4 ms·

What is the point in throwing someone who didn't commit violent crimes in prison? Punishment? Vengeance?

by suslik 4y ago

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
An even more interesting question is how HN justifies the reaction you're getting for this comment in this thread with the reaction you'd get for the same comment in one of our typical "complain about the court/prison system" threads. Only so much flagrant cognitive dissonance can sail under the flag of "the community is not homogenous and people pick and choose where to comment". We can pick the "law, order and punishment" route or we can pick the rehabilitation route but lets at least be consistent once we've chosen a path. Picking and choosing on a case by case basis enables all sorts of terrible miscarriages of justice.
- lupire 4y ago
  You are saying that the people who think that smoking pot deserves less punishment than stealing $1B, are the dissonant ones?
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    I'm saying that the people who advocate for or cheer on others advocating for "keep nonviolent criminals out of prison" in one context and then advocate for the opposite or don't let out a peep when others do in the case of a crime they don't like are exhibiting noteworthy amounts of cognitive dissonance. And IMO such cognitive dissonance is fundamentally incompatible with equality under the law. I'm also saying that "advocating for keeping nonviolent criminals out of prison in one context" and "advocating for the opposite in other contexts" happen to consistently to be explained by selection bias alone.
    - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
      Is it the same people though?
    - asadotzler 4y ago
      Non-violent is a big category. If I'm smoking a joint alone on a boat on the lake, I'm breaking a federal law, so I'm a non-violent criminal. My crime has literally zero impact on others. If I steal millions of dollars from my customers via financial crime, causing people, families, and businesses to go under, leading to marked decrease in their standard of living, including potential impact on housing, healthcare, and other critical components of survival, then I've caused real harm to others, violent or not. Do you see how those two non-violent crimes are materially different? I'm all for reducing the use of prisons, and though both contribute value to society, I'm generally more interested in using prisons and the threat of prisons for rehabilitation and reintegration than for punishment and deterrence. Having said that, non-violent isn't as interesting a measure to me as scope of impact. A CEO of a company that decides to externalize some costs by poisoning the water or air supply making the local population demonstrably sicker may not have carried a knife, but the scope of his impact could be far greater than some homeless guy who stabbed someone in the arm. The first is clearly non-violent while the second is clearly violent, but the truth is, I'd far rather see the poisoning CEO in prison than the stabby homeless guy.
- starkd 4y ago
  The courts do this all the time. This is why justice is symbolized by a scale that is a constant balancing act between justice and mercy.
bsg75 4y ago
Yes, punishment, which, in part serves as an example to others that this is absolutely unacceptable practice, and our society cannot allow it to happen. “CEO Sam Bankman-Fried used customer funds from the exchange to plug losses in his failing crypto empire.” it is very well known this is illegal and unethical behavior. No mistakes were made here, it’s outright, decisive fraud. If an executive of a business willfully, miss manages customers money, for example in a Ponzi scheme, that has repercussions that can damage a chain of people, some of which did not directly invest. What would you suggest happens to people like this guy and Bernie Madoff instead? A strong, talking to?
- suslik 4y ago
  I don't know exactly, but of what use is prison in this case besides inflicting unnecessary suffering? There probably is no hand-wavy answer to this, but surely it is possible to come up with sufficient civic restrictions on him to prevent him from committing similar types of crimes. For instance, there is a precedent for restricting a person's access to digital technology. Even house arrest is way more humane (and probably also an overkill).
  - ehzy 4y ago
    Theft and fraud on this scale is absolutely violence in some sense. Don't assume everyone that lost money could afford to lose it. The second order consequences of this fraud are likely severe.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    Putting him in prison, ostensibly, makes it less likely for someone to want to do what he did. You know, the whole "repercussions" thing? After all, if you stole a billion dollars and all they did was prohibit you from using a computer, why not try?
    - suslik 4y ago
      I cannot agree that deterring others from undesirable behavior is an ethically valid reason to punish anyone. People don't break laws 'just because'. Behind every crime there is always a smorgasbord of neurological, sociological, economic, etc. reasons - these include white collar crime such as financial fraud [0]. Unless we assume the existence of libertarian free will (which we shouldn't), a 'choice' one makes to commit a crime is simply an illusion. If it is an illusion, and our hypothetical crime was not a real free choice on behalf of the criminal, what are they punished for, besides being in the wrong body in the wrong time? In the majority of world's societies, including US, prison systems are a horrific environment filled with violence, rape, drug abuse and dehumanasing living conditions, which inflicts to the inmates the lifetime of trauma. While at the moment there are no better solutions to isolate truly violent and antisocial people (recurring murderers, gang members, and others - those who simply need to be separated from society)[1], throwing anyone in prison should always be the absolutely last resort, preceded by rehabilitation programs and psychiatric treatment. Throwing people in prison to deter others is ethically identical to chopping away the hands of market thieves - a measure that, while somewhat too barbaric for the modern era, follows exactly the same idea. [0] - for example, many children, especially from middle- and upper-class backgrounds, are conditioned to 'succeed' at all costs; they often adopt cheating as a strategy early in life - not because they are inherently bad people, but as an adaptation to the constant pressure to be good enough for their environment. [1] - in fact, the real problem is that people who commit these crimes receive no compassion from society and are universally agreed to be deserving to be treated like absolute scum. If we ever manage to reach a civilized future (which humanity might not deserve), our current methods of dealing with criminals will rightfully be compared to the treatment of people with leprosy in the medieval times - barbaric and evil, but they simply didn't know better then.
lupire 4y ago
He stole people's home money and food money. That is violence.
- suslik 4y ago
  This makes the term 'violence' useless. He didn't use physical force or any other form of power to force anyone to do anything; instead, he lied to people, convincing them to transfer their money to his platform voluntarily.
  - djinnandtonic 4y ago
    Would you imprison a burglar that jimmies your lock while you are away? If so, what is the difference?
  - someguy212 4y ago
    If I steal your life-saving medication resulting in your death, do I deserve jailtime?

