Conquer Club

Societies seem to be becoming more merciful and permissive in their punishments for crimes. Over a hundred countires have abolished the death penalty within the last hundred years, and even in those that do still have executions, you aren't likely to see someone quartered by horses or burned at the stake.

What punishments do you think should still be used, and under what circumstances?

Do you feel that harsh punishments are useful in deterring or preventing crime?

Should we be more concerned with saving (or making) money when considering criminal punishments, or is excess spending justified to create a more desirable outcome (Prevention, rehabilitation, accuracy, fairness, etc.)?

The important question to me is not which punishments we should use but whether the concept of punishment is a useful one to stick to. The idea of punishment is almost exclusive to retributive justice theorists. If instead we consider consequentialist theories of the justice system then the question is not about what forms of punishment we should use; rather, it is about what actions we should take to maximize the well-being of society. Only when we understand our justice framework can we start to answer questions about the nature of particular forms of imprisonment or other restrictions or corporal intrusions.

Mets is right, and my general understanding is that negative reinforcement (such as beating someone, humiliating them, sending them to do forced labor etc.) doesn't have any useful impact on their behavior. If a parent catches a child shoplifting and hits them over the head with a broom, it merely teaches the kid not to get caught next time.

not entirely true. whilst there is clearly no argument to be made for the 'deterrent effect' of capital punishment on rates of capital crime, would you further the analogy to suggest that (closer to home) there should be no punishment for corruption / bribery ' embezzlement / fraud as it only encourages those perpetrating these crimes to do so with greater circumspection?

agree with mets - the aim of punishment (incarceration or otherwise) should be rehabilitation rather than eye for an eye vengeance. on the other hand, i do believe violent crimes should be punished, in part, with violence. i cannot honestly say that, to use a recent example, the jilted ex boyfriend (caveat: with no extenuating circumstances) blinding his partner with acid deserves to keep his sight.

khazalid wrote:not entirely true. whilst there is clearly no argument to be made for the 'deterrent effect' of capital punishment on rates of capital crime, would you further the analogy to suggest that (closer to home) there should be no punishment for corruption / bribery ' embezzlement / fraud as it only encourages those perpetrating these crimes to do so with greater circumspection?

Better is to address the roots of the problem. How does corruption persist? Lack of transparency, too few checks-and-balances etc. What motivates corruption? The aforementioned lack of institutional restraints, coupled with very low levels of remuneration for those holding the power.

Take aware the desire to bribe or embezzle, take away the capacity to bribe or embezzle, and the levels of both will drop.

agree with mets - the aim of punishment (incarceration or otherwise) should be rehabilitation rather than eye for an eye vengeance. on the other hand, i do believe violent crimes should be punished, in part, with violence. i cannot honestly say that, to use a recent example, the jilted ex boyfriend (caveat: with no extenuating circumstances) blinding his partner with acid deserves to keep his sight.

What exactly would be achieved by blinding him?

mrswdk wrote:

khazalid wrote:not entirely true. whilst there is clearly no argument to be made for the 'deterrent effect' of capital punishment on rates of capital crime, would you further the analogy to suggest that (closer to home) there should be no punishment for corruption / bribery ' embezzlement / fraud as it only encourages those perpetrating these crimes to do so with greater circumspection?

Better is to address the roots of the problem. How does corruption persist? Lack of transparency, too few checks-and-balances etc. What motivates corruption? The aforementioned lack of institutional restraints, coupled with very low levels of remuneration for those holding the power.

Take aware the desire to bribe or embezzle, take away the capacity to bribe or embezzle, and the levels of both will drop.

you didn't answer the question.

khazalid wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

khazalid wrote:not entirely true. whilst there is clearly no argument to be made for the 'deterrent effect' of capital punishment on rates of capital crime, would you further the analogy to suggest that (closer to home) there should be no punishment for corruption / bribery ' embezzlement / fraud as it only encourages those perpetrating these crimes to do so with greater circumspection?

Better is to address the roots of the problem. How does corruption persist? Lack of transparency, too few checks-and-balances etc. What motivates corruption? The aforementioned lack of institutional restraints, coupled with very low levels of remuneration for those holding the power.

Take aware the desire to bribe or embezzle, take away the capacity to bribe or embezzle, and the levels of both will drop.

you didn't answer the question.

Eh. Some level of punishment is probably useful, as the prospect of a fine or a criminal record will deter those with relatively little interest in doing whatever it is that you don't want them to do. That said, there are plenty of people out there who clearly don't think they will ever get caught, or who don't care if they get caught, and in their case you can legislate as many draconian punishments as you like but you won't change their behavior.

There's also the question of just how efficient it is to go round handing out punishments, even in fairly minor cases. Another example I'm sure you can identify with: people parking their cars and scooters anywhere they please, regardless of how much they block up the roads and pavements. What is a more efficient way of dealing with them: sending out hundreds of traffic police to patrol the streets and hand out fines to parking violators, then taking those who don't pay to court, or installing a few bollards that make it impossible to park illegally in the first place?

