• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

A question about people in jails.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
tynopik said:
justice and deterrence among others
Click to expand...

Deterrence falls under punishment as behavior correction. Punishment for justice alone makes no sense. The concept of justice arose from the need for punishment as behavior correction, among other things. When you say that punishment is for "justice" you are still saying exactly the same thing as I am. Justice merely outlines the extent to which punishment is meted out. The idea of a "just punishment" is an attempt to limit punishment to what is necessary for behavioral adjustment, although it is based on rather unscientific criteria.
 
Last edited:
SlitheryDee said:
Deterrence falls under punishment as behavior correction.
Click to expand...

no, deterrence is much broader than just the individual being punished

SlitheryDee said:
Punishment for justice alone makes no sense.
Click to expand...

absolutely it does

SlitheryDee said:
When you say that punishment is for "justice" you are still saying exactly the same thing as I am.
Click to expand...

yeah, i don't think so

SlitheryDee said:
The idea of a "just punishment" is an attempt to limit punishment to what is necessary for behavioral adjustment
Click to expand...

false, it is based on what is deserved
 
tynopik said:
no, deterrence is much broader than just the individual being punished
Click to expand...

I don't see why that makes a difference. Deterrence is punishment that corrects the behavior of people who aren't necessarily being punished. Same concept.





false, it is based on what is deserved
Click to expand...
Why try to come to a conclusion about what is deserved though? Why does a greater crime deserve a greater punishment? Part of the reason that many people think behavior correction and "justice" exist separately from each other is that the level of punishment we consider appropriate for a particular crime can be arrived at semi-instinctually. You "want" to punish someone more harshly for greater crimes. It "feels" right to do so. So few people go through the process of asking themselves why it feels right. What function does this instinctual urge serve? It is quite clear that it is to allow society to self correct without even having to think about what they are doing. It is to change or eliminate anti-social elements.
 
SlitheryDee said:
I don't see why that makes a difference. Deterrence is punishment that corrects the behavior of people who aren't necessarily being punished. Same concept.
Click to expand...

Deterrence is behavior PREVENTION not correction

if the only 'punishment' for a crime is going to the doc to get a slight attitude adjustment, is that really a deterrence?

SlitheryDee said:
You "want" to punish someone more harshly for greater crimes. . . . What function does this instinctual urge serve?
Click to expand...

if you think about it for a minute it will come to you

SlitheryDee said:
It is quite clear that it is to allow society to self correct without even having to think about what they are doing.
Click to expand...

or not . . .
 
IceBergSLiM said:
What if unicorns were hidden inside whale suits masquerading as narwals?
Click to expand...

24076-the-classic-battle-narwhals-do-it-too-large.jpg
 
tynopik said:
Deterrence is behavior PREVENTION not correction

if the only 'punishment' for a crime is going to the doc to get a slight attitude adjustment, is that really a deterrence?
Click to expand...

I think you're mistaking my position here. I've been known to say from time to time that I'm for flogging people in the streets in lieu of prison time specifically because it would be a great deterrent and it would free up prison space. I believe pain is a sense that evolved into all living things as a way to adjust their behavior. Not using a tool that is practically guaranteed by nature itself to produce results is foolhardy. I daresay I'm even more extreme than you in this area.

What we're disagreeing on here is exactly what we're trying to accomplish by punishment. I say it has a concrete purpose, and a definite goal to achieve. Once achieved, punishment beyond that is immoral, wasteful, and unnecessary. You are countering by saying that punishment is for "justice", and that justice apparently has no purpose. It just "is". THAT is what I am unsatisfied with.
 
SlitheryDee said:
What we're disagreeing on here is exactly what we're trying to accomplish by punishment. I say it has a concrete purpose, and a definite goal to achieve. Once achieved, punishment beyond that is immoral, wasteful, and unnecessary. You are countering by saying that punishment is for "justice",
Click to expand...

part of it, yes

SlitheryDee said:
and that justice apparently has no purpose.
Click to expand...

no . . .

SlitheryDee said:
It just "is". THAT is what I am unsatisfied with.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that you don't care for justice.
 
Imprisoning someone should be a way to remove a problematic person from society. If that person is no longer problematic, there isn't any reason to imprison them anymore.
 
