3 ms·

>Some of us consider privacy a fundamental value that must be defended The severity of a punishment can be tuned separately from the form of punishment. Impris

>Some of us consider privacy a fundamental value that must be defended The severity of a punishment can be tuned separately from the form of punishment. Imprisonment is not appropriate merely by dint of your emotional reaction to the crime itself. >Which is more of a danger to me... Sufficient to warrant throwing them in a cage, being brutalized by actually violent criminals, imposing a direct cost burden on society, and also indirectly by depriving society of that individual's productivity? Probably neither.

pasbesoin 13y ago
Financial penalties have a long record of poor influence toward desired, legal behaviour. Further, they tend to simply be, sooner or later, passed on to the customers or clients who in many cases are the original wronged. Those individuals actually responsible for the sanctioned behaviour are not or only weakly punished and perhaps influenced against its repetition. As an individual, one could well go to prison for such misbehaviour. Corporate and government employment should not serve as an impenetrable shield and dilution of responsibility against such eventuality. Incarceration is often described as having two goals: Punishment for crimes committed, and mitigation against such crimes. For the latter, both by actual restraint and by aversion to the potential results. It seems that stronger aversion is needed; we have a systemic problem with recurrence -- often by the same parties -- of this behaviour.
Silhouette 13y ago
We could debate the relative effectiveness of different forms of penalty, and the relative importance of punishment/deterrent, ongoing protection, and rehabilitation, but I'm not sure this is the forum for it. However, let me be clear: if the facts in this case really are as I've seen reported, then I have no problem with taking people who did this, throwing them in a cage, and depriving society of their "productivity" for a while. As far as I'm concerned, that kind of productivity is about as welcome as the banking executives who command "competitive compensation packages" for running their organisations into the ground or the politicians who once elected proceed to legislate for the highest bidder.

pasbesoin 13y ago

Financial penalties have a long record of poor influence toward desired, legal behaviour. Further, they tend to simply be, sooner or later, passed on to the customers or clients who in many cases are the original wronged. Those individuals actually responsible for the sanctioned behaviour are not or only weakly punished and perhaps influenced against its repetition. As an individual, one could well go to prison for such misbehaviour. Corporate and government employment should not serve as an impenetrable shield and dilution of responsibility against such eventuality. Incarceration is often described as having two goals: Punishment for crimes committed, and mitigation against such crimes. For the latter, both by actual restraint and by aversion to the potential results. It seems that stronger aversion is needed; we have a systemic problem with recurrence -- often by the same parties -- of this behaviour.

Silhouette 13y ago

We could debate the relative effectiveness of different forms of penalty, and the relative importance of punishment/deterrent, ongoing protection, and rehabilitation, but I'm not sure this is the forum for it. However, let me be clear: if the facts in this case really are as I've seen reported, then I have no problem with taking people who did this, throwing them in a cage, and depriving society of their "productivity" for a while. As far as I'm concerned, that kind of productivity is about as welcome as the banking executives who command "competitive compensation packages" for running their organisations into the ground or the politicians who once elected proceed to legislate for the highest bidder.