4 ms·

I think punishing families would probably work very well for deterrence, but that comes with impairment of individualism, since families will be incentivized to

I think punishing families would probably work very well for deterrence, but that comes with impairment of individualism, since families will be incentivized to be monitoring the behavior of their relatives. Overall I would say it doesn't pass the cost-benefit analysis, mainly because there are other methods of deterrence available.

XorNot 3y ago
> I think punishing families would probably work very well for deterrence, Why? This is not even a slightly obvious statement. In fact it broadly fails because most individual punishments already, due to the nature of familial relations, do punish families both directly and indirectly.
- chii 3y ago
  > it broadly fails because most individual punishments already, due to the nature of familial relations, do punish families both directly and indirectly. it doesn't. Familial punishment encourages the enforcement of the rules inside families, lest they get punished. But the rules must be acceptable to the broader family, otherwise it makes for rebellion against the authority (presumably the royalty or dictator in this case). It only doesn't work under _today_'s laws, since families today, compared to the medieval times, is a lot less close and more like acquaintances than family (i'm including things like in-laws, uncles and aunts etc as family).
  - tfourb 3y ago
    "Family" in medieval times was conceived much more broadly than today. So while back then the inner core of a family unit might have been much more dependent on each other and adhered to more of internally enforced rules, the actual family would have included many more people than you'd think of as "family" today with considerably less allegiance to those internally imposed rules. Also, back then power dynamics between generations and genders were different so i.e. the head of a household (oldest male in many societies) might not consider the happiness of a grand daughter relevant in his decision making. I doubt that you can make a real comparison of the "utility" of family punishment between medieval times and today without diving deep into all these aspects.

XorNot 3y ago

> I think punishing families would probably work very well for deterrence, Why? This is not even a slightly obvious statement. In fact it broadly fails because most individual punishments already, due to the nature of familial relations, do punish families both directly and indirectly.

chii 3y ago
> it broadly fails because most individual punishments already, due to the nature of familial relations, do punish families both directly and indirectly. it doesn't. Familial punishment encourages the enforcement of the rules inside families, lest they get punished. But the rules must be acceptable to the broader family, otherwise it makes for rebellion against the authority (presumably the royalty or dictator in this case). It only doesn't work under _today_'s laws, since families today, compared to the medieval times, is a lot less close and more like acquaintances than family (i'm including things like in-laws, uncles and aunts etc as family).
- tfourb 3y ago
  "Family" in medieval times was conceived much more broadly than today. So while back then the inner core of a family unit might have been much more dependent on each other and adhered to more of internally enforced rules, the actual family would have included many more people than you'd think of as "family" today with considerably less allegiance to those internally imposed rules. Also, back then power dynamics between generations and genders were different so i.e. the head of a household (oldest male in many societies) might not consider the happiness of a grand daughter relevant in his decision making. I doubt that you can make a real comparison of the "utility" of family punishment between medieval times and today without diving deep into all these aspects.