News Death Penalty for cut and dried cases?

[Ken Natton]

My understanding is that, while obviously related, the ideas of evolved altruism and kin selection are not exactly the same thing. Perhaps the former is just a special case of the latter. I accept that there is an obvious link between them both and Dawkins’ idea of the selfish gene. Also, I believe Hamilton’s contribution involved a good deal more than one paper, but constituted, in fact, a substantial body of work. As I said, there is a good deal of literature about this available, but one particular book that I found particularly informative, with my penchant for accounts that place scientific discoveries in their historical perspective, is ‘The Altruism Equation’ by Lee Alan Dugatkin.

Trying to drag this back to relevance to the thread, the original mention of altruism on this thread, it seemed to me, sought to suggest that criminal justice is somehow based on what we should expect of the behaviour of human beings based on their evolved, genetically programmed behaviour. I sought to suggest that criminal justice is based on the belief that human beings have an emergent capability to recognise the harm that they do, and to make choices that are not necessarily based on nothing more than their genetically programmed instincts.

 

[nismaratwork]

The only reason for singling out Finland is that it is the literature's standard case. It is a real world experiment that can be examined empirically.

And I do not argue that altruism is everything, only that it is natural and necessary.

To me, it is clear that societies are a balance of the opposing tensions of competition and co-operation. And Finland probably has struck a reasonable balance of those like other Scandinavian countries.



Agreed of course. There are dangers of countries being too homogenous.

I could also say - as I happen to be writing about Goldman Sachs this week - the US has an even more costly corporate crime problem.

But the thread has reflected a general belief that a punitive response is also a natural one. I can see now that you were just countering the anti-thesis, that altruism is somehow the "real natural response".

Like me, you probably see it as obvious that a functioning society is a balance of competition and co-operation - between individual and collective responsibility of social problems.

The debate only gets interesting when it is about what that ideal balance actually looks like - at this point in history.

You're correct, your view of an ideal society is very much the one I have. I don't believe that altruism is the natural response, but I don't believe that caging a solid percentage of the population is either. We need to identify true threats and sequester them, but there is no need to make that stay in prison a torture either. Rehabilitation is the stated mission, and yet... we seem to always see politicians talk only about retribution. I find it interesting that people seem to prefer a sense of vengeance to a more stable and functional society.

Ken Natton: There remains the issue that if someone is a psychopath, they are not going to be treatable at our current level of technology. We can incarcerate them, or place them in a hospital, but evidence suggests that neither will have a meaningful effect. The problem is that we mix this .5%-1% of the population (male at least) with people who may have committed a crime of desperation, stupidity, or passion. It shouldn't shock anyone that when we throw people into a jungle, they learn jungle-survival, not how to be a productive member of society. Our system is insane, ignoring the matter of genetics and intent, and ignoring higher ideals such as altruism or even vengeance for its own sake.

 

[Ken Natton]

I’m not entirely sure what the point you are making to me is, nismaratwork. But I suppose it does nicely bring us back, not just to the subject of this thread, but to the specific case to which it referred. Believe me, I quite understand the feelings about this case that probably underpinned Evo’s decision to start the thread. To me, the key feature of this case is not so much the certainty of guilt, but that these individuals were so far beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour. I do not really know a great deal about each of the individuals involved but it seems that there were differing levels of involvement in all that occurred. Some of the individuals involved, such as the one identified as the ring leader, were probably already unreformable. Other individuals might have been reformable before these events, but having participated in them, crossed a line from which they cannot be brought back. Either way, I accept that the law abiding majority must be protected from these individuals. I would not want anyone dear to me to be at risk from them any more than anyone else would.

So it is clear that they do have to be removed from ordinary society. There comes then the question of lifelong incarceration or capital punishment. I understand the argument that suggests that the former might actually be crueller than the latter. Can I conceive of a situation where capital punishment could be carried out without detriment to the credibility of the criminal justice system’s claim to dispassion? I’m not sure. I am more strongly sure that the use of capital punishment as expression of broader public opinion in line with the kind of thing expressed on this thread by DanP would be highly unlikely to produce a safer society.

 

[DanP]

I am more strongly sure that the use of capital punishment as expression of broader public opinion in line with the kind of thing expressed on this thread by DanP would be highly unlikely to produce a safer society.

