4 ms·

> That’s right, I think that inflicting suffering on vicious wrong-doers is morally praiseworthy even in the absence of any deterrent effect. Aside from the mo

by ozr 3y ago

> That’s right, I think that inflicting suffering on vicious wrong-doers is morally praiseworthy even in the absence of any deterrent effect. Aside from the morals, it's essentially for a functioning society. The intrinsic urge to harm someone that has harmed you can't be allowed to happen. The state has to have a monopoly on violence to function. If you are not allowed to inflict suffering on people that have wronged you, the state has to. If the state doesn't, a large enough portion of people will do it themselves, and the state loses legitimacy.

goatlover 3y ago
And we go back to revenge killings and mob justice, which have been determined to be worse than a reasonably functioning state (North Korea and Nazis Germany not being considered reasonable).
failuser 3y ago
Good luck with generation-spanning vendettas created by such approach.
- ozr 3y ago
  The point is to avoid exactly that. If we can (mostly) agree that the state will punish someone sufficiently and appropriately, there's no need for vendettas.
dcanelhas 3y ago
Pardon my ignorance, but if utility is the test for determining what is good and bad, wouldn't having those labels provided as input cause a sort-of recursive formula where one needs to bootstrap the whole thing on some other ethical system?
tfourb 3y ago
How does the (in democratic societies) generally accepted principle in dubio pro reo fit into this? Your assumption would predict that societies that adhere to that standard can not function, because even if everyone is convinced of the guilt of an accused murderer, he can not be punished without formal proof and that might not be available. I think this idea of required punishment to retain social stability is stupid and is not relevant in praxis. Prevention of crime and support for victims, as well as establishing the truth and encouraging sincere remorse from the perpetrator are much more powerful forces for social peace. In terms of practical social functioning, rehabilitation of criminals is much more valuable than punishment, which is why most democracies at least aspire to this ideal.
- Natsu 3y ago
  Rehabilitation basically doesn't happen, in the sense that interventions don't seem to reduce recidivism rates. Now there are a group of people who basically made one bad mistake due to negligence or other circumstances who don't go back, but this isn't generally what one would consider "reform" and it kinda ignores that we can't seem to do much for the people who continually return to prison after committing new crimes. That said, there may be some limited cases where we can do some good, such as identifying and treating people with pyschosis. > I think this idea of required punishment to retain social stability is stupid and is not relevant in praxis. You've never seen mom's brain matter staining the basement walls, or heard that her killer had grandma on same hit list that mom was crossed off of. If the state had not intervened, what do you think would have happened there? This is not a hypothetical situation.
  - tfourb 3y ago
    > Rehabilitation basically doesn't happen, in the sense that interventions don't seem to reduce recidivism rates. Sources? Here are some that confirm the effectiveness of various interventions/approaches: - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-020-09420-3 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-020-09420-3 - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31548680/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31548680/ - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315907207_Reducing_Crime_and_Violence_Experimental_Evidence_from_Cognitive_Behavioral_Therapy_in_Liberia https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315907207_Reducing_... > You've never seen mom's brain matter staining the basement walls […] What? First, contract killing (which is what you seem to describe here) is exceptionally rare in most societies and second, rehabilitation does not preclude police from interfering with crime. Of course you stop a killing if you have prior knowledge of it, if necessary by restraining/incarcerating the alleged killer. Rehabilitation is implemented once guilt has been established to allow a convicted criminal to re-enter society as a productive individual as soon as possible while minimizing the risk to other members of society.
