8 ms·

> Punishment is a legitimate role for society; it is not juvenile. What's your rationale for this? Personally I can't agree. I can see the logic behind punishm

> Punishment is a legitimate role for society; it is not juvenile. What's your rationale for this? Personally I can't agree. I can see the logic behind punishment-as-deterrent (but then it creates perverse incentives), but punishment as an end goal itself isn't an appropriate concern for society.

smokeyj 13y ago
Statist logic 101. Governments must establish their authority with violence and punishment. Without punishing those who disobey, society would be lawless and chaotic.
- mseebach 13y ago
  You're a very naive anarchist if you think a stateless society won't have punishment for criminals. It will, and it will be really quite severe: Banishment. Unlike in a statist society, no-one can be forced to cooperate with a criminal, and without the safety net of the state, that's not a pleasant situation to be in.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Is the purpose of banishment to protect the rest of the tribe from the offender, or is the purpose of banishment to punish the offender? The difference may seem academic, but I don't think the difference in attitude could manifest itself in how the banishment actually takes place. For example: If you are part of a group of sailors that want to banish that big meanie captain and start their own little floating hippy commune, do you throw the captain overboard? Or do you throw him into a lifeboat with a radio and enough food to last until he is found? The second is not best described as 'punishment'.
    - mseebach 13y ago
      A ship is something of a special case where the constraints require certain considerations. First of all, a ship will likely be owned by someone, who then had to hire sailors to come work on the ship. This is an excellent framework for setting up some clear rules to which those who come aboard must sign up. The answer to your scenarios lies in what those rules are. Throwing someone overboard implies violence, so that's no-go, but it's perfectly plausible that there could be a clause for a majority to buy out a minority. To answer your answer in the more general sense: If you raped someone in my community, I might maintain that I'm not justified in causing you direct physical harm. But I do know that you're never doing any business with me. Other people in the community might feel the same, some might not, and if they shelter you, depending on the circumstances, I may or may not include those individuals in my exclusion. If I'm too broad in my banishment, eventually, I myself lose out, so there's a feedback mechanism somewhere in there. I guess that's punishment. Of course, if you're a direct physical threat to the community, that community is justified in using proportional force in resisting that threat. That would be protection. Sometimes it's one, sometimes it's the other. I suspect most of the times it would be a mix.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        Don't get hung up on the example of the ship, obviously a ship owned by somebody else is not a good place to establish a "hippie commune" (is anywhere?). It could however, hypothetically, be the case that the sailors felt that their lives were being endangered by the captain (who perhaps seemed intent on sailing off the edge of the world, as historically inaccurate that fear may be) and felt that he needed to be removed from command for their safety. This could be done non-violently (perhaps by simply threatening 'civil disobedience') and the captain could decide to not fight the will of the sailors and just live out the rest of the voyage in his quarters, but it is doubtful that any captain would choose that option. When this ship-turned-hippy-commune was eventually caught (the rightful owner would be furious after all), the captain certainly wouldn't want it to look like he tolerated the arrangement. The mutinous hippies, ever understanding of the captain's plight, could therefore offer the option of non-violent banishment by lifeboat. Anyway, this non-violent banishment by lifeboat would not be done out of a desire to punish the captain. I think that banishment can either be done out of a desire to punish, or a desire to remove a threat. It doesn't necessarily need to be both, though usually it probably is. Anyway, I think we are agreeing there.
  - PeterisP 13y ago
    Without the safety net of the state, as the last few millenia of evidence shows, the default fate of suspected criminals is lynching.
  - rickjames28 13y ago
    And in 2013 where do you banish to? All I see is swift execution by either the banishing fiefdom or probably swift execution by the resulting "accepting" fiefdom.
  - smokeyj 13y ago
    I think it's due to lack of imagination that statists prefer the threat of violence to organize society. We focus on punishing bad behavior rather than creating a reward structure for good behavior. Violence is the state's hammer, and every issue its nail. I think it's possible for people to organize without the threat of violence being the primary factor and that's the only claim I make. I see website's like stackoverflow and become more convinced people are better incentivized by carrots than sticks. But then again, caging humans for disobedience is a pretty big stick.