You see, I never claimed that it would produce a safer society. I am honestly not interested in the aspect of producing a safer society here. (I do not believe anyway that more lenience will produce a safer society, but education at all levels ) What I am interested in is cold justice.
Even if letting criminals of the hook whould by produce by magic a safer society, I would not
indulge in it. It would not be fair to the victims. Justice must be served, the ones who committed murder 1st degree and some other criminal acts in aggravated cases should be put to death.

A safer society is a price to high too pay if it means denting the justice.

 

[skeptic2]

You see, I never claimed that it would produce a safer society. I am honestly not interested in the aspect of producing a safer society here. (I do not believe anyway that more lenience will produce a safer society, but education at all levels ) What I am interested in is cold justice.
Even if letting criminals of the hook whould by produce by magic a safer society, I would not
indulge in it. It would not be fair to the victims. Justice must be served, the ones who committed murder 1st degree and some other criminal acts in aggravated cases should be put to death.

A safer society is a price to high too pay if it means denting the justice.

The concept of justice is subjective and largely cultural. One of the reasons we're having this discussion is that we can't agree on what justice is. In many of the worst crimes there simply is no way of balancing the scales. It sounds to me that the desire to punish criminals, though it may serve no purpose, is nothing more than revenge.

 

[DanP]

... though it may serve no purpose, is nothing more than revenge.

Do you propose then to let them free, and offer them as parting gift from the police station a new handgun and a couple of boxes of rounds ? So tomorrow they can kill your mother or your sister ?

 

[skeptic2]

Did I say that? Have I said that in any of my posts? Why is letting them free the only alternative whenever purposeless punishment is questioned?

 

[lisab]

Do you propose then to let them free, and offer them as parting gift from the police station a new handgun and a couple of boxes of rounds ? So tomorrow they can kill your mother or your sister ?

C'mon, Dan, that's a ridiculous strawman.

 

[nismaratwork]

I’m not entirely sure what the point you are making to me is, nismaratwork. But I suppose it does nicely bring us back, not just to the subject of this thread, but to the specific case to which it referred. Believe me, I quite understand the feelings about this case that probably underpinned Evo’s decision to start the thread. To me, the key feature of this case is not so much the certainty of guilt, but that these individuals were so far beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour. I do not really know a great deal about each of the individuals involved but it seems that there were differing levels of involvement in all that occurred. Some of the individuals involved, such as the one identified as the ring leader, were probably already unreformable. Other individuals might have been reformable before these events, but having participated in them, crossed a line from which they cannot be brought back. Either way, I accept that the law abiding majority must be protected from these individuals. I would not want anyone dear to me to be at risk from them any more than anyone else would.

So it is clear that they do have to be removed from ordinary society. There comes then the question of lifelong incarceration or capital punishment. I understand the argument that suggests that the former might actually be crueller than the latter. Can I conceive of a situation where capital punishment could be carried out without detriment to the credibility of the criminal justice system’s claim to dispassion? I’m not sure. I am more strongly sure that the use of capital punishment as expression of broader public opinion in line with the kind of thing expressed on this thread by DanP would be highly unlikely to produce a safer society.

I think DanP represents a broad swath of US view of retribution as an element of incarceration. We've been decades into sherrifs, DA's, and other politicians running a "tough on crime tough on criminals " platform. The notion of rehabilitation has been lost in the static of what is a crime that is NOT the most common: murder.

I understand why DanP feels the way he does, although personally I disagree for practical reasons, in the current state of US justice there ARE people too dangerous to be alive, even in a prison like Pelican Bay. If a gang leader can order deaths from a prison cell, that person needs a new level of incarceration, or needs to be killed. It's true that if the system were reworked from the ground up this would be a rare thing, but the system we have shows no signs of positive change.

As a country, we seem to be hell-bent on conflating the notion of accountability with retributive punishment. The whole point, in my view, of prison is twofold:

First, you curtail the freedoms of the prisoner, which in and of itself is a punishment, and while doing so you rehabilitate them.
Second, in those cases where you have a serial rapist, killer, or other recidivist criminal (where drugs are NOT the root cause), you protect society by sequestering them from the general population.

Now, you just have the "Nancy Grace" view that prison is just a place to throw the "bad seeds" until they magically change of their own accord, or just eat their punishment. What a shock that a small-time thief learns to be tougher when tossed in a cage with killers and armed robbers in the mix...

