3 ms·

> We should carefully consider the crime based on the individual and how much punishment is appropriate for that individual to compensate the victim/deter that

> We should carefully consider the crime based on the individual and how much punishment is appropriate for that individual to compensate the victim/deter that single individual/company from continuing that future behavior. Not to stop others. I'd think that having your standard practice be to make sure it wasn't worth it would find the same amount as the threshhold for both deterring the current perpetrator and deterring others.

lajamerr 4y ago
There's a clear difference between deterring a individual and putting a amount so high it will get taglines so people will pay attention and think that could happen to them as well if they were to commit a similar crime and get caught. It's all about intentions. And I don't want my government prosecuting people and giving them high sentences just to deter other people. It's barbaric behavior. Like cutting the hand off a thief so others know what will happen if they get caught stealing.
- unwise-exe 4y ago
  > amount so high it will get taglines so people will pay attention and think that could happen to them That's not how it works, it's about getting the accountants or lawyers or whoever to tell that person's boss "this can be expected to cost us $XXXX".
  - lajamerr 4y ago
    Lawyers are sophisticated bunch they know these amounts will garner taglines. Do you honestly believe that these lawyers/judges don't incorporate public perception into their accounts of what they think a fitting punishment is and use them as a way to lead public policy/deterrence for particular crimes?
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  > And I don't want my government prosecuting people and giving them high sentences just to deter other people. Deterrence is the whole point of punishing crime. Every society in human history has done this. It's not "barbaric," what's "barbaric" is allowing criminals to do horrible things to innocent people without any incentive against it.
  - lajamerr 4y ago
    Deterrence for the individual is fine only if it's made with sole intention/consideration of that individual. Additional punishment added on to deter unrelated future parties is not fine. I am not responsible for the future people and their actions.
- mannykannot 4y ago
  > There's a clear difference between deterring a individual and putting a amount so high it will get taglines so people will pay attention and think that could happen to them as well if they were to commit a similar crime and get caught. That difference is not clear to me. What sort of deterrence to an individual would not also lead others to think that could happen to them as well if they were to commit a similar crime and get caught? - or, to consider the contrapositive, if it does not invoke that thought in others, why would the convicted be deterred from trying again? The fact that they were caught once does not mean they will be next time. Furthermore, I dispute the idea that deterring people from committing a harmful act, before that harm is done, is not a justifiable goal for a society (note that this does not imply that I must therefore endorse the cutting off of thieves' hands.) Quite often, the perpetrator cannot compensate fully for the harm done, and it is always better if it were not done in the first place. We should note that what is being deterred here is Oberlin's decision to fight the case rather than accept its obvious responsibility and compensate the plaintiffs for the damage it did. Personally, I think this is a net benefit to society, and if it makes entities in similar situations think twice, so much the better.

lajamerr 4y ago

There's a clear difference between deterring a individual and putting a amount so high it will get taglines so people will pay attention and think that could happen to them as well if they were to commit a similar crime and get caught. It's all about intentions. And I don't want my government prosecuting people and giving them high sentences just to deter other people. It's barbaric behavior. Like cutting the hand off a thief so others know what will happen if they get caught stealing.

unwise-exe 4y ago
> amount so high it will get taglines so people will pay attention and think that could happen to them That's not how it works, it's about getting the accountants or lawyers or whoever to tell that person's boss "this can be expected to cost us $XXXX".
- lajamerr 4y ago
  Lawyers are sophisticated bunch they know these amounts will garner taglines. Do you honestly believe that these lawyers/judges don't incorporate public perception into their accounts of what they think a fitting punishment is and use them as a way to lead public policy/deterrence for particular crimes?
Georgelemental 4y ago
> And I don't want my government prosecuting people and giving them high sentences just to deter other people. Deterrence is the whole point of punishing crime. Every society in human history has done this. It's not "barbaric," what's "barbaric" is allowing criminals to do horrible things to innocent people without any incentive against it.
- lajamerr 4y ago
  Deterrence for the individual is fine only if it's made with sole intention/consideration of that individual. Additional punishment added on to deter unrelated future parties is not fine. I am not responsible for the future people and their actions.
mannykannot 4y ago
> There's a clear difference between deterring a individual and putting a amount so high it will get taglines so people will pay attention and think that could happen to them as well if they were to commit a similar crime and get caught. That difference is not clear to me. What sort of deterrence to an individual would not also lead others to think that could happen to them as well if they were to commit a similar crime and get caught? - or, to consider the contrapositive, if it does not invoke that thought in others, why would the convicted be deterred from trying again? The fact that they were caught once does not mean they will be next time. Furthermore, I dispute the idea that deterring people from committing a harmful act, before that harm is done, is not a justifiable goal for a society (note that this does not imply that I must therefore endorse the cutting off of thieves' hands.) Quite often, the perpetrator cannot compensate fully for the harm done, and it is always better if it were not done in the first place. We should note that what is being deterred here is Oberlin's decision to fight the case rather than accept its obvious responsibility and compensate the plaintiffs for the damage it did. Personally, I think this is a net benefit to society, and if it makes entities in similar situations think twice, so much the better.