that can actually be prevented by doing something besides punishment. I just wanted to make clear that I’m open to the possibility.