Here's where apeiron's points are most salient, but in the context of a healthy and functional system of public mental health, and drug treatment. Instead, we've gutted the former and declared war on the latter. You have someone like DanP who isn't a fool, and from what I can see isn't cruel either, but he resents even the clothing we pay for a criminal in a prison. Without a model to show him that this can be something other than a burden, should you or I be surprised when he sticks by his guns? After all, in the current system people are likely to do a lot of what he says they will, and keeping them in prison IS a waste of money in the absence of rehabilitation.

I don't know how we step out of this closed circuit and remove the passion from the discussion...

DanP: If someone commits an armed robbery, and kills someone in the process, they aren't necessarily (or even likely to be) a lost cause. Shouldn't we distinguish between sociopaths, and people who can be treated and rehabilitated? If someone takes a life, is it better to simply take their life, or work to make them someone who will spend the rest of their life trying to pay their debt to society?

 

[DanP]

I think DanP represents a broad swath of US view of retribution as an element of incarceration.

I am not an American, I live in EU where many politicians are too soft, and where they banished the death penalty

DanP: If someone commits an armed robbery, and kills someone in the process, they aren't necessarily (or even likely to be) a lost cause. Shouldn't we distinguish between sociopaths, and people who can be treated and rehabilitated? If someone takes a life, is it better to simply take their life, or work to make them someone who will spend the rest of their life trying to pay their debt to society?

It depends on the circumstances of the murder. If I where a DA I may request a death penalty or not in such a case, but it would really depend on the circumstances of the armed robbery, and whatever or not I have a solid case.

Frankly, my view is that rehabilitation is another waste of tax-payers money. Someone who kills (murder 1 usually ) is accountable for his deed and must be punished. I am more interested in seeing him pay than rehabbing him. This is not an actor who has an occasional DUI and its ordered rehab, it's someone who premeditated took a life.

 

[skeptic2]

Im not an American, I live in EU where many politicians are too soft, and where they banished the death penalty

It depends on the circumstances of the murder. If I where a DA I may request a death penalty or not in such a case, but it would really depend on the circumstances of the armed robbery, and whatever or not I have a solid case.

Frankly, my view is that rehabilitation is another waste of tax-payers money. Someone who kills (murder 1 usually ) is accountable for his deed and must be punished. I am more interested in seeing him pay than rehabbing him. This is not an actor who has an occasional DUI and its ordered rehab, it's someone who premeditated took a life.

Given that many different cultures have many different concepts of justice, what is your concept of justice, something akin to the hammurabi code? How do you extract justice for a serial killer, Timothy McVeigh, or the 9/11 terrorists? Can you claim a moral basis for your concept of justice especially when whether or not a particular act, such as abortion, is a crime may be determined by which political party is in power?

 

[DanP]

Can you claim a moral basis for your concept of justice especially when whether or not a particular act, such as abortion, is a crime may be determined by which political party is in power?

Political support is all you need. To claim morality, or lack thereof, is just another human bias, "holier than you". It gets old after a while.

 

[nismaratwork]

I think that's a "yes" to the Code of Hammurabi. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode.html

 

[apeiron]

Political support is all you need. To claim morality, or lack thereof, is just another human bias, "holier than you". It gets old after a while.

I would be interested to see your argument in favour of a retributive model of justice instead of the utilitarian one.

The reason why retribution is a "simple-minded" model is that it lacks scale. The principle of an eye for an eye is like the kind of single scale symmetry breaking you get with positive and negative charge. The size of the crime determines the size of the punishment needed to cancel out the crimes existence. And in this way, the crime is "removed".

But a complex system such as a society is based on asymmetry - symmetry breaking across scale. Some things are local and short duration, others are global and of long duration. Harmony results from a proper balancing of the two.

Which is where we would prefer the utilitarian model. Crimes can't actually be erased, which is why retribution in itself is a little pointless. But societies as global wholes can have the valid goal of minimising crime (as opposed to a fictitious cancelling out). And minimising crime is the decision societies come to, when they are allowed to think about it collectively.

You say that you are not interested in a safer society, just cold justice. But if you desire civilisation and value complexity, then the ability to think about how things work across scale becomes essential.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Which is where we would prefer the utilitarian model. Crimes can't actually be erased, which is why retribution in itself is a little pointless. But societies as global wholes can have the valid goal of minimising crime (as opposed to a fictitious cancelling out). And minimising crime is the decision societies come to, when they are allowed to think about it collectively.

