5 ms·

Punishment, deterrence for others, and deterrence for the individual themselves, are three important parts of why the state has consequences for bad deeds. The

Punishment, deterrence for others, and deterrence for the individual themselves, are three important parts of why the state has consequences for bad deeds. The US is pretty punishment-heavy. As a non-US person it even looks sadistic. It's "now I got you, you son of a bitch" social game from "Games People Play". Since you're against "punishment as a whole", I assume you by "punishment" mean "I want them to suffer for what they did"? Giving more than (say) 20 years to most 20-year-old murderer is no different from 120, from either deterrence perspective. When they're 40 they'll be a different person. 120 years of terrible prison conditions does not make anyone better off, compared to 20. Except for the victim's "sense of justice". But man, 20 years? No year more than that will bring your loved one back. Anyway, I agree that we need both types of deterrence for SBF. Otherwise what's to stop people counting on getting "only" 10 years. Steal a billion dollars, hide it in cryptocurrencies, and when you get out of prison you're older, sure, but you are super rich. We need deterrence from him doing it again. And we need deterrence for everyone like him, and everyone who would be remotely involved him people like him. People need to know that if you help this kind of scam, there are dire consequences. Which is why his parents should face the full weight of the harm they caused, to show that it will all be taken away. But I don't see that as "punishment". Not in the way I think you mean it.

matt004 3y ago
[flagged]
- tigeroil 3y ago
  In what sense doesn't it work though? Because from a re-offending rate it unequivocally does work. In terms of preventing new crimes from being committed, I think the honest answer is "it depends". I think early intervention and preventing crime in the first place is always going to beat punishing people for crimes after the fact.
- bumby 3y ago
  I don't think this type of dichotomy of thinking is helpful. Given that the research seems to suggest that "heavy punitive sentencing" doesn't reduce crime, I think the take away is that human behavior is difficult to change.
- freedomben 3y ago
  What? Citation is definitely needed for that claim about Scandinavia. Restorative justice may not "work" for every single person in every single situation but neither does punitive sentencing. If you look at recidivism for whether it "works" then restorative justice performs way better in the majority of cases. Then we should consider the moral/ethical correctness of what the justice system is and what it should do.
- knorker 3y ago
  But then it's not punishment for punishment's sake, but for deterrence's sake. I read the comment as talking about retribution, to make the victim feel good, not about deterrence. Are you saying you have data to show that 20 years for murder has a different deterrent effect than 120 years for murder?
nineplay 3y ago
> When they're 40 they'll be a different person. Is there any evidence of that? I say this with sympathy as I suspect some number of violent individuals have as-yet-undetected genetic abnormalities that would make them 'blameless' for their actions if we could track it down. However that wouldn't change their behavior. My son has a non-violent known genetic abnormality and in 20/40/60 years his behavior wouldn't change unless some effective treatment is found. So I think there needs to be some realism injected into this discussion. There are people I would not want as next door neighbors even after they've served a long prison sentence.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  There's a lot of evidence that most people mellow out with age, age-crime curves show this clearly with dramatic peaks in the late teens. Teenagers and young adults are more prone to acting impulsively, with less foresight for the future. There may be some people who are irreparably 'genetically damaged' from birth and will never improve, but this isn't the general case.
  - tombert 3y ago
    I feel like most of us kind of intuitively know this at a somewhat visceral level. If a two year old does something obnoxious (e.g. throws food at you), I think most people won't be nearly as upset as if a 40 year old did. I know when my nieces or nephews do something annoying, it's substantially easier for me to roll my eyes and say something like "they're just kids, don't get angry with them" than it is when a full-on grownup annoys me. I'm quite confident that 18 year old me was still basically a child. I never committed any violent crimes when I was 18, but I did a lot of other dumb irrational things that I don't think I'd do now.
- knorker 3y ago
  In addition to the other reply you got from someone else: I'm not saying they'll necessarily be great people. But people do change. Especially the understanding of consequences is not fully developed in your early 20s. So even if they are basically the same people, they would be much less likely to act on it at 40 than at 20. And really, we're talking about deterrence of committing crimes, not deterrence of bad moral character.
tombert 3y ago
> Since you're against "punishment as a whole", I assume you by "punishment" mean "I want them to suffer for what they did"? Yeah, I clarified in a sibling comment, but that's basically what it comes down to. I generally just don't think punishing people with the express purpose of making them suffer is a good thing. I think it's cruel, and I also don't think it actually works in regards to helping society long-term. The fact that it's sort of common knowledge that you'll be sexually assaulted in prison, and people seem bizarrely fine with that because "they deserve it" really disturbs me, for example. In regards to SBF specifically, I'm not convinced he won't try and run a similar scam again; if not in the US, then in another country with less strict securities laws. He doesn't appear to have any remorse about what he's done, and blamed everyone but himself for everything.
- knorker 3y ago
  I agree that we have no need for vengance against the criminal. But the fact that SBF would do it again is not a case for vengance/punishment, but for deterrence. And, frankly, it's harder to launch your next scam while you're currently incarcerated. I hear you saying "I don't want vengance, but…", but there's actually no contradiction there. You want deterrence and to prevent recidivism. And merely taking all his money, and all his parents money, is not actually a deterrence. But that doesn't mean prison is vengence/punishment for punishment's sake.
- quesera 3y ago
  > it's sort of common knowledge that you'll be sexually assaulted in prison While a blasé attitude toward such abuse is certainly reprehensible, I don't think there's any support for the magnitude you describe. Even the most dramatic statistics imply that prisoners are far more likely to not be assaulted. Official numbers are like 2-5%, activist numbers are in the 20% range. Anything greater than 0% is horrifying of course. Although FWIW I also checked official and activist numbers for non-incarcerated males and females in the US, and it's actually very similar. (Never been in prison, never been a victim, never been a perpetrator, not in law enforcement, not an activist, don't know what I'm talking about, but wish the problem could be understood honestly and eliminated completely.)
harambae 3y ago
> Giving more than (say) 20 years to most 20-year-old murderer is no different from 120, from either deterrence perspective. When they're 40 they'll be a different person There was an interesting interview with Matt Cox (stole $55 million or so via mortgage fraud) where someone asked him what amount of prison time would have deterred him from re-offending (he got like 30 years originally). He said anything above 5 actual years in prison (so like 8 sentenced years) and he was never breaking the law in a major way again. That losing such a length of time was not worth any amount of money to him, essentially.

