7 ms·

The idea of punishment as a deterrent is hopefully dead and buried at this point. The U.S. has one of the harshest prison systems in the developed world, and a

The idea of punishment as a deterrent is hopefully dead and buried at this point. The U.S. has one of the harshest prison systems in the developed world, and an outrageous recidivism rate - 76% of prisoners are arrested again within 5 years of release [1]. Norway, on the other hand, has some of the most humane prisons [2], and a recidivism rate of only 20% [1] [1] https://harvardpolitics.com/recidivism-american-progress/ https://harvardpolitics.com/recidivism-american-progress/ [2] https://norwaytoday.info/culture/what-are-prisons-in-norway-like-really/ https://norwaytoday.info/culture/what-are-prisons-in-norway-...

shakow 4y ago
And Singapore has a very punitive legal system, while featuring a recidivism rate around 20-25%. You can't just take two cherry-picked examples and proclaim the ‶idea of punishment as [...] dead and buried″.
- SiempreViernes 4y ago
  You argue against cherry-picking, and then you think you can prove something with one single example? My dude, the other guy provided 100% more data than you!
  - mrex 4y ago
    >You argue against cherry-picking, and then you think you can prove something with one single example? Well... he can! He can prove, with one example, that the other person's thesis doesn't fit the facts. And he did that. So, yeah.
    - SiempreViernes 4y ago
      Can you please explain your understanding of the word correlation? I'm very curios to hear how your reasoning for how statements about these can be proven by a single data point.
      - mrex 4y ago
        A single data point can be sufficient to contradict a thesis. A correlation is an observation that seemingly unrelated events occur in proximity to each other, temporally or otherwise.
        SiempreViernes 4y ago
        Some theses can be disproved by a single data point, not all, and I asked about a specific type of thesis. I repeat: can you show how a single data point can contradict a statement about the absence of correlation originally claimed?
        mrex 4y ago
        What? I feel like one of us has forgotten how we got here. >The idea of punishment as a deterrent is hopefully dead and buried at this point. That's an absence of correlation claim?
        SiempreViernes 4y ago
        Yes: if punishment was an effective deterrent, then the natural expectation is that there is strong correlation relationship between the level of punishment used and the deterrence effect. Saying punishment doesn't provide deterrence only claims that punishment is not correlated with deterrence. Maybe the examples shown gave the impression that an anti-correlation was claimed, but that is purely an invention of the reader.
  - Archelaos 4y ago
    There is a big difference between proof and falsification. The grant-parent wants to establish a general rule, whereas the parent only wants to falsify it. Usually, a single example is enough for falsification. -- There is only one caveat (that's why I said "usually"): The evidence used for falsification must be true, which in itself is a deduction from many detailed observations. The real flaw in the argument of the parent is, that in a direct comparison between Singapure and Norway Norway still wins: If roughly the same recidivism rates are achieved in a very punitive and a very supportive system, the supportive system is superior according to utilitarian principles.
    - mrex 4y ago
      >The real flaw in the argument of the parent is, that in a direct comparison between Singapure and Norway Norway still wins: If roughly the same recidivism rates are achieved in a very punitive and a very supportive system, the supportive system is superior according to utilitarian principles. Wouldn't that depend on subjectively balancing costs and benefits of the other involved factors? For example, Singapore's system may (or may not, frankly I don't know and it's not important to the logical point I'm making) cost less than Norway's system. In that case, the question would be what value the society places on finding solutions that are supportive rather than punitive. Right?
      - Archelaos 4y ago
        Perhaps. My argument contains an unspoken "ceteris paribus" clause, which is typically the case, when we compare things: that all relevant factors are on the table and everyone agrees on them. To generalise your argument: From a logical point of view, no conclusion is ultimately settled, because it cannot be ruled out that not someday someone comes up with a new and better argument.[1] So when I pointed out a "flaw in the argument", I meant the argument as presented, without additional refinements (as you are trying to develop). A minor detail: When discussing a normative question, it is important to carefully distinguish between normative and descriptive aspects. The descriptive aspects are everything that is the case. The normative aspects are everything that should be the case. Therefore, the question is what value a society should place on finding solutions that are supportive rather than punitive. -- And the idea that norms are up to a certain point "subjectively" is in itself a description whose normative relevance asks for an intense debate. [1] There might exist a few exceptions, such as fundamental logical theorems. But this is too far off from our case.
  - shakow 4y ago
    > You argue against cherry-picking, and then you think you can prove something with one single example? Yes, that's the whole point of a counter-example... If I try to prove the all odd numbers are prime (look, 1, 3, 5, 7, ... – it works!), you telling me that 9 is not is enough to disprove my theory.
    - SiempreViernes 4y ago
      I'm sorry to say, but if you think that you can provide a counter example to the statement "there is no strong correlation" with one single additional data point, you've grievously misunderstood how correlations work.
dolni 4y ago
Only the most naive people think that "punishment as a deterrent" is dead. It only takes a simple thought experiment to see why that idea is stupid. How many additional murders do you think there would be if the punishment for murder was a day in prison instead of 10 or more years? How many aggrieved ex-spouses, neighbors, and coworkers would turn to violence to solve their problems? The answer is: a lot.
- avianlyric 4y ago
  You’re gonna have to back up that “though experiment” with some data. Or at least a logical explanation, as to why you think the majority of the population are homicidal maniacs, held in check by the threat of prison time. Otherwise your comment is little more that a dark speculative fantasy.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > Or at least a logical explanation, as to why you think the majority of the population are homicidal maniacs, held in check by the threat of prison time. You don't need the MAJORITY of the population to be homicidal maniacs, only held in check by the thread of punishment to see a marked rise in homicides. I'd guess that even with a low rate of one out of every thousand people being homicidal maniacs only kept in check by the threat of force, you'd get 200x or more homicides than you have now. After all, a homicidal maniac will, almost by definition, kill repeatedly, and since (in this hypothetical situation) they are not punished for it, there's simply no reason for them to stop doing it.
    - avianlyric 4y ago
      Again, you’re gonna need some data. I would consider 1 in every thousand people being a homicidal maniac held in check by the the threat of force to be an extraordinary high incidence rate. Such a rate doesn’t even vaguely match up with my experiences of people. One in a million I could believe, but numbers lower than I have difficulty believing. Even if the state doesn’t punish anyone, and even if there was no physical retaliation. I imagine that murdering people would quickly result in your social ostracisation. Who the hell wants to spent time with a nutter who’s gonna kill you for rubbing them up the wrong way? I think most people would find better friends and colleagues.
spaetzleesser 4y ago
I think recidivism is more correlated to opportunities for rehabilitation than punishment . When I was at a boxing gymnear Baltimore there were kids from poor families talking about their life. In the US if you are poor you are pretty much screwed once the legal system has you. Your background check will exclude you from decent jobs and it’s just a never ending downward spiral. The courts often add some kind of bullshit fees which unemployed people can’t pay so they go back to prison. The US has managed to set up a cruel and heartless system that punishes poor people, costs enormous money and destroys the social fabric of whole communities.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tzs 4y ago
Your examples do not support the proposition that punishment is not a deterrent, unless Norway's prison is such a nice experience that being imprisoned there can't even be considered punishment. They more support the proposition that punishment that is too harsh is counterproductive or punishment not accompanied by rehabilitation efforts (which Norway puts much more into the US) is is not effective. For a comparison between two places that are more similar than the US and Norway that took different approaches to punishment due to the pandemic, see this article comparing Albuquerque, New Mexico and Wichita, Kansas [1]. It suggests that what is important is the speed and certainty of punishment rather than how severe that punishment is that serves as a deterrent. Here's an interview with the author of that article about this [2]. [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/two-cities-took-different-approaches-to-pandemic-court-closures-they-got-different-results https://www.propublica.org/article/two-cities-took-different... [2] https://www.npr.org/2022/07/24/1113281623/pandemic-court-closures-could-be-driving-high-crime-rates https://www.npr.org/2022/07/24/1113281623/pandemic-court-clo...