What is the point in throwing someone who didn't commit violent crimes in prison? Punishment? Vengeance?

by suslik 4y ago

What is the point in throwing someone who didn't commit violent crimes in prison? Punishment? Vengeance?

An even more interesting question is how HN justifies the reaction you're getting for this comment in this thread with the reaction you'd get for the same comment in one of our typical "complain about the court/prison system" threads. Only so much flagrant cognitive dissonance can sail under the flag of "the community is not homogenous and people pick and choose where to comment". We can pick the "law, order and punishment" route or we can pick the rehabilitation route but lets at least be consistent once we've chosen a path. Picking and choosing on a case by case basis enables all sorts of terrible miscarriages of justice.

lupire 4y ago
You are saying that the people who think that smoking pot deserves less punishment than stealing $1B, are the dissonant ones?
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  I'm saying that the people who advocate for or cheer on others advocating for "keep nonviolent criminals out of prison" in one context and then advocate for the opposite or don't let out a peep when others do in the case of a crime they don't like are exhibiting noteworthy amounts of cognitive dissonance. And IMO such cognitive dissonance is fundamentally incompatible with equality under the law. I'm also saying that "advocating for keeping nonviolent criminals out of prison in one context" and "advocating for the opposite in other contexts" happen to consistently to be explained by selection bias alone.
  - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
    Is it the same people though?
  - asadotzler 4y ago
    Non-violent is a big category. If I'm smoking a joint alone on a boat on the lake, I'm breaking a federal law, so I'm a non-violent criminal. My crime has literally zero impact on others. If I steal millions of dollars from my customers via financial crime, causing people, families, and businesses to go under, leading to marked decrease in their standard of living, including potential impact on housing, healthcare, and other critical components of survival, then I've caused real harm to others, violent or not. Do you see how those two non-violent crimes are materially different? I'm all for reducing the use of prisons, and though both contribute value to society, I'm generally more interested in using prisons and the threat of prisons for rehabilitation and reintegration than for punishment and deterrence. Having said that, non-violent isn't as interesting a measure to me as scope of impact. A CEO of a company that decides to externalize some costs by poisoning the water or air supply making the local population demonstrably sicker may not have carried a knife, but the scope of his impact could be far greater than some homeless guy who stabbed someone in the arm. The first is clearly non-violent while the second is clearly violent, but the truth is, I'd far rather see the poisoning CEO in prison than the stabby homeless guy.
starkd 4y ago
The courts do this all the time. This is why justice is symbolized by a scale that is a constant balancing act between justice and mercy.