matt004 3y ago

[flagged]

tigeroil 3y ago
In what sense doesn't it work though? Because from a re-offending rate it unequivocally does work. In terms of preventing new crimes from being committed, I think the honest answer is "it depends". I think early intervention and preventing crime in the first place is always going to beat punishing people for crimes after the fact.
bumby 3y ago
I don't think this type of dichotomy of thinking is helpful. Given that the research seems to suggest that "heavy punitive sentencing" doesn't reduce crime, I think the take away is that human behavior is difficult to change.
freedomben 3y ago
What? Citation is definitely needed for that claim about Scandinavia. Restorative justice may not "work" for every single person in every single situation but neither does punitive sentencing. If you look at recidivism for whether it "works" then restorative justice performs way better in the majority of cases. Then we should consider the moral/ethical correctness of what the justice system is and what it should do.
knorker 3y ago
But then it's not punishment for punishment's sake, but for deterrence's sake. I read the comment as talking about retribution, to make the victim feel good, not about deterrence. Are you saying you have data to show that 20 years for murder has a different deterrent effect than 120 years for murder?

nineplay 3y ago

> When they're 40 they'll be a different person. Is there any evidence of that? I say this with sympathy as I suspect some number of violent individuals have as-yet-undetected genetic abnormalities that would make them 'blameless' for their actions if we could track it down. However that wouldn't change their behavior. My son has a non-violent known genetic abnormality and in 20/40/60 years his behavior wouldn't change unless some effective treatment is found. So I think there needs to be some realism injected into this discussion. There are people I would not want as next door neighbors even after they've served a long prison sentence.

mcpackieh 3y ago
There's a lot of evidence that most people mellow out with age, age-crime curves show this clearly with dramatic peaks in the late teens. Teenagers and young adults are more prone to acting impulsively, with less foresight for the future. There may be some people who are irreparably 'genetically damaged' from birth and will never improve, but this isn't the general case.
- tombert 3y ago
  I feel like most of us kind of intuitively know this at a somewhat visceral level. If a two year old does something obnoxious (e.g. throws food at you), I think most people won't be nearly as upset as if a 40 year old did. I know when my nieces or nephews do something annoying, it's substantially easier for me to roll my eyes and say something like "they're just kids, don't get angry with them" than it is when a full-on grownup annoys me. I'm quite confident that 18 year old me was still basically a child. I never committed any violent crimes when I was 18, but I did a lot of other dumb irrational things that I don't think I'd do now.
knorker 3y ago
In addition to the other reply you got from someone else: I'm not saying they'll necessarily be great people. But people do change. Especially the understanding of consequences is not fully developed in your early 20s. So even if they are basically the same people, they would be much less likely to act on it at 40 than at 20. And really, we're talking about deterrence of committing crimes, not deterrence of bad moral character.

tombert 3y ago

> Since you're against "punishment as a whole", I assume you by "punishment" mean "I want them to suffer for what they did"? Yeah, I clarified in a sibling comment, but that's basically what it comes down to. I generally just don't think punishing people with the express purpose of making them suffer is a good thing. I think it's cruel, and I also don't think it actually works in regards to helping society long-term. The fact that it's sort of common knowledge that you'll be sexually assaulted in prison, and people seem bizarrely fine with that because "they deserve it" really disturbs me, for example. In regards to SBF specifically, I'm not convinced he won't try and run a similar scam again; if not in the US, then in another country with less strict securities laws. He doesn't appear to have any remorse about what he's done, and blamed everyone but himself for everything.

knorker 3y ago
I agree that we have no need for vengance against the criminal. But the fact that SBF would do it again is not a case for vengance/punishment, but for deterrence. And, frankly, it's harder to launch your next scam while you're currently incarcerated. I hear you saying "I don't want vengance, but…", but there's actually no contradiction there. You want deterrence and to prevent recidivism. And merely taking all his money, and all his parents money, is not actually a deterrence. But that doesn't mean prison is vengence/punishment for punishment's sake.
quesera 3y ago
> it's sort of common knowledge that you'll be sexually assaulted in prison While a blasé attitude toward such abuse is certainly reprehensible, I don't think there's any support for the magnitude you describe. Even the most dramatic statistics imply that prisoners are far more likely to not be assaulted. Official numbers are like 2-5%, activist numbers are in the 20% range. Anything greater than 0% is horrifying of course. Although FWIW I also checked official and activist numbers for non-incarcerated males and females in the US, and it's actually very similar. (Never been in prison, never been a victim, never been a perpetrator, not in law enforcement, not an activist, don't know what I'm talking about, but wish the problem could be understood honestly and eliminated completely.)

harambae 3y ago

> Giving more than (say) 20 years to most 20-year-old murderer is no different from 120, from either deterrence perspective. When they're 40 they'll be a different person There was an interesting interview with Matt Cox (stole $55 million or so via mortgage fraud) where someone asked him what amount of prison time would have deterred him from re-offending (he got like 30 years originally). He said anything above 5 actual years in prison (so like 8 sentenced years) and he was never breaking the law in a major way again. That losing such a length of time was not worth any amount of money to him, essentially.