shakow 4y ago

And Singapore has a very punitive legal system, while featuring a recidivism rate around 20-25%. You can't just take two cherry-picked examples and proclaim the ‶idea of punishment as [...] dead and buried″.

SiempreViernes 4y ago
You argue against cherry-picking, and then you think you can prove something with one single example? My dude, the other guy provided 100% more data than you!
- mrex 4y ago
  >You argue against cherry-picking, and then you think you can prove something with one single example? Well... he can! He can prove, with one example, that the other person's thesis doesn't fit the facts. And he did that. So, yeah.
  - SiempreViernes 4y ago
    Can you please explain your understanding of the word correlation? I'm very curios to hear how your reasoning for how statements about these can be proven by a single data point.
    - mrex 4y ago
      A single data point can be sufficient to contradict a thesis. A correlation is an observation that seemingly unrelated events occur in proximity to each other, temporally or otherwise.
      - SiempreViernes 4y ago
        Some theses can be disproved by a single data point, not all, and I asked about a specific type of thesis. I repeat: can you show how a single data point can contradict a statement about the absence of correlation originally claimed?
        mrex 4y ago
        What? I feel like one of us has forgotten how we got here. >The idea of punishment as a deterrent is hopefully dead and buried at this point. That's an absence of correlation claim?
        SiempreViernes 4y ago
        Yes: if punishment was an effective deterrent, then the natural expectation is that there is strong correlation relationship between the level of punishment used and the deterrence effect. Saying punishment doesn't provide deterrence only claims that punishment is not correlated with deterrence. Maybe the examples shown gave the impression that an anti-correlation was claimed, but that is purely an invention of the reader.
- Archelaos 4y ago
  There is a big difference between proof and falsification. The grant-parent wants to establish a general rule, whereas the parent only wants to falsify it. Usually, a single example is enough for falsification. -- There is only one caveat (that's why I said "usually"): The evidence used for falsification must be true, which in itself is a deduction from many detailed observations. The real flaw in the argument of the parent is, that in a direct comparison between Singapure and Norway Norway still wins: If roughly the same recidivism rates are achieved in a very punitive and a very supportive system, the supportive system is superior according to utilitarian principles.
  - mrex 4y ago
    >The real flaw in the argument of the parent is, that in a direct comparison between Singapure and Norway Norway still wins: If roughly the same recidivism rates are achieved in a very punitive and a very supportive system, the supportive system is superior according to utilitarian principles. Wouldn't that depend on subjectively balancing costs and benefits of the other involved factors? For example, Singapore's system may (or may not, frankly I don't know and it's not important to the logical point I'm making) cost less than Norway's system. In that case, the question would be what value the society places on finding solutions that are supportive rather than punitive. Right?
    - Archelaos 4y ago
      Perhaps. My argument contains an unspoken "ceteris paribus" clause, which is typically the case, when we compare things: that all relevant factors are on the table and everyone agrees on them. To generalise your argument: From a logical point of view, no conclusion is ultimately settled, because it cannot be ruled out that not someday someone comes up with a new and better argument.[1] So when I pointed out a "flaw in the argument", I meant the argument as presented, without additional refinements (as you are trying to develop). A minor detail: When discussing a normative question, it is important to carefully distinguish between normative and descriptive aspects. The descriptive aspects are everything that is the case. The normative aspects are everything that should be the case. Therefore, the question is what value a society should place on finding solutions that are supportive rather than punitive. -- And the idea that norms are up to a certain point "subjectively" is in itself a description whose normative relevance asks for an intense debate. [1] There might exist a few exceptions, such as fundamental logical theorems. But this is too far off from our case.
- shakow 4y ago
  > You argue against cherry-picking, and then you think you can prove something with one single example? Yes, that's the whole point of a counter-example... If I try to prove the all odd numbers are prime (look, 1, 3, 5, 7, ... – it works!), you telling me that 9 is not is enough to disprove my theory.
  - SiempreViernes 4y ago
    I'm sorry to say, but if you think that you can provide a counter example to the statement "there is no strong correlation" with one single additional data point, you've grievously misunderstood how correlations work.

