Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
If we aggregate these costs and put a dollar figure on them, then the guy
should be willing to kill Steve as long as he pays that dollar amount.
Anything less leads to an inefficient outcome, where a person, suffering
from Moral Hazard, doesn't bear the full responsibility of their
actions. Anything more is excessive-to the extent that punitive justice
works, it is designed as a deterrent. After all, perhaps there are
circumstances wherein the world is better off with Steve dead (perhaps
he's Hitler's clone?). People who are overly deterred from taking a
given course of action will not take that course of action, even if the
result yields more utility than not taking said action.
I am not sure that I agree that the only way punitive justice works is as a deterrent and I guess I am having some problems with your logic here (both understanding it and trying to agree with it). Basically, I do not think that people tend to think that there is good to be gained from violent crimes so I do not believe that most would view the problem of over-deterrence like the way you explain it. I think many people think that having overly harsh punishments is just unjust itself regardless of the deterrence factor and whether society might benefit from having a person in jail for life. I might be wrong about that though.
Basically, I think that since people are not complete monsters as you point out, your analysis can only cover one part of punishment (i.e. deterrence). I believe that while deterring crime and isolating criminals to prevent them from harming society are both important parts of punishment, there is an extra level of justice in addition to that and I believe human rights and cruel and unusual punishment play into that other level.
Beholderess,
I respect the fact that you would rather keep this at a theoretical level.
It is not about seeing people "less than human". It is simply not
applying the rules they do not accept to them. After all, for them to
claim protection of the same very right they choose to disregard is
nothing but hypocritical. If they think that it is ok for them to beat
people in the head with an iron tube, then why is it is suddenly not
okay when they are affected?
Well, in my view, a main reason for having the idea of human rights is to lay out what treatment no human deserves. Granted, I understand that things like imprisonment, capital punishment, and solitary confinement all take away certain rights that many would say should be included under the umbrella of human rights. I accept that and I would prefer not to argue if each of those three parts of punishment are just in themselves because I think that is a bit beside the point. However, I do believe that there are certain points at which people draw the line. For example, I think a good number of people would agree that it is immoral to deny a prisoner food regardless of if he or she caused the death of another person by doing the same thing.
Going back to the iron tube example you brought up in your comment, I think society says that it is was not okay for that person to beat the other person with an iron tube by giving that person punishment. I believe that it is somewhat hypocritical for that same society to say that it is fine to do the same banned thing to the criminal as punishment. I mean, I agree with the social contract argument reasoning you are using (or at least the argument I think you are using, feel free to correct me if I am wrong) to a point (i.e. if you break the contract you do not deserve all of the same rights that someone who follows it deserves). After all, I think it is justified to imprison criminals, depending on their crime, and take away that freedom that ordinary people have.
Yet, I believe there are certain rights that society sees as being so important that not even the state should be able to take them away as punishment. I think denying people food falls under that category in addition to assaulting someone, or generally abusing a prisoner. To make a somewhat flawed analogy, there are certain international standards about what is considered a war crime and what kind of treatment that prisoners of war deserve. Seeing as prisoners of war typically are enemy soldiers that either have already shot and possibly killed members of one's military or have the potential to do so, many people would probably think they have committed rather awful acts. Still, international law says that there are certain levels of decent treatment that one must give them despite what they have done.
Whether I consider people "worthy" of something or not is irrelevant.
Someone might be the lowest scum on the earth but as long as they do not
cause a particular harm to another, they are protected against the same
type of harm.
I apologize if I was unclear before. When I mentioned worthy I was talking about criminals being considered less than human and thus not guaranteed basic human rights.
Anyway, I hope this comment does not seem excessively preachy or horribly long-winded and annoying or whatever. I am actually reasonably unsure of what I am saying here and I am no expert on the law or on punishment.
If you use "justice" as an explanation for punishment, you have to have some kind of model that explains what justice is. Unfortunately, most such things are basically tantamount to individual's unsupported axioms, rather than something meaningfully derived from an intelligent model.
Thank you for an answer.
Going back to the iron tube example you brought up in your comment, I
think society says that it is was not okay for that person to beat the
other person with an iron tube by giving that person punishment. I
believe that it is somewhat hypocritical for that same society to say
that it is fine to do the same banned thing to the criminal as
punishment.
That makes sense. If certain actions are bad because society does not allow them, period, then doing the very same thing to punish criminals would be hypocritical indeed. I guess the difference between out opinions comes from difference assumptions about why it is bad to do something in the first place. The way I see it, hitting people is wrong because, well, they do not want it, did not agree to it and did nothing to deserve it. So generally it is wrong, but if I meet a person who thinks that it is acceptable and would not mind solving conflicts by this method, and I agree t it too, then between me and them it is acceptable. Basically, it is more a matter of agreement. So, by doing anything, person basically says that they are okay with an action in question.