    - Natsu 3y ago
      That was not a contract killing, rather it was a far more common type of murder. The list was something like an enemies list. I have no idea why he kept one, mind you, but the police showed it at trial and it freaked out grandma and some other family who were on there. I'd imagine his former boss wasn't any too happy to realize how easily it could've been him, either, for that matter. I think you underestimate the revenge cycle that might occur if society wanted to be more lenient than life in prison, which was the result here. The state can't reasonably be more lenient than the average person, or the average person is going to decide that the cost of a few years is worth the revenge. You're already looking at a lifetime of pain for losing someone dear to you, what's a couple of years if you admit your guilt and surrender quietly? And that's before we get into "hey, this guy made a hit list with my name on it, and we have to take that seriously because the person at the top of the list was already murdered." For the rest, one of your studies says "There was no evidence of significant differences on rearrest or reconviction. Moderator analysis showed no significant moderating effect for risk score, age, or sex." and "the results would be considered mixed, at best." Which... yeah, is pretty much what I've seen for the most part. Maybe I'm not communicating what I think accurately enough, but this sort of result pretty much exactly what I have in mind. You find studies with promising numbers that still turn out to be meh and don't leave you convinced that the intervention is actually changing what the people are capable of. Importantly, I do not say that nothing shows some promise, or that we shouldn't keep trying, I'm just saying we don't have anything that looks like it can be scaled up to have big impact. And I get that it's hard to measure when plenty of people will do maybe one crime due to some big mistake and had no intention of doing more. I have some small hope that maybe intervening for psychosis could help with violent offenses, but that might assume too much about people taking their meds, unless they're willing and able to use long-lasting injections.
colinsane 3y ago
>> [...] even in the absence of any deterrent effect. i think your points fall into that deterrence bucket though.
- ozr 3y ago
  I don't think so. I'm not suggesting the use of violence as a deterrent[0]. My point is that the human urge to enact violence in response to wrongdoing has to be satisfied. If it's not satisfied by the state, it'll lead to mob justice and vigilantism. [0] I think in many contexts it is, but that's distinct from my earlier post.
vidarh 3y ago
The state has no legitimacy to me because it uses suffering for retribution. It's inherently oppressive.
- ozr 3y ago
  The alternative is for individuals to inflict suffering on each other, which is just vigilantism and mob violence.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    No, the alternative is to not apply retribution. To me anyone who applies retribution is nothing more than a thug, whether doing at the behest of the state or their own accord.
    - ozr 3y ago
      Ok. Now convince everyone else of that.
      - vidarh 3y ago
        Plenty of people are convinced of that - it's pretty much the position the linked post is arguing against, for a reason.

