3 ms·

Why would we not want to stop others? Why not consider a positive side effect of deterring others? Sorry, what are you saying here does not make any sense to me

by xyzzyz 4y ago

Why would we not want to stop others? Why not consider a positive side effect of deterring others? Sorry, what are you saying here does not make any sense to me at all. It seems like that you are suggesting that we could simply not punish people at all for first offense, as long as they can credibly promise that they won’t reoffend. After all, if they won’t reoffend, under what you say, there is no point in punishing them at all. Sure, this means that people will know that they can scot-free offend one time, and so many more will likely do, especially if the risk of being caught is relatively low, but you explicitly want to ignore that. This is crazy to me. No society ever worked like that. Additionally, deterrence function is not “virtue signaling”, this is not what the term means.

lajamerr 4y ago
Why should my punishment be more severe because you want to stop others from doing something in the future? That's a disproportionate amount of punishment for the individual. Punishment should be equal to the crime, not have an additional component to be used to deter others who I have no affiliation with. Public prosecution is absolutely terrible way to deal with dealing out punishment. Not all individuals are the same, not all crimes are the same, but once you are given a guilty verdict judges are expected to give out sentencing guidelines that match similar tag lines/crimes regardless of circumstances. Punishment should be more personalized and should be a performance improvement plan based on the individual and how they respond to the effective plan/action.
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  I can only say that I thoroughly disagree with this, and I have every single society that has ever existed behind me.
  - lajamerr 4y ago
    So you should be punished for a crime for more than the harm/compensation/individual deterrence, just so that you can stop future crimes by unrelated people by you being a peg that others can consider if they might commit a similar crime? I really ask you to consider this from a moral standpoint. Society isn't always right. Sometimes society just does things because it's easier, not because it's right.
    - xyzzyz 4y ago
      > So you should be punished for a crime for more than the harm/compensation/individual deterrence, just so that you can stop future crimes by unrelated people by you being a peg that others can consider if they might commit a similar crime? Exactly right. I want to send a message to potential criminals. I think that it’s highly beneficial to sacrifice the well being of a criminal in order to prevent more people from being victimized by other criminals. I think preventing crime is a strong moral imperative, and this is significantly more important consideration than the rights of criminals. In fact, I think putting the latter above the right of the people to not be victimized is morally despicable. I hope that my position is clear.
      - lajamerr 4y ago
        There's all kinds of people in this world and we can all live and have incompatible ideas. Just as you have your position and defend it, so will I. This clash of ideals of various parties I believe helps bring out the ideal solution eventually. The path of adding additional punishment onto the individual/company for the sake of deterrence I believe is the lazy/easy solution. I believe there are smarter/more complex solutions that require more work but are ultimately more just and fair. We might see things differently but I believe we both want a better society and we differ on the way things may be achieved.

by xyzzyz 4y ago

lajamerr 4y ago

Why should my punishment be more severe because you want to stop others from doing something in the future? That's a disproportionate amount of punishment for the individual. Punishment should be equal to the crime, not have an additional component to be used to deter others who I have no affiliation with. Public prosecution is absolutely terrible way to deal with dealing out punishment. Not all individuals are the same, not all crimes are the same, but once you are given a guilty verdict judges are expected to give out sentencing guidelines that match similar tag lines/crimes regardless of circumstances. Punishment should be more personalized and should be a performance improvement plan based on the individual and how they respond to the effective plan/action.

xyzzyz 4y ago
I can only say that I thoroughly disagree with this, and I have every single society that has ever existed behind me.
- lajamerr 4y ago
  So you should be punished for a crime for more than the harm/compensation/individual deterrence, just so that you can stop future crimes by unrelated people by you being a peg that others can consider if they might commit a similar crime? I really ask you to consider this from a moral standpoint. Society isn't always right. Sometimes society just does things because it's easier, not because it's right.
  - xyzzyz 4y ago
    > So you should be punished for a crime for more than the harm/compensation/individual deterrence, just so that you can stop future crimes by unrelated people by you being a peg that others can consider if they might commit a similar crime? Exactly right. I want to send a message to potential criminals. I think that it’s highly beneficial to sacrifice the well being of a criminal in order to prevent more people from being victimized by other criminals. I think preventing crime is a strong moral imperative, and this is significantly more important consideration than the rights of criminals. In fact, I think putting the latter above the right of the people to not be victimized is morally despicable. I hope that my position is clear.
    - lajamerr 4y ago
      There's all kinds of people in this world and we can all live and have incompatible ideas. Just as you have your position and defend it, so will I. This clash of ideals of various parties I believe helps bring out the ideal solution eventually. The path of adding additional punishment onto the individual/company for the sake of deterrence I believe is the lazy/easy solution. I believe there are smarter/more complex solutions that require more work but are ultimately more just and fair. We might see things differently but I believe we both want a better society and we differ on the way things may be achieved.