You say that you are not interested in a safer society, just cold justice. But if you desire civilisation and value complexity, then the ability to think about how things work across scale becomes essential.

I'm not DanP, and I'm actually in favor of a utilitarian view here, but I don't think I buy your argument.

It seems entirely plausible, and quite possibly true, that there are a wide variety of degrees of punishment which would have similar societal effects. There is some ("weak on crime", at least to those like DanP) utilitarian maximum which is best in terms of rehabilitating criminals while still punishing them sufficiently to discourage others from following their path. But there is presumably some other point which is nearly as good on those desiderata, but which also punishes criminals heavily ("tough on crime"). If there is societal benefit to this, it could be a reasonable solution even though it doesn't maximize societal gain excepting that benefit.

Now I don't know how far you could take this -- how heavily you could punish criminals without giving up much benefit. (I really don't know -- it could even be at a level harsher than at present for all I know.) Further, I can't speak to the benefit of the retributive stance; I don't even know if it is (as the argument would require) positive.

But I do think this should be considered, rather than dismissed out-of-hand.

 

[apeiron]

But I do think this should be considered, rather than dismissed out-of-hand.

Yes, let's consider the various utilitarian possibilities. But you will have to give a more convincing sketch of the other settings you have in mind.

My initial reaction would be that the guiding principle here would be to maximise the engagement in the social system. So if we are talking about a mixed deterrence/rehabilitation and prevention strategy, I would want to crank the deterrence setting down as low as possible on the grounds it would keep the most people engaged.

When young and minor offenders come up against a hard-arse system, they are going to be dis-engaged - feel like victims of an unfair system and seeing no point in joining it.

So you want to say society gets other benefits out of harsh deterrence. Can you spell out what you have in mind apart from a DanP style joy at others getting what he thinks they deserve.

The confusion to avoid here is the other utilitarian response of time-out. People who cannot for some reason work towards being engaged with society - through mental illness, psychopathy, etc - ought to be removed from contact with society. So you might want to lock them up a long time, or execute them swiftly. I am not arguing against that.

So focusing just on deterrence, what utilitarian reason is there for cranking the dial up rather than cranking it down? Retribution is not on the table (it is not a utilitarian good). Social engagement would seem to be the primary cost of being more excluding rather than more including.

You are arguing that there is a simple ratio in which deterrence can be traded off against prevention/rehabilitation so that hi/lo = lo/hi = $$$. I am instead arguing that there is instead something we actually want to maximise with our justice settings - productive engagement in society.

And terrorising people into obedience does not sound like the modern approach (though it may have been a great utilitarian solution back in the days of slaves and serfs, the reason for the Code of Hammurabi and all that).

 

[CRGreathouse]

Yes, let's consider the various utilitarian possibilities. But you will have to give a more convincing sketch of the other settings you have in mind.

I'm somewhat wary of continuing the argument here, for fear of misrepresenting it. As I have stated, I'm essentially a utilitarian here. But I'll do my best.

My initial reaction would be that the guiding principle here would be to maximise the engagement in the social system. So if we are talking about a mixed deterrence/rehabilitation and prevention strategy, I would want to crank the deterrence setting down as low as possible on the grounds it would keep the most people engaged.

I don't know what engagement in the social system is or why it's desirable. I was arguing that a typical utilitarian scheme, e.g. maximizing

change in productivity of imprisoned vs. free criminals + cost of crimes that would have been committed but are not due to imprisonment + cost of crimes that would have been committed but are not due to deterrence* - cost to imprison criminals​

*could* be modified to a retributionist-utilitarian

change in productivity of imprisoned vs. free criminals + cost of crimes that would have been committed but are not due to imprisonment + cost of crimes that would have been committed but are not due to deterrence* - cost to imprison criminals + imputed societal gain of imprisonment​

I can't really comment on this point further without clarification.

* Technical point: this should actually be the net change in the cost of crime due to deterrence: not just the crimes that aren't committed at that 'punishment' level due to fear of 'punishment', but that less the cost of crimes that would not have been committed but are due to the 'punishment' level. If we execute thieves, and a thief decides to murder a witness for fear of being executed, this reduces the item.

When young and minor offenders come up against a hard-arse system, they are going to be dis-engaged - feel like victims of an unfair system and seeing no point in joining it.

