Disproportionate punishment

[fromderinside]

While I agree that such as removing one from society or killing one suppresses punished behaviors, I don't think that is what we talk about when we speak of whether punishment is an effective deterrent. Punishment is no more effective than is knowing the sun revolves about the earth. Seems obvious, but, isn't worth the price of writing the observation.

Law is the mechanism through which punishment is socially promulgated. If all that can be said for effect is its revenge, satisfying to those who choose to exact it, it isn't effective. Besides, morality is a wish list for the fearful having little to do with reality of punishment effects.

What is apparent is that the only 'punishment' that is agreed effective (social biological interpretation) isn't actually punishment (see chart).

So far you've depended on an author's hand wave. Show some evidence of effect.

 

[Lion IRC]

One element of pre-meditated criminal intent is consideration of whether or not "it's worth it".

That's where deterrence comes into play.

Ask yourself how many more people would rob banks if the punishment for doing so was a month in jail rather than ten years.

 

[bilby]

One element of pre-meditated criminal intent is consideration of whether or not "it's worth it".

That's where deterrence comes into play.

Ask yourself how many more people would rob banks if the punishment for doing so was a month in jail rather than ten years.

I asked myself that, and I concluded that the number would probably not change much at all.

Any potential bank robber who expected to get away with it would assume no punishment, and rob anyway.

Any potential bank robber who expected to be caught would change his plans, and not do the robbery until he has convinced himself that he will get away with it. (Of course he may well be badly mistaken; there's no minimum intelligence requirement to become a bank robber).

There's no difference between a $1 fine and the death penalty, if you expect not to get caught at all.

And most people don't rob banks, and wouldn't even if the maximum penalty was a stern talking to from their mum, because robbing a bank would contradict their self-image as an honest and respectable person.

 

[Lion IRC]

So jails are full of people who didn't know there was such a thing as jails?

No. They are full of people who misjudged the odds of getting caught,

And the would-be criminals who stayed out of prison are the smarter ones given that they considered the deterrent effect more carefully.

Yes, of course there are people in jail who were always going to be there one day (eventually.)

And yes, the majority of people don't need deterrence because society/culture/religion/moral compass is sufficient to 'deter' them from even contemplating the risk-reward equation.

 

[Lion IRC]

...but there most certainly ARE people who are dissuaded or tempted by the potential severity/certainty of punishment.

To deny this is tantamount to claiming that humans don't care about risk versus reward.

 

[fromderinside]

So jails are full of people who didn't know there was such a thing as jails?

No. They are full of people who misjudged the odds of getting caught,

And the would-be criminals who stayed out of prison are the smarter ones given that they considered the deterrent effect more carefully.

Yes, of course there are people in jail who were always going to be there one day (eventually.)

And yes, the majority of people don't need deterrence because society/culture/religion/moral compass is sufficient to 'deter' them from even contemplating the risk-reward equation.

No. Jails are there to satisfy the needs for those who feel the need to discriminate and revenge. I'm sure no criminal would suggest prison as an option for improving their attitudes relative to others things and persons.

Look there are people who want your money and there are people who want their money you have in your pocket. We're not talking rocket science here. If you're gonna do what you're gonna do you're gonna do it. One might entertain by walking through some decision process but it probably won't take into account that you are one who is gonna do what you'r gonna do. Its like bilby said, people develop self perspectives unless they are too busy surviving. Then they develop survivor self perspectives to get them through the mess they're in.

External pressures of minimum impact like threat of punishment aren't really even in equations used by those actually considering doing harm to others things or bodies. a persons rationality centers around one's need which forms one's desires, which isn't what we're talking about when we, the great super washed rational minuscule itsy-bitsy nearly invisible minority, are saying rational decision making.

As for that proportion, same size as the rational one above, of those who are dissuaded by threat of punishment you mention below which is vanishingly small. In my view this rationale only serves to sate the regrets of those who need revenge.

 

[bilby]

So jails are full of people who didn't know there was such a thing as jails?

No.

No. They are full of people who misjudged the odds of getting caught,

So you are agreeing with me. Because that's EXACTLY what I said. If you judge (rightly or wrongly) your chance of getting caught as being very low, then the length of the sentence is irrelevant to you. If you judge that your chance of getting caught is high enough for the severity of the punishment to be important, then you go back and reconsider your plan, until you have a plan that you don't think presents a high risk of capture.

And the would-be criminals who stayed out of prison are the smarter ones given that they considered the deterrent effect more carefully.

They are the ones who correctly judged their chance of being caught. Deterrence was provided by the risk of arrest - the severity of the subsequent punishment was irrelevant.

There's not a big difference between not spending a single day of a twenty year sentence in jail, and not spending a single day of a three day sentence in jail.