JackFr 13y ago
The typical rationales are 1) the society as a whole is more well-ordered and better off when people do not benefit from evil acts; 2) such punishments act as a deterrent. One can reasonably disagree with either or both of those. I suppose I took issue with dismissing them off-hand as 'juvenile' But it's only fair then to ask you how you can be so presumptuous to think you can, or even should 'rehabilitate'?
- jlgreco 13y ago
  I don't think the first is a rationale in and of itself, only when combined with the second. I don't think anyone disagrees with the first except perhaps criminals themselves, but I certainly don't think disagreement with the first has much to do with the Norwegian system. Norwegians obviously think that people should not benefit from acts of evil; I mean, they do have laws after all. Anyway, you are missing a third option. Imprisonment does not have to be about either rehabilitation or punishment. It could also, or even instead, be about detainment and isolation. In other words, you can imprison somebody not out of some sort of desire to "get back at them", and not with any hope of correcting their behavior, but merely to make sure they cannot injure people again. Consider the case of Charles Manson: That guy is way too far gone to ever really hope that he can be rehabilitated. There is no fixing that guy; the US prison system couldn't do it, the Norwegian system couldn't do it, no "Manhattan Project of Psychiatry" could do it. Even so, that doesn't mean that the only option left is to ensure that he lives in relative misery the rest of his nature life. We could allow him to live the rest of his life out in relative comfort, so long as we never allow him to be free to harm others again. Where we cannot 'fix', we obviously need to detain and isolate, but doing that for the safety of the public is sufficient motivation. We don't need to do that out of a desire to 'punish'. (Unless you buy into "such punishments act as a deterrent")
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      I think the only reason of the three that anybody here opposes is the "punishment" reason. I oppose it so far as we cannot demonstrate that it will decrease the number of offenders. I suspect that in some cases it does. Fear of the law probably does a decent job of keeping most people from enjoying alcoholic beverages on sidewalks for instance. (but I also suspect that in many cases (if not all cases) the imprisonment could be replaced with other punishments. Punitive damages are one obvious example of non-imprisonment punishment.) In cases like Charles Manson, I doubt punishment is valuable. Crazy people aren't exactly known for their fear of consequences. If this is the case, then punishment of Charles Manson would be pointless and frankly verging on barbaric (though detainment of Charles Manson would of course be absolutely essential).
yetanotherphd 13y ago
I believe that it is. I don't want the punishment to be extreme, or to be in any form other than the deprivation of liberty, but I do think that the criminal justice system should inflict punishment for its own sake, and not just for the sake of deterrence. I cannot prove this, and I personally am not inclined to believe in proofs from first principles in these matters, but I can appeal to people's gut sense of what is moral and decent. Who really believes that a person can murder someone else (and let's suppose that they were not raised in a violent or abusive environment that would tend to normalize acts of violence), out of pure malice, and then be allowed to enjoy the same happiness as if they hadn't committed that act? I'm aware that there are people who don't really believe in "pure malice" and are therefore more sympathetic to murderers. While I'm happy to here their arguments, my own observations and experience suggest that there is tendency in human nature to do what is wrong, and this should be punished. I'm also not arguing against taking into account a person's upbringing and even their "mental health" when sentencing.
- JonnieCache 13y ago
  >Who really believes that a person can murder someone else, ... out of pure malice, and then be allowed to enjoy the same happiness as if they hadn't committed that act? Who really believes that such a thing would be possible, regardless of external punishment? Surely only a psychopath could kill someone in anger and not ultimately be destroyed by the act, almost by definition, and we've already decided that those people are medical cases, and that punishing them literally does nothing. I guess it depends on how you personally view human nature; this stuff is hard to pin down. Maybe I'm just naive.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Humans are not quite as psychologically flimsy as we like to paint them. I personally believe the foundation of your logic- that anyone who is not mentally ill will suffer lifelong depression and unhappiness after killing someone- is unrealistic. Just think of examples of self defense, or crimes of passion (e.g. the killing of your lover's mistress). Why do we never hear of how all of these people fall into bottomless pits of depression? Particularly in your description of it "destroying" someone, I wonder if you are thinking of "Crime and Punishment". Remember that was not a crime of passion, but a planned killing expressly chosen to be in cold blood. Killing in cold blood is a different story, but we are not talking about that.