It might be that the optimal retributionist-utilitarian system would punish minor offenders little or no more than under your utilitarian system for that reason. I'm certainly not supporting (and I'm sure DanP doesn;t support) a system which naively increases current punishments by a fixed percentage. Even under the 'harsh' system, some punishments might be reduced (though on average they would of course increase).

So you want to say society gets other benefits out of harsh deterrence. Can you spell out what you have in mind apart from a DanP style joy at others getting what he thinks they deserve.

I think that 'joy' is precisely what is being discussed, the other factors being subsumed into the utilitarian model.

So focusing just on deterrence, what utilitarian reason is there for cranking the dial up rather than cranking it down? Retribution is not on the table (it is not a utilitarian good). Social engagement would seem to be the primary cost of being more excluding rather than more including.

Your argument "retributionist-utilitarians are not merely utilitarians" doesn't work. I repeat my plea here for a definition of engagement: I feel that I'm missing a substantial part of your point through lack of understanding.

You are arguing that there is a simple ratio in which deterrence can be traded off against prevention/rehabilitation so that hi/lo = lo/hi = $$$. I am instead arguing that there is instead something we actually want to maximise with our justice settings - productive engagement in society.

I am certainly not arguing that there is a simple ratio; the problem is a complex high-dimensional optimization problem. This stands regardless of which precise position is taken.

The underlying point is that whatever you want to maximize (utility, "engagement", or whatever) there are likely near-optimal points that increase any given factor, in this case punishment.

And terrorising people into obedience does not sound like the modern approach (though it may have been a great utilitarian solution back in the days of slaves and serfs, the reason for the Code of Hammurabi and all that).

Historically speaking that's actually quite inaccurate! But I'll forgo discussion here since it's not relevant to matters at hand.

 

[apeiron]

I don't know what engagement in the social system is or why it's desirable.

If you are engaged in something, you want to be an active and productive part of it. Take a simple example like getting caned at school. Our whole class was caned once because a few boys jumped in the swimming pool before the gym teacher turned up. After that, it was hard not to be disaffected with the entire school system and enjoy finding ways to undermine it. Engagement is the difference between actively belonging and quietly resisting.

It seems too self-evident to need further explanation.

imputed societal gain of imprisonment

Again what is this apart from DanP's satisfaction in seeing a tit for tat? How is this a social gain rather than a private gratification?

I think that 'joy' is precisely what is being discussed, the other factors being subsumed into the utilitarian model.

Well, joy would have to properly costed. The whole argument is that any fleeting gratification from seeing some sin properly punished has to be balanced against the more general misery of worsening crime, the increasing costs of incarceration, and a growing social dis-engagement.

Unless there is some intrinsic reason why crime has to be matched by an equal quantity of retribution - such as god commands it - then we are just taking about the maximisation of joy, and long term, most people seem to enjoy being forgiving more than they do being punitive.

The underlying point is that whatever you want to maximize (utility, "engagement", or whatever) there are likely near-optimal points that increase any given factor, in this case punishment

.

You are confusing things here. Utilitarianism is the approach, not the goal. So what is the goal?

Is it maximising joy within a society? Yes, but that is a little vague. Is it maximising safety? People would often say that as crime is about harm. You have narrowed the argument to deterrence - should it be strong or weak? I have responded by saying the key dimension now is social engagement as that is what you most risk losing from imposing harsher than necessary punishment.

Deterrence is more likely to create resentment and resistance than obedience and engagement, even in those who are just witnesses to it.

Your argument seems to boil down to wanting to get as much retribution into the scheme of things as possible, with the belief this could be done at no cost in terms of an overall utilitarian "best outcome".

I don't see that retribution can do anything else but create resentment and resistance. It must always have this cost attached.

 

[DanP]

I would be interested to see your argument in favour of a retributive model of justice instead of the utilitarian one.

The punishment system has very little utilitarian value. Much more important factors in crime prevention are education, good social services, homogenization of society.

You gave the example of Finland. But you assign causality to low crime rates to their punishment system. Correlation doe not mean causation. So this is a mistake. You should search the explanation for their low crime rates in the structure of their society, not in the punishment systems. They are a result of the society they have built, not the cause of it.

The reason why retribution is a "simple-minded" model is that it lacks scale. The principle of an eye for an eye is like the kind of single scale symmetry breaking you get with positive and negative charge. The size of the crime determines the size of the punishment needed to cancel out the crimes existence. And in this way, the crime is "removed".