Yes, of course there are people in jail who were always going to be there one day (eventually.)

And yes, the majority of people don't need deterrence because society/culture/religion/moral compass is sufficient to 'deter' them from even contemplating the risk-reward equation.

So you agree that harsh sentences have no more deterrent effect than mild ones.

 

[bilby]

...but there most certainly ARE people who are dissuaded or tempted by the potential severity/certainty of punishment.

To deny this is tantamount to claiming that humans don't care about risk versus reward.

Humans DON'T care about risk versus reward - at least, not in a rational and linear way.

Criminals judge the probability of capture against the expected reward for success in their criminal endeavours.

Probability is NOT the same as risk - risk is probability multiplied by cost - and humans in general are VERY BAD INDEED at judging risk, and frequently use probability as a proxy. Humans are also very bad at assessing probability.

That's why casinos make a TON of money.

And it's why crime rates are unaffected by harsh sentencing, but can be affected by effective policing. Making it likely that people will be caught is the best way to spend your law and order dollar; spending that money on keeping people in jail for long periods is futile.

In 18th Century England, even the most minor crimes attracted the death penalty. Parliament responded to rising crime levels with ever more draconian punishment for more and more (increasingly minor) offences. And yet the impact on crime was too small to measure. You could be hanged for stealing a single handkerchief; and many people were. Yet crime remained rampant, until effective policing came in. Since that time, policing has become more and more effective, and sentences less and less severe - and crime rates have plummeted.

 

[fromderinside]

Since that time, policing has become more and more effective, and sentences less and less severe - and crime rates have plummeted.

Two problems with "since that time", first lifespans increased and birthrates decreased signally better living conditions. Second most modern comparisons are just as bad. Crime is down since the early nineties mainly because, in western nations, the fraction of persons between 15 and 34 crashed along with crime rates. In the US sentences became more severe after 1980 paralleling, mostly, decreased young persons in population. So whither the reason?

In general I don't hold too much stock in your period of comparison because other factors probably drove both sentencing and tendency for crime paralleling what I just outlined for the last 50 years, mostly in the US, without bringing up the part lead played in crime rates.

 

[Malintent]

Which is why I think we shouldn't use fines as punishment.

as punishment or as a deterrent, possibly not.
As reparations to victims... it should have nothing to do with how deep the perp's pockets are... reparations should be based on damages.

regardless, though, I have a problem with the idea of unequal sentences, based upon the economic standing of the violator. It is discriminatory.

 

[ronburgundy]

Which is why I think we shouldn't use fines as punishment.

as punishment or as a deterrent, possibly not.
As reparations to victims... it should have nothing to do with how deep the perp's pockets are... reparations should be based on damages.

regardless, though, I have a problem with the idea of unequal sentences, based upon the economic standing of the violator. It is discriminatory.

Equal dollar amounts are unequal, discriminatory punishments.
An equal % of income is closer to equal punishment.

 

[fromderinside]

Equal dollar amounts are unequal, discriminatory punishments.
An equal % of income is closer to equal punishment.

Disproportionate punishment is a social perceived justice term therefore it can't be arrived at by simple arithmetic computation. First we need acknowledge that punishment is not what is going on here.

Rather adjustments are being made for perceived social harm and fault. If it were punishment it would be useless since the individual being sanctioned has already done the deed ad is unlikely to change his mode of operations by a simple physical thing. Social sanction is aimed at changing social behavior overall and fixing social harm done is what is being attempted.

My view is a form of decision matrix needs be formed weighted by actual costs, perceived costs, actual benefits and perceived benefits. Further the perceived elements need be adjusted by population, situation, and social harm belief (another multiple facet dimension). to begin to arrive at 'fair' social compensation. Fair social compensation is another multidimensional variable that needs bee computed as well. This is if you really want to deal with what is addressed by amending disproportionate punishment.

 

[Jokodo]

If someone makes 30k a year and pays the same fines as someone who makes 300k a year for the same offense, is this disproportionate punishment?

If someone is unemployed and pays the same fines as someone who makes 300k a year for the same offense, is this disproportionate punishment?

Is it wrong to punish those who enforce disproportionate punishment disproportionately (in other words, capture and torture them before you kill them) to discourage others from enforcing disproportionate punishment?

The cost of assessing the person's income may exceed the fine.

If the purpose of the fine is to act as a deterrent rather than to wash money into the state's coffers, that is not a valid counterargument.

 

[fromderinside]

The cost of assessing the person's income may exceed the fine.

If the purpose of the fine is to act as a deterrent rather than to wash money into the state's coffers, that is not a valid counterargument.

I guess it's worth the cost to the state if the fine deters others which is the only way punishment might work at all.