Hacker News Reader

Comment by nikatwork | Hacker News Reader

> Yes, this is an irrational argument

When this topic comes up I'm always surprised by the flood of comments stating "well golly gee, I'm sure he's real sorry he raped and stabbed those girls, we just need to put him through some advanced reading courses then send him back on his way!" Followed by, "now if you think he should be punished for his actions well you're just barbaric and primitive and irrational".

Punishment is not irrational. It's a fundamental ethical standpoint. Mitigating factors should be weighed (mental health, IQ), but at the end of the day people need to face the consequences of their actions.

View on HN

"Consequences" are what you get in nature; the consequences of rape is that the perpetrator got his jollies. Do you think that an imprisoned rapist feels bad because he's being punished? If anything he's going to be angry at those meting out the punishment. If he felt bad about rape, he wouldn't have done it, or he would have turned himself in, or killed himself.

And part of the point of rehabilitation is not "golly gee, we just need to put him through some advanced reading courses then send him back on his way!" as you so childishly put it, but that the offender wouldn't be released until it was fairly certain he wouldn't offend again (because he'd been rehabilitated). I'm fairly certain that kind of rehabilitation would take years at a minimum.

> as you so childishly put it

Ad-homs do not improve the conversation.

> the consequences of rape is that the perpetrator got his jollies.

With the further consequence that the rapist has emotionally traumatized an innocent victim, and the still further consequence that the victim may demand justice. The point of punishment is not primarily to make the offender feel guilty. The point of punishment is to make the victim feel better.

Think of it transactionally. If I stole $50,000 from your grandma and got caught, you'd expect me to pay back the money, yes? Now say I beat your grandma with a stick because I thought it would be funny. As we're too civilized for the courts to have me beaten with a stick, instead I repay her emotional trauma with my own - through incarceration.

While your ethics might be different - you may think people should not bear the responsibility for their own actions - my ethics firmly hold that we are all accountable for our own decisions.

So, does your desire to hurt people who do bad things mean that you will accept a 70% rate of re-offending, or would you trade your desire for revenge for a 15% rate of re-offending?

That is the question you really need to answer.

Is it better to stop future offending or feel good about inflicting suffering on others who are "bad" right now?

You might also want to throw into the mix the observation that a very large number of people in prison have untreated mental / behavioral issues and that a very large number of people who commit violent or sexual crimes have themselves been victims of such crimes in their formative years.

My argument is that whatever your ethics are, treating people like animals creates more animals. We all pay the cost of that.

> your desire to hurt people who do bad things > ...feel good about inflicting suffering > ...your desire for revenge

Again, you attack me personally, this is not a good look for you. I wish harm on nobody; I long for a utopian day of mutual respect.

> You might also want to throw into the mix the observation that a very large number of people in prison have untreated mental / behavioral issues

I have already directly raised this point. You are changing the frame.

> [will] you [...] accept a 70% rate of re-offending, or would you trade your desire for revenge for a 15% rate of re-offending? That is the question you really need to answer.

I will boldly answer your question, though you have answered none of mine. Yes, I will accept a higher rate of re-offending. Ethics are not convenient, and are often not utilitarian. I would not kill one person to save ten, nor even a thousand. If holding an individual to account for their actions has a high cost, then so be it.

"Truly ethical behavior is acting according to principles even when those principles are inconvenient."

Yes, I will accept a higher rate of re-offending.

Thus, creating more victims and more criminals in the long run. We have to burn the village in order to save it?

>The point of punishment is to make the victim feel better.

Why should taxpayers have to pay for stone-age, eye-for-an-eye vengeance? Harsh sentencing is expensive.

I answered this in my reply to pgcsmd, but additionally: I don't have kids but my taxes supplement education. I don't drive, but my taxes supplement roadworks. Likewise, my taxes also supplement justice.

Now the US prison system has become a corrupt business - and that's a separate and awful issue. But the fundamental ethical basis for punishment stands: you steal money, you pay it back - you deal emotional trauma, you pay it back.

Money and emotional trauma are not equivalent. When a thief is forced to give back the money they stole, the victim tangibly benefits. Torturing murderers doesn't tangibly benefit the victim's surviving family members, because emotion isn't transferable capital.

Thus, our goal should be the lowest possible crime rate, and I'm not sure punishment for vengeance's sake is ultimately compatible with that goal.

> When a thief is forced to give back the money they stole, the victim tangibly benefits [... while] emotion isn't transferable capital

I propose that you would feel differently if someone had emotionally assaulted you or your loved ones via rape or violence. Perhaps this is a difference in personal ethics, but I despise such assaults more than property damage; at the very least I hope we can agree that such crimes deserve to be redressed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com