You also didn't answer my question

mrswdk wrote:Mets is right, and my general understanding is that negative reinforcement (such as beating someone, humiliating them, sending them to do forced labor etc.) doesn't have any useful impact on their behavior. If a parent catches a child shoplifting and hits them over the head with a broom, it merely teaches the kid not to get caught next time.

that's just stupid mrs wdk. of course it works why do you think it's been done since forever.

but obviously there are better methods.

saxitoxin wrote:What about containment of the actual offender rather than seeking to socialize sanctions as a means of deterring other/future offenders?

I would argue that given the amount of people America locks up, often for a very long time, incarceration in order to set an example doesn't really seem to work.

Should all prison sentences be open-ended and simply terminate when an expert (Nate Silver) determines the likelihood of future offending has reached a statistically low probability based on XYZ factors (past criminal record, psychography of the convict, etc.)? Whether that means a murderer serves 30 days and a vandal serves 30 years?

In the case of an offender being given a fairly short sentence for even a very serious crime, yes. If they are already rehabilitated, keeping them in longer is unlikely to achieve much/anything, and will most likely be detrimental.

In the case of long sentences for unrehabilitated people, you have to ask if it's actually worth spending the amount that it costs to keep them locked up for 30 years. The cost of repairing the bus window they smash after being released versus paying the keep them in a cell for the next 5 years.

Oh, you deleted that comment while I replied to it. I don't care.

nietzsche wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Mets is right, and my general understanding is that negative reinforcement (such as beating someone, humiliating them, sending them to do forced labor etc.) doesn't have any useful impact on their behavior. If a parent catches a child shoplifting and hits them over the head with a broom, it merely teaches the kid not to get caught next time.

that's just stupid mrs wdk. of course it works why do you think it's been done since forever.

but obviously there are better methods.

Physical punishment only works as long as the person who might physically punish you is standing over you watching. if you don't think they're going to see you misbehaving, you'll feel free to carry on misbehaving.

mrswdk wrote:Oh, you deleted that comment while I replied to it. I don't care.

I deleted it because, after asking the question, I decided I didn't want to know the answer. I realized I created an interesting hypothetical society in my mind and I'm going to pretend to live there for a few days to see how my hypothesis play sout; your opinion is completely and totally irrelevant to the power of my imagination. Thank you.

Sounds exciting!!!

mrswdk wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Mets is right, and my general understanding is that negative reinforcement (such as beating someone, humiliating them, sending them to do forced labor etc.) doesn't have any useful impact on their behavior. If a parent catches a child shoplifting and hits them over the head with a broom, it merely teaches the kid not to get caught next time.

that's just stupid mrs wdk. of course it works why do you think it's been done since forever.

but obviously there are better methods.

Physical punishment only works as long as the person who might physically punish you is standing over you watching. if you don't think they're going to see you misbehaving, you'll feel free to carry on misbehaving.

mrs wdk, that was not thoroughly thought, and I guess it's because you don't get much oxygen in Beijing. I'll give you another shot, turn on your air purifier.

also, that comment Lootifer made the other day comes to mind. I forgive you because you're young and dumb.

I voted:

• pro capital punishment: I wouldn't mind if a captured terrorist, serial killer/rapist, a warcriminal(only for high ranks), etc. gets executed.
• against corporal punishment: doesn't help much
• pro life sentences: For slightly lesser murders than capital punishment, like mere singular murders.
• pro forced labor: if and only if the inmates get a small compensation(below market wages of course)
• oppose public humiliation: it's contraproctive to rehabilitation
• oppose psychological punishments: this could possibly deteriorate the inmates behavior

The only punishments that make sense are from a wheel of justice. Punishment is about spectacle.

Take speeding for example. If the legislators are doing their job, driving over the speed limit should be an unsavory item on par with penguin rape. To most people, the speed limits are to be avoided. Either they are too low, in which case an armed populace should storm the Capitol Hill by storm or the people are wrong to drive over and a random chance of being dismembered will dissuade speeders.

Our justice system is bullshit. According to modern theories of the brain, if there is witness testimony it didn't happen. Yet, witness testimony is the "gold standard" in criminal proceedings. Any person who believes they can arbitrate any proceeding or pass fair judgement on any situation is, according to my definition, batshit crazy. This is why a justice wheel should prevail.

nietzsche wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Mets is right, and my general understanding is that negative reinforcement (such as beating someone, humiliating them, sending them to do forced labor etc.) doesn't have any useful impact on their behavior. If a parent catches a child shoplifting and hits them over the head with a broom, it merely teaches the kid not to get caught next time.

that's just stupid mrs wdk. of course it works why do you think it's been done since forever.

but obviously there are better methods.

Physical punishment only works as long as the person who might physically punish you is standing over you watching. if you don't think they're going to see you misbehaving, you'll feel free to carry on misbehaving.

mrs wdk, that was not thoroughly thought, and I guess it's because you don't get much oxygen in Beijing. I'll give you another shot, turn on your air purifier.

also, that comment Lootifer made the other day comes to mind. I forgive you because you're young and dumb.