I am not buying this. First and foremost, retributive systems are not "retribution". Second,
the fact that the punishment is in direct relation with the crime is a basic principle of the criminal law anywhere in this world. Third, retributive model comes in at least 3 shapes,
weak, medium, and hard, with serious differences in how the maximum extent for the punishment is determined. Forth, a crime can never be removed. How can you even utter those words ?

But a complex system such as a society is based on asymmetry - symmetry breaking across scale. Some things are local and short duration, others are global and of long duration. Harmony results from a proper balancing of the two.
Which is where we would prefer the utilitarian model. Crimes can't actually be erased, which is why retribution in itself is a little pointless. But societies as global wholes can have the valid goal of minimising crime (as opposed to a fictitious cancelling out). And minimising crime is the decision societies come to, when they are allowed to think about it collectively.

It seems to me that you believe that punishment systems are important determinants of crime rates. They are not. Social systems at large, are. Punishment systems are but a little insignificant part.

If you are bent in creating a better society, you should tackle other problems first, which are much more important in crime prevention. Education for example.

You say that you are not interested in a safer society, just cold justice. But if you desire civilisation and value complexity, then the ability to think about how things work across scale becomes essential.

I value simplicity. Complexity is a total failure. You claim that utilitarian models work better on scale. Actually I claim they do not have any advantage over retributive models.
A criminal who wishes to rehabilitate himself will doit irrespective of the model in which the judge who convicts him believes him. Furthermore ,some criminals do not deserve a chance to rehabilitation.

In the end this is and will always be a political battle. Thank god there are enough which think like I do to prevent the punishment systems and prisons to become asylums and rehab clinics.

 

[DanP]

Unless there is some intrinsic reason why crime has to be matched by an equal quantity of retribution - such as god commands it - then we are just taking about the maximisation of joy, and long term, most people seem to enjoy being forgiving more than they do being punitive.

Sure, most ppl are weak on crime. They believe in kindergarden stories about how moral humans are, and how even the most hardened criminals deserve redemption and other non-sense. They'll enjoy being more forgiving until they get stricken by the dark side themselves. A wife raped, a children killed. Cures naivety fast.

 

[Raven1972]

There are a number of issues at stake here to my mind:
1) Do you want a prison system that tries to treat or punish (and then forget about)
2) Societal values have a huge part to play. For the example of Finland you could say that they have a different social structure than the US. The US system is predicated on taking what you want with scant regard for the consequences (thence the huge negative reaction to the introduction of state provided health care) You could argue that this creates people who, with a little psychological push, take someone's life without much afterthought
3) Do you really believe the judicial system to be infallible (OJ as a prime example) and if not, how many innocent people are you prepared to kill to make sure you get all the guilty ones. Do you want to work on a percentage basis? ie as long as 99% of the people executed are guilty we'll be happy with the deaths of the 1% innocent
4) The death penalty is a headline grabber...but most of these people could have been identified and stopped at some earlier point in their criminal careers. Do you want to resource the police properly or again just wait for an appalling act before then giving the death penalty?
5) For people with untreatable illness's such as Psychopathy. Are you willing to execute them just on the word of a shrink before they commit a crime or do you want to wait until they kill before taking action? Or will you incarcerate them for their lives without ever committing a crime?

 

[Ken Natton]

I don’t know, perhaps I have already stated my viewpoint clearly enough and I don’t really need to state it again. I’m certainly on a completely different wavelength than the discussion between apeiron and CRGreathouse. I hate to assume too much, but I take a hint, CRGreathouse that you are someone who has made some degree of serious study of criminology. I certainly have not and I have to bear that in mind in any challenge I make to what you say. But it seems clear enough to me that all the evidence has to tell you that if deterrence is any part of the function of a system of criminal justice then, in that regard at least, it is a complete failure.

