The Privatization of Justice: It's Not Just Prisons Anymore

[coloradoatheist]

Punishment is certainly a deterrent to behavior whether its driving within the speed limits to the spending life behind bars for killing someone or robbing a bank. What's stopping someone from robbing a bank if instead of going to jail the government is going to give them money so that they don't have to rob a bank?

Then why do people still commit crimes?

For a variety of reasons, but when the expected benefits is greater than the calculated risk and punishment of being caught.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Then why do people still commit crimes?

For a variety of reasons, but when the expected benefits is greater than the calculated risk and punishment of being caught.

I was going to look up the old laws of England when all offenses carried the death penalty... crime still happened.

 

[Trausti]

It's more than punishment being a deterrent. In modern civilized societies the state has a monopoly on violence. And people expect the state to use that monopoly. This wasn't always so, as blood feuds and lynchings used to be the order of the day. If the state relaxes its monopoly and lets criminals off because, heck, they'll do it again anyway, the people will exercise that violence against criminality themselves.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=70c_1464818366

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c5f_1309711220

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f9a_1374744487

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c32_1432122919

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's more than punishment being a deterrent. In modern civilized societies the state has a monopoly on violence. And people expect the state to use that monopoly. This wasn't always so, as blood feuds and lynchings used to be the order of the day. If the state relaxes its monopoly and lets criminals off because, heck, they'll do it again anyway, the people will exercise that violence against criminality themselves.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=70c_1464818366

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c5f_1309711220

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f9a_1374744487

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c32_1432122919

You mean like the calls for Zimmerman?

- - - Updated - - -

For a variety of reasons, but when the expected benefits is greater than the calculated risk and punishment of being caught.

I was going to look up the old laws of England when all offenses carried the death penalty... crime still happened.

Of course they still happen. But you are using it to deter it, not prevent it in every case.

 

[Axulus]

It's more than punishment being a deterrent. In modern civilized societies the state has a monopoly on violence. And people expect the state to use that monopoly. This wasn't always so, as blood feuds and lynchings used to be the order of the day. If the state relaxes its monopoly and lets criminals off because, heck, they'll do it again anyway, the people will exercise that violence against criminality themselves.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=70c_1464818366

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c5f_1309711220

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f9a_1374744487

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c32_1432122919

And when you can't go to the state for justice, such as is the case when the disagreement involves illegal activity, then violence explodes. Take a look at gang wars - some of the most violent, brutal crime that takes place, and at high frequency.

 

[Axulus]

fines are a part of a punishment for breaking a law. We are disagreeing on the amount.

I disagree on the premise of punishment. Do we want to punish people, or treat whatever it is that causes them to commit crimes so that they don't commit them?

Let's be clear and honest, punishment is nothing but *revenge*. It's making them hurt because they made us hurt. At the very best it can control by fear, but fear can be mitigated by being clever enough to not get caught, or such cleverness can be attempted, at any rate.

That isn't productive. It serves no utility other than making a convenient person to point to that we can justify hurting to satisfy some perverse boner for violence.

I say letting the punishment 'got the crime' is barbarism. Let the punishment *end* the crime and no more.

So do you disagree with the whole idea of punitive damages when a business is responsible for causing some harm?

 

[Trausti]

I was going to look up the old laws of England when all offenses carried the death penalty... crime still happened.

Well, it may have been a genetic deterrent. England used to be violent place. Such liberal use of capital punishment, arguably, precluded many people with genetic criminal dispositions from reproducing (because they were executed). Thus leaving the relatively more peaceful England we know today.

 

[Axulus]

The more effective deterrent is certainty of punishment as opposed to severity of punishment:

http://umanitoba.ca/outreach/evidencenetwork/archives/4653

Of course, another consideration is how much of a threat the individual is to public safety. Part of the reason for locking someone up is to remove their ability to commit additional harm.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I was going to look up the old laws of England when all offenses carried the death penalty... crime still happened.

Well, it may have been a genetic deterrent. England used to be violent place. Such liberal use of capital punishment, arguably, precluded many people with genetic criminal dispositions from reproducing (because they were executed). Thus leaving the relatively more peaceful England we know today.

Actually they weren't. The punishments were seldom death, and in later years "transportation" to penal colonies.

- - - Updated - - -

The more effective deterrent is certainty of punishment as opposed to severity of punishment:

http://umanitoba.ca/outreach/evidencenetwork/archives/4653

Of course, another consideration is how much of a threat the individual is to public safety. Part of the reason for locking someone up is to remove their ability to commit additional harm.

I would be inclined to agree.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I was going to look up the old laws of England when all offenses carried the death penalty... crime still happened.

Well, it may have been a genetic deterrent. England used to be violent place. Such liberal use of capital punishment, arguably, precluded many people with genetic criminal dispositions from reproducing (because they were executed). Thus leaving the relatively more peaceful England we know today.

And you think that the people caught and killed were guilty of criminal activity? Because you do know if the people killed were innocent or if the crimes weren't really what we would consider crimes (like blasphemy, witchcraft, adultery, thinking for yourself, etc.) your whole theory gets blown all to hell.

 

[Jarhyn]

I disagree on the premise of punishment. Do we want to punish people, or treat whatever it is that causes them to commit crimes so that they don't commit them?

Let's be clear and honest, punishment is nothing but *revenge*. It's making them hurt because they made us hurt. At the very best it can control by fear, but fear can be mitigated by being clever enough to not get caught, or such cleverness can be attempted, at any rate.

That isn't productive. It serves no utility other than making a convenient person to point to that we can justify hurting to satisfy some perverse boner for violence.

I say letting the punishment 'got the crime' is barbarism. Let the punishment *end* the crime and no more.

So do you disagree with the whole idea of punitive damages when a business is responsible for causing some harm?