dolni 4y ago

Only the most naive people think that "punishment as a deterrent" is dead. It only takes a simple thought experiment to see why that idea is stupid. How many additional murders do you think there would be if the punishment for murder was a day in prison instead of 10 or more years? How many aggrieved ex-spouses, neighbors, and coworkers would turn to violence to solve their problems? The answer is: a lot.

avianlyric 4y ago
You’re gonna have to back up that “though experiment” with some data. Or at least a logical explanation, as to why you think the majority of the population are homicidal maniacs, held in check by the threat of prison time. Otherwise your comment is little more that a dark speculative fantasy.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > Or at least a logical explanation, as to why you think the majority of the population are homicidal maniacs, held in check by the threat of prison time. You don't need the MAJORITY of the population to be homicidal maniacs, only held in check by the thread of punishment to see a marked rise in homicides. I'd guess that even with a low rate of one out of every thousand people being homicidal maniacs only kept in check by the threat of force, you'd get 200x or more homicides than you have now. After all, a homicidal maniac will, almost by definition, kill repeatedly, and since (in this hypothetical situation) they are not punished for it, there's simply no reason for them to stop doing it.
  - avianlyric 4y ago
    Again, you’re gonna need some data. I would consider 1 in every thousand people being a homicidal maniac held in check by the the threat of force to be an extraordinary high incidence rate. Such a rate doesn’t even vaguely match up with my experiences of people. One in a million I could believe, but numbers lower than I have difficulty believing. Even if the state doesn’t punish anyone, and even if there was no physical retaliation. I imagine that murdering people would quickly result in your social ostracisation. Who the hell wants to spent time with a nutter who’s gonna kill you for rubbing them up the wrong way? I think most people would find better friends and colleagues.

spaetzleesser 4y ago

I think recidivism is more correlated to opportunities for rehabilitation than punishment . When I was at a boxing gymnear Baltimore there were kids from poor families talking about their life. In the US if you are poor you are pretty much screwed once the legal system has you. Your background check will exclude you from decent jobs and it’s just a never ending downward spiral. The courts often add some kind of bullshit fees which unemployed people can’t pay so they go back to prison. The US has managed to set up a cruel and heartless system that punishes poor people, costs enormous money and destroys the social fabric of whole communities.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

tzs 4y ago

Your examples do not support the proposition that punishment is not a deterrent, unless Norway's prison is such a nice experience that being imprisoned there can't even be considered punishment. They more support the proposition that punishment that is too harsh is counterproductive or punishment not accompanied by rehabilitation efforts (which Norway puts much more into the US) is is not effective. For a comparison between two places that are more similar than the US and Norway that took different approaches to punishment due to the pandemic, see this article comparing Albuquerque, New Mexico and Wichita, Kansas [1]. It suggests that what is important is the speed and certainty of punishment rather than how severe that punishment is that serves as a deterrent. Here's an interview with the author of that article about this [2]. [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/two-cities-took-different-approaches-to-pandemic-court-closures-they-got-different-results https://www.propublica.org/article/two-cities-took-different... [2] https://www.npr.org/2022/07/24/1113281623/pandemic-court-closures-could-be-driving-high-crime-rates https://www.npr.org/2022/07/24/1113281623/pandemic-court-clo...