by ozr 3y ago

goatlover 3y ago

And we go back to revenge killings and mob justice, which have been determined to be worse than a reasonably functioning state (North Korea and Nazis Germany not being considered reasonable).

failuser 3y ago

Good luck with generation-spanning vendettas created by such approach.

ozr 3y ago
The point is to avoid exactly that. If we can (mostly) agree that the state will punish someone sufficiently and appropriately, there's no need for vendettas.

dcanelhas 3y ago

Pardon my ignorance, but if utility is the test for determining what is good and bad, wouldn't having those labels provided as input cause a sort-of recursive formula where one needs to bootstrap the whole thing on some other ethical system?

tfourb 3y ago

How does the (in democratic societies) generally accepted principle in dubio pro reo fit into this? Your assumption would predict that societies that adhere to that standard can not function, because even if everyone is convinced of the guilt of an accused murderer, he can not be punished without formal proof and that might not be available. I think this idea of required punishment to retain social stability is stupid and is not relevant in praxis. Prevention of crime and support for victims, as well as establishing the truth and encouraging sincere remorse from the perpetrator are much more powerful forces for social peace. In terms of practical social functioning, rehabilitation of criminals is much more valuable than punishment, which is why most democracies at least aspire to this ideal.

Natsu 3y ago
Rehabilitation basically doesn't happen, in the sense that interventions don't seem to reduce recidivism rates. Now there are a group of people who basically made one bad mistake due to negligence or other circumstances who don't go back, but this isn't generally what one would consider "reform" and it kinda ignores that we can't seem to do much for the people who continually return to prison after committing new crimes. That said, there may be some limited cases where we can do some good, such as identifying and treating people with pyschosis. > I think this idea of required punishment to retain social stability is stupid and is not relevant in praxis. You've never seen mom's brain matter staining the basement walls, or heard that her killer had grandma on same hit list that mom was crossed off of. If the state had not intervened, what do you think would have happened there? This is not a hypothetical situation.
- tfourb 3y ago
  > Rehabilitation basically doesn't happen, in the sense that interventions don't seem to reduce recidivism rates. Sources? Here are some that confirm the effectiveness of various interventions/approaches: - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-020-09420-3 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-020-09420-3 - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31548680/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31548680/ - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315907207_Reducing_Crime_and_Violence_Experimental_Evidence_from_Cognitive_Behavioral_Therapy_in_Liberia https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315907207_Reducing_... > You've never seen mom's brain matter staining the basement walls […] What? First, contract killing (which is what you seem to describe here) is exceptionally rare in most societies and second, rehabilitation does not preclude police from interfering with crime. Of course you stop a killing if you have prior knowledge of it, if necessary by restraining/incarcerating the alleged killer. Rehabilitation is implemented once guilt has been established to allow a convicted criminal to re-enter society as a productive individual as soon as possible while minimizing the risk to other members of society.
  - Natsu 3y ago
    That was not a contract killing, rather it was a far more common type of murder. The list was something like an enemies list. I have no idea why he kept one, mind you, but the police showed it at trial and it freaked out grandma and some other family who were on there. I'd imagine his former boss wasn't any too happy to realize how easily it could've been him, either, for that matter. I think you underestimate the revenge cycle that might occur if society wanted to be more lenient than life in prison, which was the result here. The state can't reasonably be more lenient than the average person, or the average person is going to decide that the cost of a few years is worth the revenge. You're already looking at a lifetime of pain for losing someone dear to you, what's a couple of years if you admit your guilt and surrender quietly? And that's before we get into "hey, this guy made a hit list with my name on it, and we have to take that seriously because the person at the top of the list was already murdered." For the rest, one of your studies says "There was no evidence of significant differences on rearrest or reconviction. Moderator analysis showed no significant moderating effect for risk score, age, or sex." and "the results would be considered mixed, at best." Which... yeah, is pretty much what I've seen for the most part. Maybe I'm not communicating what I think accurately enough, but this sort of result pretty much exactly what I have in mind. You find studies with promising numbers that still turn out to be meh and don't leave you convinced that the intervention is actually changing what the people are capable of. Importantly, I do not say that nothing shows some promise, or that we shouldn't keep trying, I'm just saying we don't have anything that looks like it can be scaled up to have big impact. And I get that it's hard to measure when plenty of people will do maybe one crime due to some big mistake and had no intention of doing more. I have some small hope that maybe intervening for psychosis could help with violent offenses, but that might assume too much about people taking their meds, unless they're willing and able to use long-lasting injections.

colinsane 3y ago

>> [...] even in the absence of any deterrent effect. i think your points fall into that deterrence bucket though.

ozr 3y ago
I don't think so. I'm not suggesting the use of violence as a deterrent[0]. My point is that the human urge to enact violence in response to wrongdoing has to be satisfied. If it's not satisfied by the state, it'll lead to mob justice and vigilantism. [0] I think in many contexts it is, but that's distinct from my earlier post.

vidarh 3y ago

The state has no legitimacy to me because it uses suffering for retribution. It's inherently oppressive.

ozr 3y ago
The alternative is for individuals to inflict suffering on each other, which is just vigilantism and mob violence.
- vidarh 3y ago
  No, the alternative is to not apply retribution. To me anyone who applies retribution is nothing more than a thug, whether doing at the behest of the state or their own accord.
  - ozr 3y ago
    Ok. Now convince everyone else of that.
    - vidarh 3y ago
      Plenty of people are convinced of that - it's pretty much the position the linked post is arguing against, for a reason.