In all that was said in those last few posts, the one thing that had serious resonance for me was your anecdote, apeiron about the events in gym class at school. I went to school in 1970s Britain when teachers handed out casual injustice as easily as they handed out exercise books. Like you, I was witness to the effect it had. Some years ago, during a spell I had working in Tasmania, I was fortunate enough to get the time to visit Port Arthur, which is one of Australia’s most historic sites. It was a penal colony, and because of its position on the end of a peninsula surrounded by thousands of miles of ocean with only a narrow, easily protected connection to the main part of the island, it was where a lot of the most desperate criminals of the day ended up. In the early days of its operation, they kept records of the number of lashes of the whip handed out to each prisoner, and it was in the order of hundreds of lashes per prisoner, per year. Then the records reflect the fact that, quite suddenly, they stopped using the lash all together. That they did so certainly had nothing whatever to do with bleeding heart liberalism. It was because they had learned, 170 years ago, this basic point. As a deterrent, it was utterly ineffective. All it served to do was to make the prisoners that much harder, that much more brutalised, and that much more utterly uncontrollable. I should be honest and admit that they did not simply cease to use the lash. They replaced it with another punishment, actually no less barbaric, but much more effective in controlling the prisoners – a system of solitary confinement somewhat harsher than that generally practiced today. But the point remains that the logic of harsh punishment acting as deterrence is just not supported by actual experience.

 

[DanP]

But the point remains that the logic of harsh punishment acting as deterrence is just not supported by actual experience.

Have you any evidence whatsoever that soft punishments are any more effective ? I hardly think so.

 

[apeiron]

Sure, most ppl are weak on crime. They believe in kindergarden stories about how moral humans are, and how even the most hardened criminals deserve redemption and other non-sense. They'll enjoy being more forgiving until they get stricken by the dark side themselves. A wife raped, a children killed. Cures naivety fast.

I can't keep up. One minute everyone thinks like you, the next they are all soft on rapists.

If you can offer any research - and there is a ton of it - that would be nice. But at the moment you are just expressing an opinion.

 

[DanP]

I can't keep up. One minute everyone thinks like you, the next they are all soft on rapists.

I said that "there are enough ppl thinking like me" not everybody. Read carefully :P:

If you can offer any research - and there is a ton of it - that would be nice. But at the moment you are just expressing an opinion.

All you did in this thread is the same. Your opinions. You are unable to produce even the slightest research to support your opinions. Nothing but philosophy so far from you.

 

[apeiron]

The punitive US approach to justice is in fact getting plenty of international attention because it is so out of line...

Justice is harsher in America than in any other rich country. Between 2.3m and 2.4m Americans are behind bars, roughly one in every 100 adults. If those on parole or probation are included, one adult in 31 is under “correctional” supervision. As a proportion of its total population, America incarcerates five times more people than Britain, nine times more than Germany and 12 times more than Japan. Overcrowding is the norm. Federal prisons house 60% more inmates than they were designed for. State lock-ups are only slightly less stuffed.

The system has three big flaws, say criminologists. First, it puts too many people away for too long. Second, it criminalises acts that need not be criminalised. Third, it is unpredictable. Many laws, especially federal ones, are so vaguely written that people cannot easily tell whether they have broken them.

Jim Felman, a defence lawyer in Tampa, Florida, says America is conducting “an experiment in imprisoning first-time non-violent offenders for periods of time previously reserved only for those who had killed someone”. One of Mr Felman’s clients, a fraudster called Sholam Weiss, was sentenced to 845 years.

“You can serve federal time for interstate transport of water hyacinths, trafficking in unlicensed dentures, or misappropriating the likeness of Woodsy Owl.”

In Washington state, for example, each dollar invested in new prison places in 1980 averted more than nine dollars of criminal harm (using a somewhat arbitrary scale to assign a value to not being beaten up). By 2001, as the emphasis shifted from violent criminals to drug-dealers and thieves, the cost-benefit ratio reversed. Each new dollar spent on prisons averted only 37 cents’ worth of harm.

Sooner or later American voters will realize that their incarceration policies are unjust and inefficient

http://www.economist.com/node/16636027

http://www.economist.com/node/16640389

 

[apeiron]

All you did in this thread is the same. Your opinions. You are unable to produce even the slightest research to support your opinions. Nothing but philosophy so far from you.

A couple of review articles for you...

http://cjonline.uc.edu/the-twelve-people-who-saved-rehabilitation-how-the-science-of-criminology-made-a-difference

http://learn.uci.edu/media/SP06/99015/Assess%20Rehab%20Cullen%2003d.pdf

 

[Raven1972]

For some crimes, it seems the death penalty is not punishment enough. I am for the death penalty in cases, such as this, where there is no question of guilt. But I also agree that in these cases, the death penalty should be carried out immediately after sentencing

Would you agree or disagree with the death penalty in a case such as this?