mseebach 13y ago
There's some deterrent in punishment, and there's also the deterring factor of preventing self-justice. But the most important feature is healing for the victims, the partial return of justice. When someone is murdered or raped (let's not cloud the discussion with morally ambiguous crimes like drugs), the victims and their families have the fabric of their lives completely torn up; they experience immense pain and suffering. Yes, I'm going for pathos, and that's on purpose, pathos is central to the argument. The knowledge that the perpetrator has pain inflicted on him is an important factor in stitching their lives back together. I'd love for a proponent of the "rational" argument to sit down across from a mother whose daughter has been raped and explain that her feelings are irrational. Yes, this is an irrational argument, but humans are irrational (the rape itself was probably a rather irrational act) - like it or not, that's a fact of how humans work. An order of society that ignores this fact is bound to fail. There should be strong preventive measures in place, the best policy is the one where the crime isn't committed in the first place. Education and solid ways out of poverty are important factors here. Avoiding recidivism is also important. But once the crime is committed (which is the theme here), a narrow focus on rehabilitation is blind to the "red meat" of the issue.
- hrkristian 13y ago
  You're writing with emotions, not facts. What you got right is education and social mobility are key factors to less crime, Norway achieves this. What you didn't get right is the role of the justice system. It's not the role of the justice system to pander to emotions. A judge does not sit down with the mother of a murder-rape victim and explain to her how she ought to feel, at least that is not the case in Norway. One could argue this is in fact the case in the US, in the sense that the laws the judges rule by pander to emotions. Humans=\=Society. That is the gist of what I am saying. Society is a construct, and it is not just a reflection of human nature, it is also a product of our ability to coexist. Anyone who has been in a relationship knows coexisting means sacrifice, both emotionally and otherwise.
  - nikatwork 13y ago
    > It's not the role of the justice system to pander to emotions. In Oz courts, there is often a "victim impact" statement read to the court, eg a rape victim will tell the court about the negative effects the assault has had on their life (eg can no longer have sex with partner, so is now divorced; can't leave house at night so has lost job). This impact statement will be taken into consideration when sentencing, and is often directly referenced in the judge's closing statement. Eg, "the victim has experienced years of mental anguish and you show no remorse; I am therefore pronouncing the maximum allowable sentence". So yes, the court very much does "pander" to emotions. I'd love to hear an actual lawyer chime in, the ones I've talked to have a very strong code of professional ethics surrounding this (believe it or not.)
greedo 13y ago
So, imagine a violent crime; a robbery attempt goes awry, and a convenience store clerk is killed. The murderer (in a perfect incarceration system) is "rehabilitated" in a year. Should he be freed after 365 days?
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  If he were truly no longer a danger to society and this could somehow be proven, then yes.
  - greedo 13y ago
    In the real world, this can't be proven. Imagine another incident, a careless driver who runs over someone at a stoplight because they're texting. How should this manslaughter be treated? With a remedial driving course?
    - hackinthebochs 13y ago
      Of course in the real world this can't be proven, which is exactly why a one year sentence for murder is also purely a hypothetical. The point is that if we had perfect knowledge into the mind of an individual that could prove they have been "rehabilitated", why on earth would you keep them locked up? There's just no rational reason for it. In practice judging rehabilitation with perfect knowledge is impossible, and so are one year sentences for murder. In the real world we would balance out the likelihood of actual rehabilitation with concerns regarding public safety.
- petsos 13y ago
  Of course, why should he stay more if he has been rehabilitated?
  - greedo 13y ago
    Because rehabilitation is a very nebulous concept. Does it mean having employable skills? Being nice to a parole board? Being apologetic? The reason many in the US are very skeptical about rehabilitation is because there's not a strong link between rehabilitation efforts and recidivism rates. There are far too many factors involved than whether the prisoner was treated "well" while incarcerated. And if "rehabilitation" is all that's required for freedom, it shows a disconcerting lack of value for the victims of crime.