Feel free to explain how I'm wrong. If I screw someone in a business deal, and they turn up at my house with thugs, then next time I screw someone I'll just hire my own thugs to pre-empt their retaliation. Violence and retribution don't teach anyone anything.

waauw wrote:I voted:

• pro capital punishment: I wouldn't mind if a captured terrorist, serial killer/rapist, a warcriminal(only for high ranks), etc. gets executed.
• against corporal punishment: doesn't help much
• pro life sentences: For slightly lesser murders than capital punishment, like mere singular murders.
• pro forced labor: if and only if the inmates get a small compensation(below market wages of course)
• oppose public humiliation: it's contraproctive to rehabilitation
• oppose psychological punishments: this could possibly deteriorate the inmates behavior

About how I see it as well. For the worst criminals, like the ones you mentioned, no point in keeping them around. They are a threat to society, and as they are generally psycopaths, they can't be reformed. They can put on a show, saying that they are "changed", but they lie like how regular people breath.

Life sentences (with parole a possibility, depending on the case) I can see for serious crimes, but mainly for the ones who are not serial killers/rapists/war criminals.

Forced labor, yeah. And some sort of compensation. Put those guys to work doing something useful. It may even give them a chance when their sentence is up to find a place to work and become a productive member of society.

Public humiliation? No. Counter productive at best.
Psychological punishments? No, as it can end up making things worse. Psychopaths it wouldn't affect and only make the person(s) doing it a potential target. Others, well, it could do irreparable damage to them.

I met a guy once who told me this ... he were caught for speeding and hes just right give me my ticket so i can go on...
the cop goes not so fast , here ... i want u to imagine a class of 5 year old children on the way to a forest picnic, looks both ways and starts to cross the road ... at the speed u were travelling u would have smashed at least 5 of em to tiny kiddy bits ... could u have lived with yourself ...? im not giving u a ticket i want u to go from here and really really think about this OK.

That was the day he stopped speeding...

Im againt capital punishment andd then not ... i mean if someone raped my daughters i would go over the man with a blowtorch... so i dont know really. In sweden we have a very lenient system... we belive in getting em back into society everybody is worth a 5th chance and so on ... the thought is good but idont know if i want to meet massmurders, terrorists or child molesters free and on the street after like 3-5 years ...

i think as said before the intresting thing is trying to get to the root ... and chop it

mrswdk wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Mets is right, and my general understanding is that negative reinforcement (such as beating someone, humiliating them, sending them to do forced labor etc.) doesn't have any useful impact on their behavior. If a parent catches a child shoplifting and hits them over the head with a broom, it merely teaches the kid not to get caught next time.

that's just stupid mrs wdk. of course it works why do you think it's been done since forever.

but obviously there are better methods.

Physical punishment only works as long as the person who might physically punish you is standing over you watching. if you don't think they're going to see you misbehaving, you'll feel free to carry on misbehaving.

mrs wdk, that was not thoroughly thought, and I guess it's because you don't get much oxygen in Beijing. I'll give you another shot, turn on your air purifier.

also, that comment Lootifer made the other day comes to mind. I forgive you because you're young and dumb.

Feel free to explain how I'm wrong. If I screw someone in a business deal, and they turn up at my house with thugs, then next time I screw someone I'll just hire my own thugs to pre-empt their retaliation. Violence and retribution don't teach anyone anything.

But that's not what you said mrs wdk.

Lord Arioch wrote: the thought is good but idont know if i want to meet massmurders, terrorists or child molesters free and on the street after like 3-5 years ...

They help keep the local population terrified, making oppressive government seem palatable.

Metsfanmax wrote:The important question to me is not which punishments we should use but whether the concept of punishment is a useful one to stick to. The idea of punishment is almost exclusive to retributive justice theorists. If instead we consider consequentialist theories of the justice system then the question is not about what forms of punishment we should use; rather, it is about what actions we should take to maximize the well-being of society. Only when we understand our justice framework can we start to answer questions about the nature of particular forms of imprisonment or other restrictions or corporal intrusions.

True. Our current justice system, while less brutal, also does not think through the end of the equation like the original justice systems do. In classical eras, things could usually easily be explained from each step of consequence, whether right or wrong:
Thief is stealing stuff with her hands > Remove hands > No goods stolen
Crazy guy bothering people > Banish him to the wilderness > No one annoyed
Our current system just generally assume things will be good enough if people are fined or removed long enough no matter the crime. While not effective enough in eliminating the problem of repeat offence, it does sate the innate desire for people who need to believe the world punishes the wrong and rewards the right. If people think that "bad" people don't get their comeuppance, things can spiral out of control. There have been riots for a single death; heck there have been riots over cartoons. Illogical or not, not providing a sacrifice could also create a greater consequential loss than just going along with a mob's call for blood.
Imagine a world where Hitler was captured, there's no way the world would stand idly by and let him stay in his cell writing Mein Kampf 2 & 3, while making royalties off of fried chicken.

nietzsche wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Feel free to explain how I'm wrong. If I screw someone in a business deal, and they turn up at my house with thugs, then next time I screw someone I'll just hire my own thugs to pre-empt their retaliation. Violence and retribution don't teach anyone anything.

But that's not what you said mrs wdk.

Same thing. Violent punishment teaches you not to get caught out again, not to stop behaving that way.