I remember reading an article/study that said we think we punish for deterrence, but we mostly punish out of spite.
edit: here's the article...https://aeon.co/ideas/punishment-isnt-about-the-common-good-...
edit: here's the article...https://aeon.co/ideas/punishment-isnt-about-the-common-good-...
I think that if too many people see retribution as no longer being applied, some people will start to take matters into their own hands to seek vengeance.
The state has an interest in preventing that and assuring retribution is applied as evenly as possible, and counterbalanced by other mitigating factors (e.g. the degree of offense, the circumstances under which it occurred, likelihood of reoffending, penitence of the guilty, etc.).
So if the government would take a true rehabilitative approach, and maybe arrest people but treat them well, try to help them so they don't do the same behaviors in the future, a percentage of the population might see that as insufficient and take retribution into their own hands.
You've helped me realize why I've actually shifted my professional focus from wanting to change politics to wanting to change culture. Seems a lot of being in government is doing what the people want, and if the people want retribution, then the government has to follow it.
I hope for (and am working towards) a world in which we help people know our pain not by trying to cause the same pain to them, but by expressing our pain to them with more granularity, because the pain they'd feel as a result of retribution will never be the exact same pain we feel, as our contexts are way too complex to replicate exactly.
I really appreciate your comment, thank you for helping me think more deeply about this.
It may not be entirely descriptive, but it certainly is part of it. At some point Gary Plauché becomes common.
It sounds like you're trying to be part of the solution, which I deeply commend. Thank you also for your very thoughtful reply. It's appreciated.
Fraud? The money comes from somewhere; someone is harmed by it (Pratchett's Going Postal has a good line on it - "No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game.”
But maybe it also has to do with whether people feel victimized. If no one felt victimized, would we punish?
So I imagine it's probably a combination of who feels victimized and who society believes should feel victimized. Because as others may respond, white-collar crime has people who get harmed as a result of the actions, even if it's not as obvious as the person directly punching them in the face.
One could argue that even the fact of breaking the law can harm those who went through great lengths to not break the law.
Yes, I know some of the people who lost money are rich, and much is being made of that by people who want to troll by saying that's the only reason he really got into trouble (e.g., on Reddit). But that's not true: there are plenty of victims from SBFs crimes, both rich and not rich.
And in this kind of discussion I suggest it's helpful to avoid hypotheticals and to look at the real situations and outcomes relating to the case we're talking about.
So if the spite causes people to feel sufficiently afraid to do the action in the future, maybe it deters people from acting that way?
edit: here's the article...https://aeon.co/ideas/punishment-isnt-about-the-common-good-...
Retribution ("spite") is about getting even.
Rehabilitation is about making it so that the person is less likely to offend again when released and more likely to be of positive value to society.
Removal is about locking someone up so they cannot do more crimes.
A good prison system should balance all four.
It also seems like the population of ex-criminals couldn’t be representative of the population as a whole, right?
(FWIW I think the theory of deterrence is probably not correct, I can’t prove a negative, but the burden of proof lies at the feet of people who suggesting it I think).
There are absolutely times that I do not speed because I am concerned about the consequences of getting caught.
There are absolutely students in the school where I teach who follow given rules not because they agree with them, but because they are deterred by consequences. They refrain from climbing the volleyball net not from moral agreement, but because it will get them in trouble.
It's better for people to not commit crimes because they agree on the morals and principles involved... but if people don't agree or have a moment of weakness, the consequences are still influential.
In the case of students, they seem to try and cheat sometimes, so the deterrence doesn’t seem very effective. Anyway, the negative consequence is very disperse (it hurts the reputation of the school if they get through without learning anything). The main bad result falls on them (they waste thousands of dollars to intentionally avoid learning). They also might fail the final, not as a punishment, but as a natural result of not learning the material.
In the case of speeding, everyone here speeds. The flow of traffic is always 5-10 over the speed limit here. People are intentionally breaking the posted speed limit to go the safer speed (going the speed limit here impedes the flow of traffic and makes a more dangerous situation for everyone). I think it is more of an informal decision making process—people just follow the herd—but it is a funny example!
I understand the magnitude of deterrence effects may be in question, or that the relative worth of different types of deterrence are open to debate. But I don't really understand how something that is nearly a universal human experience can be in question. Almost everyone has chosen not to do something because of the consequences of outside rules.
Indeed, we can easily try and see. If I fail to be visible during break duty (so that students think there are unlikely to be consequences), students will climb the volleyball net. :D
> going the speed limit here impedes the flow of traffic and makes a more dangerous situation for everyone).
This has been studied and is itself a silly (untrue) anecdote.
Nope.
> I understand the magnitude of deterrence effects may be in question, or that the relative worth of different types of deterrence are open to debate.
In the context of the thread
> A good prison system should balance all four.
I thought it would be clear that the magnitude and the relative worth were the topic. Sorry if that wasn’t the case! I’m definitely not going to defend the idea that nobody has ever avoided doing something for fear of punishment (although I do think that in a well functioning society, most of the negative consequences should be natural, not artificially imposed as punishments).
> If I fail to be visible during break duty (so that students think there are unlikely to be consequences), students will climb the volleyball net. :D
I think if that’s the sort of thing you are worried about, you must be working with kids. They probably need a stricter treatment, since their brains aren’t done yet.