smokeyj 13y ago

Statist logic 101. Governments must establish their authority with violence and punishment. Without punishing those who disobey, society would be lawless and chaotic.

mseebach 13y ago
You're a very naive anarchist if you think a stateless society won't have punishment for criminals. It will, and it will be really quite severe: Banishment. Unlike in a statist society, no-one can be forced to cooperate with a criminal, and without the safety net of the state, that's not a pleasant situation to be in.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Is the purpose of banishment to protect the rest of the tribe from the offender, or is the purpose of banishment to punish the offender? The difference may seem academic, but I don't think the difference in attitude could manifest itself in how the banishment actually takes place. For example: If you are part of a group of sailors that want to banish that big meanie captain and start their own little floating hippy commune, do you throw the captain overboard? Or do you throw him into a lifeboat with a radio and enough food to last until he is found? The second is not best described as 'punishment'.
  - mseebach 13y ago
    A ship is something of a special case where the constraints require certain considerations. First of all, a ship will likely be owned by someone, who then had to hire sailors to come work on the ship. This is an excellent framework for setting up some clear rules to which those who come aboard must sign up. The answer to your scenarios lies in what those rules are. Throwing someone overboard implies violence, so that's no-go, but it's perfectly plausible that there could be a clause for a majority to buy out a minority. To answer your answer in the more general sense: If you raped someone in my community, I might maintain that I'm not justified in causing you direct physical harm. But I do know that you're never doing any business with me. Other people in the community might feel the same, some might not, and if they shelter you, depending on the circumstances, I may or may not include those individuals in my exclusion. If I'm too broad in my banishment, eventually, I myself lose out, so there's a feedback mechanism somewhere in there. I guess that's punishment. Of course, if you're a direct physical threat to the community, that community is justified in using proportional force in resisting that threat. That would be protection. Sometimes it's one, sometimes it's the other. I suspect most of the times it would be a mix.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Don't get hung up on the example of the ship, obviously a ship owned by somebody else is not a good place to establish a "hippie commune" (is anywhere?). It could however, hypothetically, be the case that the sailors felt that their lives were being endangered by the captain (who perhaps seemed intent on sailing off the edge of the world, as historically inaccurate that fear may be) and felt that he needed to be removed from command for their safety. This could be done non-violently (perhaps by simply threatening 'civil disobedience') and the captain could decide to not fight the will of the sailors and just live out the rest of the voyage in his quarters, but it is doubtful that any captain would choose that option. When this ship-turned-hippy-commune was eventually caught (the rightful owner would be furious after all), the captain certainly wouldn't want it to look like he tolerated the arrangement. The mutinous hippies, ever understanding of the captain's plight, could therefore offer the option of non-violent banishment by lifeboat. Anyway, this non-violent banishment by lifeboat would not be done out of a desire to punish the captain. I think that banishment can either be done out of a desire to punish, or a desire to remove a threat. It doesn't necessarily need to be both, though usually it probably is. Anyway, I think we are agreeing there.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  Without the safety net of the state, as the last few millenia of evidence shows, the default fate of suspected criminals is lynching.
- rickjames28 13y ago
  And in 2013 where do you banish to? All I see is swift execution by either the banishing fiefdom or probably swift execution by the resulting "accepting" fiefdom.
- smokeyj 13y ago
  I think it's due to lack of imagination that statists prefer the threat of violence to organize society. We focus on punishing bad behavior rather than creating a reward structure for good behavior. Violence is the state's hammer, and every issue its nail. I think it's possible for people to organize without the threat of violence being the primary factor and that's the only claim I make. I see website's like stackoverflow and become more convinced people are better incentivized by carrots than sticks. But then again, caging humans for disobedience is a pretty big stick.