By the same reason I do not see an "eye for eye" punishment as something that society inflicts on a criminal but more as a something they agreed with when they committed the crime.
Other types of judgement, such as those currently used, are explicitly set by society, though. A thief considers taking away possessions okay, but not necessary holds the same opinion about taking freedom, yet it is freedom that is taken from them.
So, in a way, I consider inflicting upon criminals what they inflicted upon others much less harsh and arbitrary, as it is their own rules that are used against them, not society's.
But yes, if it's society that makes certain actions prohibited, ten inflicting them upon criminals would be hypocritical. Even if they deny the rules, the rules don't bend for them, if I understand your meaning correctly? In a way, "asking" to receive additional punishment is not different from asking to additional privilege.
The purpose of punishment is to act as a deterrent. The suffering of another human being is a bad thing, from a utilitarian standpoint, no matter what the circumstances; if the punishment didn't serve a purpose, then it shouldn't exist in the first place.
While I certainly agree that one of the purposes of punishment is deterrence, I also believe that isolating the threat a criminal poses to society is another key part of it. I think the entirety of the justice system is more complex than just deterrence though, but I am not sure how mainstream that viewpoint is. I would be interested to hear why you think that the sole purpose of punishment is to act as a deterrent if you really do believe that. Sorry, I am not quite sure if you do.
If you use "justice" as an explanation for punishment, you have to have
some kind of model that explains what justice is. Unfortunately, most
such things are basically tantamount to individual's unsupported axioms,
rather than something meaningfully derived from an intelligent model.
Sure, I can agree that the idea of what is just may be difficult to discern. However, I do not believe that the kind of model you gave can tell us if something is truly fair (or moral or what have you) and I believe that fairness is a key part of the legal system. Now, I believe that ideas about what is fair punishment and cruel and unusual differ from time to time. Still, I think that it is pretty important to think about that part of punishment for human rights reasons and because people are more than just numbers after all.
That is not to say that I think the model you presented is bad, just that I think that at best it can determine what punishment deters the most, not necessarily whether people in society would consider that punishment to be fair for the crime. To give one example, studies may show that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on capital crimes yet people still argue about whether it should be used. Sorry, if I am not making sense here. Feel free to ask me questions if you do not understand anything that I said.
Beholderess,
By the same reason I do not see an "eye for eye" punishment as something that society inflicts on a criminal but more as a something they agreed with when they committed the crime.
I guess this is where I disagree with you. I think that given that the state is the actor in this situation since it inflicts the punishment on the criminal. Still, I kind of agree that the fact that the criminal broke the law means that they basically agreed to be punished. I think what kind of punishment is warranted is arguable though.
Other types of judgement, such as those currently used, are explicitly
set by society, though. A thief considers taking away possessions okay,
but not necessary holds the same opinion about taking freedom, yet it is
freedom that is taken from them.
So, in a way, I consider inflicting upon criminals what they inflicted upon others much less harsh and arbitrary, as it is their own rules that are used against them, not society's.
I probably will not be able to agree with you on this subject. I think that even if a criminal is a so-called "complete monster," the state should never act as a "complete monster." I can understand why you might think such punishments are a bit arbitrary, but I think part of that does have to do with pragmatic reasoning. Also, while your reasoning may sound nicer when it comes to one who has committed a robbery, I believe that for crimes like sexual assault, "eye for an eye" type punishments are more harsh and give the state too much power.
I apologize if I sounded too harsh here. I think I am rambling a bit at this point.
I think this is a mistake. To put it in very basic terms, if I steal a sandwich because I am hungry, I am not agreeing to having the sandwich stolen from me. That would completely undermine my intent when stealing it. I stole it because I wanted to eat it. Bugger off and find your own sandwich. This is mine now.
Likewise, if I murder somebody because I thought he was a nasty scumbag, I am not agreeing to be murdered myself. After all, I am not a nasty scumbag. :P
The same with murder. By murdering someone for being a nasty scumbag, you demonstrated that by your own rules, killing people because you consider them nasty scumbags is ok. And if it is ok for you to do so, why is it not ok for others?
The question is not whether you want it happening or not, but whether you consider it an acceptable behaviour.
And I didn't kill the guy because I considered him a scumbag, he was a scumbag, and furthermore he was totally asking for it! I only gave him what he deserved! How is that different from what an executioner does?
The best outcome is the one that results in the greatest amount of love. As such, a situation where the transgression is cast aside and people (as I jokingly said before) become friends.
It all sounds terribly saccharine/over simplified/naive; but think about it. Look at almost any story which has a villain becoming a good guy, and the like. Isn't that a very positive situation? Even if someone dies because of this redemption, thus violating overall happiness, nobody cares because of how much they value the others.
-shields ears from the cries of angry, sugar-hating dentists-