bsg75 4y ago

Yes, punishment, which, in part serves as an example to others that this is absolutely unacceptable practice, and our society cannot allow it to happen. “CEO Sam Bankman-Fried used customer funds from the exchange to plug losses in his failing crypto empire.” it is very well known this is illegal and unethical behavior. No mistakes were made here, it’s outright, decisive fraud. If an executive of a business willfully, miss manages customers money, for example in a Ponzi scheme, that has repercussions that can damage a chain of people, some of which did not directly invest. What would you suggest happens to people like this guy and Bernie Madoff instead? A strong, talking to?

suslik 4y ago
I don't know exactly, but of what use is prison in this case besides inflicting unnecessary suffering? There probably is no hand-wavy answer to this, but surely it is possible to come up with sufficient civic restrictions on him to prevent him from committing similar types of crimes. For instance, there is a precedent for restricting a person's access to digital technology. Even house arrest is way more humane (and probably also an overkill).
- ehzy 4y ago
  Theft and fraud on this scale is absolutely violence in some sense. Don't assume everyone that lost money could afford to lose it. The second order consequences of this fraud are likely severe.
- freejazz 4y ago
  Putting him in prison, ostensibly, makes it less likely for someone to want to do what he did. You know, the whole "repercussions" thing? After all, if you stole a billion dollars and all they did was prohibit you from using a computer, why not try?
  - suslik 4y ago
    I cannot agree that deterring others from undesirable behavior is an ethically valid reason to punish anyone. People don't break laws 'just because'. Behind every crime there is always a smorgasbord of neurological, sociological, economic, etc. reasons - these include white collar crime such as financial fraud [0]. Unless we assume the existence of libertarian free will (which we shouldn't), a 'choice' one makes to commit a crime is simply an illusion. If it is an illusion, and our hypothetical crime was not a real free choice on behalf of the criminal, what are they punished for, besides being in the wrong body in the wrong time? In the majority of world's societies, including US, prison systems are a horrific environment filled with violence, rape, drug abuse and dehumanasing living conditions, which inflicts to the inmates the lifetime of trauma. While at the moment there are no better solutions to isolate truly violent and antisocial people (recurring murderers, gang members, and others - those who simply need to be separated from society)[1], throwing anyone in prison should always be the absolutely last resort, preceded by rehabilitation programs and psychiatric treatment. Throwing people in prison to deter others is ethically identical to chopping away the hands of market thieves - a measure that, while somewhat too barbaric for the modern era, follows exactly the same idea. [0] - for example, many children, especially from middle- and upper-class backgrounds, are conditioned to 'succeed' at all costs; they often adopt cheating as a strategy early in life - not because they are inherently bad people, but as an adaptation to the constant pressure to be good enough for their environment. [1] - in fact, the real problem is that people who commit these crimes receive no compassion from society and are universally agreed to be deserving to be treated like absolute scum. If we ever manage to reach a civilized future (which humanity might not deserve), our current methods of dealing with criminals will rightfully be compared to the treatment of people with leprosy in the medieval times - barbaric and evil, but they simply didn't know better then.

lupire 4y ago

He stole people's home money and food money. That is violence.

suslik 4y ago
This makes the term 'violence' useless. He didn't use physical force or any other form of power to force anyone to do anything; instead, he lied to people, convincing them to transfer their money to his platform voluntarily.
- djinnandtonic 4y ago
  Would you imprison a burglar that jimmies your lock while you are away? If so, what is the difference?
- someguy212 4y ago
  If I steal your life-saving medication resulting in your death, do I deserve jailtime?