JackFr 13y ago

The typical rationales are 1) the society as a whole is more well-ordered and better off when people do not benefit from evil acts; 2) such punishments act as a deterrent. One can reasonably disagree with either or both of those. I suppose I took issue with dismissing them off-hand as 'juvenile' But it's only fair then to ask you how you can be so presumptuous to think you can, or even should 'rehabilitate'?

jlgreco 13y ago
I don't think the first is a rationale in and of itself, only when combined with the second. I don't think anyone disagrees with the first except perhaps criminals themselves, but I certainly don't think disagreement with the first has much to do with the Norwegian system. Norwegians obviously think that people should not benefit from acts of evil; I mean, they do have laws after all. Anyway, you are missing a third option. Imprisonment does not have to be about either rehabilitation or punishment. It could also, or even instead, be about detainment and isolation. In other words, you can imprison somebody not out of some sort of desire to "get back at them", and not with any hope of correcting their behavior, but merely to make sure they cannot injure people again. Consider the case of Charles Manson: That guy is way too far gone to ever really hope that he can be rehabilitated. There is no fixing that guy; the US prison system couldn't do it, the Norwegian system couldn't do it, no "Manhattan Project of Psychiatry" could do it. Even so, that doesn't mean that the only option left is to ensure that he lives in relative misery the rest of his nature life. We could allow him to live the rest of his life out in relative comfort, so long as we never allow him to be free to harm others again. Where we cannot 'fix', we obviously need to detain and isolate, but doing that for the safety of the public is sufficient motivation. We don't need to do that out of a desire to 'punish'. (Unless you buy into "such punishments act as a deterrent")
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    I think the only reason of the three that anybody here opposes is the "punishment" reason. I oppose it so far as we cannot demonstrate that it will decrease the number of offenders. I suspect that in some cases it does. Fear of the law probably does a decent job of keeping most people from enjoying alcoholic beverages on sidewalks for instance. (but I also suspect that in many cases (if not all cases) the imprisonment could be replaced with other punishments. Punitive damages are one obvious example of non-imprisonment punishment.) In cases like Charles Manson, I doubt punishment is valuable. Crazy people aren't exactly known for their fear of consequences. If this is the case, then punishment of Charles Manson would be pointless and frankly verging on barbaric (though detainment of Charles Manson would of course be absolutely essential).

yetanotherphd 13y ago

I believe that it is. I don't want the punishment to be extreme, or to be in any form other than the deprivation of liberty, but I do think that the criminal justice system should inflict punishment for its own sake, and not just for the sake of deterrence. I cannot prove this, and I personally am not inclined to believe in proofs from first principles in these matters, but I can appeal to people's gut sense of what is moral and decent. Who really believes that a person can murder someone else (and let's suppose that they were not raised in a violent or abusive environment that would tend to normalize acts of violence), out of pure malice, and then be allowed to enjoy the same happiness as if they hadn't committed that act? I'm aware that there are people who don't really believe in "pure malice" and are therefore more sympathetic to murderers. While I'm happy to here their arguments, my own observations and experience suggest that there is tendency in human nature to do what is wrong, and this should be punished. I'm also not arguing against taking into account a person's upbringing and even their "mental health" when sentencing.

JonnieCache 13y ago
>Who really believes that a person can murder someone else, ... out of pure malice, and then be allowed to enjoy the same happiness as if they hadn't committed that act? Who really believes that such a thing would be possible, regardless of external punishment? Surely only a psychopath could kill someone in anger and not ultimately be destroyed by the act, almost by definition, and we've already decided that those people are medical cases, and that punishing them literally does nothing. I guess it depends on how you personally view human nature; this stuff is hard to pin down. Maybe I'm just naive.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Humans are not quite as psychologically flimsy as we like to paint them. I personally believe the foundation of your logic- that anyone who is not mentally ill will suffer lifelong depression and unhappiness after killing someone- is unrealistic. Just think of examples of self defense, or crimes of passion (e.g. the killing of your lover's mistress). Why do we never hear of how all of these people fall into bottomless pits of depression? Particularly in your description of it "destroying" someone, I wonder if you are thinking of "Crime and Punishment". Remember that was not a crime of passion, but a planned killing expressly chosen to be in cold blood. Killing in cold blood is a different story, but we are not talking about that.