I suppose it comes back to my argument of how certain can you be? I don't deny that heinous crimes like this are appalling but as the old saying goes...hard cases make bad law..You say "where there is no question of guilt", well in my mind, in a judicial system where the quality of your lawyer determines whether you're found guilty or not. The rich and intelligent would still get off or have diminished sentences due to the quality of their advocates...
So, what you really will do is just ensure the poor uneducated are executed...hmmm...now where was that last done??...oh yeah, Nazi Germany...
To bring in a idealised concept as no guilt, you could qualify it and say, where the person admits their guilt. Now you would be on safe ground. However, those unrepentant people who would do it again will never admit their guilt. Those who would are most likely to have already started the process of atoning for their actions by realising and admitting them. So do you really want to execute those people when they show genuine contrition?
It is a proven fact in the US that more black americans of poor background are executed than any other section of the population...doesn't that make you think?

 

[Char. Limit]

I suppose it comes back to my argument of how certain can you be? I don't deny that heinous crimes like this are appalling but as the old saying goes...hard cases make bad law..You say "where there is no question of guilt", well in my mind, in a judicial system where the quality of your lawyer determines whether you're found guilty or not. The rich and intelligent would still get off or have diminished sentences due to the quality of their advocates...

Right here, you're making some sense. It's true that guilt is hard to determine with absolute certainty, and I believe that absolute certainty is impossible to achieve.

So, what you really will do is just ensure the poor uneducated are executed...hmmm...now where was that last done??...oh yeah, Nazi Germany...

However, here is where the agreement ends. Last I heard, Reductio ad Hitlerum is not a logical argument, and in fact simply poisons your argument, perhaps irreparably. I'm not very willing to listen to someone who invokes the Nazis in their arguments, and right here is where I stopped liking your argument. Please, refrain from breaking Godwin's Law in the future.

To bring in a idealised concept as no guilt, you could qualify it and say, where the person admits their guilt. Now you would be on safe ground. However, those unrepentant people who would do it again will never admit their guilt. Those who would are most likely to have already started the process of atoning for their actions by realising and admitting them. So do you really want to execute those people when they show genuine contrition?
It is a proven fact in the US that more black americans of poor background are executed than any other section of the population...doesn't that make you think?

And now you play the race card, without citing this info, so it's hardly a "proven fact" as you state. If you find a valid citation, then I'll believe you, but as this, it's just unsubstantiated rumor. Also, argument by implication is hardly a better way to argue than argumentum ad Hitlerum. What you're implying is that our justice system is racist. I'd like to see some concrete proof of that before I'll believe in it. A citation of such from a peer-reviewed journal would be nice.

 

[Raven1972]

In reply to CHAR LIMIT:

Actualy I'm glad you pulled me up on that as when I researched it I found I was indeed wrong:

"African Americans made up 41% of death row inmates while making up only 12% of the general population. (They have made up 34% of those actually executed since 1976.)[84] However, that number is lower than that of prison inmates, which is 47%[85] U.S. Department of Justice statistics show that African-Americans constituted 48 percent of adults charged with homicide, but only 41 percent of those sentenced of death. Once arrested for murder, African-Americans are less likely to receive a capital sentence than are White Americans.[86][unreliable source?]

Academic studies indicate that the single greatest predictor of whether a death sentence is given, however, is not the race of the defendant, but the race of the victim. According to a 2003 Amnesty International report, Africans and Europeans were the victims of murder in almost equal numbers, yet 80% of the people executed since 1977 were convicted of murders involving white victims.[84] But, others say intra-racial murders, most likely between persons who know one another are circumstances often viewed as inappropriate for the death penalty. Because those sentenced to death often don't know their victims (e.g., killing during rape or robbery), their victim is likely to be European.[86][unreliable source?][dubious – discuss]

Among convicts, half of the ten inmates on Connecticut's death row, all races included, have been condemned for the murders of minorities, and five of the 37 inmates executed in South Carolina were Caucasian men convicted of murdering Blacks. In October 2000, a study[87] of La Griffe du Lion, an anonymous scholar accused on Internet forums of "scientifical fraud"[88], based on the difference between homicide ratio among races and death row inmates' races, concludes that distribution of death sentences is biased in Southern states against Non-Hispanic Whites, where most of the executions take place, biased against Blacks in Pennsylvania, and neutral in the other states of Midwest and West."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States#Among_races

I guess I confused myself when remembering it...