After being convicted he's unhirable, even if he could read and write. (which the majority of inmates can't surprisingly seem to do) And if he's been in there for 20 years the system has likely debilitated him too much for him to make it on the outside anyway, one might better euthanize him. There really isn't anything else that can be done, by the time you have committed a crime, big or small, your life is over.
 
SlitheryDee said:
I give up. What is the purpose of justice as it pertains to criminal punishment then?
Click to expand...

there are whole books on the subject, but i'll make 2 points

1. the legitimacy of the state. one of the primary purposes of the state is to take punishment out of the hands of individuals (revenge, vigiliantism) and make it both proportionate and consistent. it is a balancing act between not making criminal thinking they were treated (too) harshly and the victim thinking they were not punished enough. If the state no longer prescribes what people consider sufficient punishment, they WILL take it upon themselves to deliver it. The two natural consequences are the return of revenge and vigilantism but also questions about the legitimacy of the state and discontent with it's rule which can lead to dangerous situations.

Witness the King riots for examples of what happens when the people don't trust the legitimacy of the government

2. setting societal values. setting levels of punishment for different crimes sets a judgment as to how important things are to society. If you view hate crimes as particularly vile, setting harsh punishments helps change the whole attitude of society and brings them to realize how unacceptable they are


and of course there's still the whole deterrence thing which is separate from justice
 
whether they regret an action or not does not undo the action, nor does it mitigate the fact the person has already proven themselves to be a danger to society.
 
Vdubchaos said:
NO MAN sitting in a cell for 20 years can possibly be normal when done.....sorry.
Click to expand...

Nelson Mandela was in prison for more than 20 years. He has a nobel prize now. I guess what you wrote is true - he's far from a normal person - but not being normal and being a danger or problem to society are different things, and clearly Mandela shows that SOME men can go on to lead valuable, highly productive lives.
 
torpid said:
Nelson Mandela was in prison for more than 20 years. He has a nobel prize now.
Click to expand...

Obama has a Nobel prize too. He likes droning brown people. The Nobel peace prize is joke. If you didn't get a prize for a real skill, you can shove it up your ass for all I care.
 
OinkBoink said:
Let's say there were a man who murdered someone (or maybe raped someone). Let's say he spent about 20 years in jail. Also, let's assume we had something like a cerebroscope using which we could we could read his brain. On reading his brain, it was found that the man truly regretted his actions and he had genuinely changed, i.e. he had been "rehabilitated".

Considering this, would you still want to keep him in jail for what he did 20 years ago or would you give him a chance at life in the outside world?
Click to expand...
Work release, unpaid, and life at a halfway house with strict curfews, etc, with the type of work you are assigned being related to the type and severity of your crime. Punishment for you while being more productive to society than the time you would spend in prison.

Of course that's assuming your magic brain reader was predicting future behavior with 100% predictability, not simply reflecting the prisoner's current state. You could be truly regretful and rehabilitated in prison conditions and then revert to your old ways under other conditions. If you can change one way, you can change the other.
 
OinkBoink said:
Let's say there were a man who murdered someone (or maybe raped someone). Let's say he spent about 20 years in jail. Also, let's assume we had something like a cerebroscope using which we could we could read his brain. On reading his brain, it was found that the man truly regretted his actions and he had genuinely changed, i.e. he had been "rehabilitated".

Considering this, would you still want to keep him in jail for what he did 20 years ago or would you give him a chance at life in the outside world?
Click to expand...

If the guy didn't regret his actions immediately because of the impact it had on the victim and the victim's family, then what he regrets after 20 years is what it has done to HIS life. In my mind, those are two very different types of regret.

But ignoring that, what does the length of time matter in this made up scenario? What if he was in prison for 20 days and had this miraculous change of heart? If you are for releasing him after 20 years, you have to be in favor of releasing him after 20 days as well. Because if you aren't, you are admitting some substantial length of time must be spent in jail for some types of crime and at that point, you probably would have some completely arbitrary system for determining the amount of jail time that would be considered fair.

Personally, murder or rape in the first degree should be punishable by life in prison or the death penalty. Nothing else. No release, ever.

-KeithP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top