mseebach 13y ago

There's some deterrent in punishment, and there's also the deterring factor of preventing self-justice. But the most important feature is healing for the victims, the partial return of justice. When someone is murdered or raped (let's not cloud the discussion with morally ambiguous crimes like drugs), the victims and their families have the fabric of their lives completely torn up; they experience immense pain and suffering. Yes, I'm going for pathos, and that's on purpose, pathos is central to the argument. The knowledge that the perpetrator has pain inflicted on him is an important factor in stitching their lives back together. I'd love for a proponent of the "rational" argument to sit down across from a mother whose daughter has been raped and explain that her feelings are irrational. Yes, this is an irrational argument, but humans are irrational (the rape itself was probably a rather irrational act) - like it or not, that's a fact of how humans work. An order of society that ignores this fact is bound to fail. There should be strong preventive measures in place, the best policy is the one where the crime isn't committed in the first place. Education and solid ways out of poverty are important factors here. Avoiding recidivism is also important. But once the crime is committed (which is the theme here), a narrow focus on rehabilitation is blind to the "red meat" of the issue.

hrkristian 13y ago
You're writing with emotions, not facts. What you got right is education and social mobility are key factors to less crime, Norway achieves this. What you didn't get right is the role of the justice system. It's not the role of the justice system to pander to emotions. A judge does not sit down with the mother of a murder-rape victim and explain to her how she ought to feel, at least that is not the case in Norway. One could argue this is in fact the case in the US, in the sense that the laws the judges rule by pander to emotions. Humans=\=Society. That is the gist of what I am saying. Society is a construct, and it is not just a reflection of human nature, it is also a product of our ability to coexist. Anyone who has been in a relationship knows coexisting means sacrifice, both emotionally and otherwise.
- nikatwork 13y ago
  > It's not the role of the justice system to pander to emotions. In Oz courts, there is often a "victim impact" statement read to the court, eg a rape victim will tell the court about the negative effects the assault has had on their life (eg can no longer have sex with partner, so is now divorced; can't leave house at night so has lost job). This impact statement will be taken into consideration when sentencing, and is often directly referenced in the judge's closing statement. Eg, "the victim has experienced years of mental anguish and you show no remorse; I am therefore pronouncing the maximum allowable sentence". So yes, the court very much does "pander" to emotions. I'd love to hear an actual lawyer chime in, the ones I've talked to have a very strong code of professional ethics surrounding this (believe it or not.)

greedo 13y ago

So, imagine a violent crime; a robbery attempt goes awry, and a convenience store clerk is killed. The murderer (in a perfect incarceration system) is "rehabilitated" in a year. Should he be freed after 365 days?

hackinthebochs 13y ago
If he were truly no longer a danger to society and this could somehow be proven, then yes.
- greedo 13y ago
  In the real world, this can't be proven. Imagine another incident, a careless driver who runs over someone at a stoplight because they're texting. How should this manslaughter be treated? With a remedial driving course?
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    Of course in the real world this can't be proven, which is exactly why a one year sentence for murder is also purely a hypothetical. The point is that if we had perfect knowledge into the mind of an individual that could prove they have been "rehabilitated", why on earth would you keep them locked up? There's just no rational reason for it. In practice judging rehabilitation with perfect knowledge is impossible, and so are one year sentences for murder. In the real world we would balance out the likelihood of actual rehabilitation with concerns regarding public safety.
petsos 13y ago
Of course, why should he stay more if he has been rehabilitated?
- greedo 13y ago
  Because rehabilitation is a very nebulous concept. Does it mean having employable skills? Being nice to a parole board? Being apologetic? The reason many in the US are very skeptical about rehabilitation is because there's not a strong link between rehabilitation efforts and recidivism rates. There are far too many factors involved than whether the prisoner was treated "well" while incarcerated. And if "rehabilitation" is all that's required for freedom, it shows a disconcerting lack of value for the victims of crime.