This is a major problem with how we apply punitive damages when businesses do harm. First, I don't believe in punishment. I do, however, believe in asset forfeiture for I'll gotten gains.

The theory is simple: bad and wrong gambles bei g unethical, any winnings as a result of such gambles ought be prevented. It is the same reason that I do not believe in allowing Nazi-style research to be done, and that anyone doing it needs to be put through corrective services, but that the research that they do conduct with any scientific rigor should see the light of day, albeit with authors names stripped and a statement that the authors of this research have found themselves in the system, and segregated from society. That any money or accolades for their research is instead directed towards the survivors of their research. Similarly when a company does such a thing, I do not believe in punitive damages but the confiscation of their holdings and business, holding all of their board of directors and yes, shareholders, responsible for the decisions made by the company, and putting them through corrective services. Let them be vetted as unlikely to allow such a perpetration in the future.

People do not wish, generally, to be awful. Generally, if someone does something awful, they will stop when the awfulness is made clear to them; if they do not, then it is a simple matter to keep them in such a situation as the choice to be awful is denied to them, without malaise or torture.

 

[dismal]

So do you disagree with the whole idea of punitive damages when a business is responsible for causing some harm?

This is a major problem with how we apply punitive damages when businesses do harm. First, I don't believe in punishment. I do, however, believe in asset forfeiture for I'll gotten gains.

The theory is simple: bad and wrong gambles bei g unethical, any winnings as a result of such gambles ought be prevented. It is the same reason that I do not believe in allowing Nazi-style research to be done, and that anyone doing it needs to be put through corrective services, but that the research that they do conduct with any scientific rigor should see the light of day, albeit with authors names stripped and a statement that the authors of this research have found themselves in the system, and segregated from society. That any money or accolades for their research is instead directed towards the survivors of their research. Similarly when a company does such a thing, I do not believe in punitive damages but the confiscation of their holdings and business, holding all of their board of directors and yes, shareholders, responsible for the decisions made by the company, and putting them through corrective services. Let them be vetted as unlikely to allow such a perpetration in the future.

People do not wish, generally, to be awful. Generally, if someone does something awful, they will stop when the awfulness is made clear to them; if they do not, then it is a simple matter to keep them in such a situation as the choice to be awful is denied to them, without malaise or torture.

You don't believe people should be punished for driving above the speed limit or failing to register their car?

How about not paying their income taxes?

 

[coloradoatheist]

This is a major problem with how we apply punitive damages when businesses do harm. First, I don't believe in punishment. I do, however, believe in asset forfeiture for I'll gotten gains.

The theory is simple: bad and wrong gambles bei g unethical, any winnings as a result of such gambles ought be prevented. It is the same reason that I do not believe in allowing Nazi-style research to be done, and that anyone doing it needs to be put through corrective services, but that the research that they do conduct with any scientific rigor should see the light of day, albeit with authors names stripped and a statement that the authors of this research have found themselves in the system, and segregated from society. That any money or accolades for their research is instead directed towards the survivors of their research. Similarly when a company does such a thing, I do not believe in punitive damages but the confiscation of their holdings and business, holding all of their board of directors and yes, shareholders, responsible for the decisions made by the company, and putting them through corrective services. Let them be vetted as unlikely to allow such a perpetration in the future.

People do not wish, generally, to be awful. Generally, if someone does something awful, they will stop when the awfulness is made clear to them; if they do not, then it is a simple matter to keep them in such a situation as the choice to be awful is denied to them, without malaise or torture.

You don't believe people should be punished for driving above the speed limit or failing to register their car?

How about not paying their income taxes?

Since people don't want to pay income taxes because they don't want to spend the money the government should give them all that money plus a lot more because people are sad if they have to pay for something.

 

[dismal]

You don't believe people should be punished for driving above the speed limit or failing to register their car?

How about not paying their income taxes?

Since people don't want to pay income taxes because they don't want to spend the money the government should give them all that money plus a lot more because people are sad if they have to pay for something.

Also, it would be nice if when they pulled me over without my car registration they handed me a car registration sticker. Clearly more helpful than the current punishment for not having one.

 

[Jarhyn]

This is a major problem with how we apply punitive damages when businesses do harm. First, I don't believe in punishment. I do, however, believe in asset forfeiture for I'll gotten gains.

The theory is simple: bad and wrong gambles bei g unethical, any winnings as a result of such gambles ought be prevented. It is the same reason that I do not believe in allowing Nazi-style research to be done, and that anyone doing it needs to be put through corrective services, but that the research that they do conduct with any scientific rigor should see the light of day, albeit with authors names stripped and a statement that the authors of this research have found themselves in the system, and segregated from society. That any money or accolades for their research is instead directed towards the survivors of their research. Similarly when a company does such a thing, I do not believe in punitive damages but the confiscation of their holdings and business, holding all of their board of directors and yes, shareholders, responsible for the decisions made by the company, and putting them through corrective services. Let them be vetted as unlikely to allow such a perpetration in the future.

People do not wish, generally, to be awful. Generally, if someone does something awful, they will stop when the awfulness is made clear to them; if they do not, then it is a simple matter to keep them in such a situation as the choice to be awful is denied to them, without malaise or torture.

You don't believe people should be punished for driving above the speed limit or failing to register their car?

How about not paying their income taxes?

Nope. I don't. I think that if people cannot drive safely, they should lose their licenses, but not as "punishment". They should get them back as soon as they are able to show that they are capable of and willing to drive at speeds which do not cause a risk to others. The costs for this service should be sourced through taxes, because it is everyone's fault for not raising children and later adults who are capable of driving properly; though I do not think that any human is capable of driving safely, and that we need to be collecting taxes and spending those taxes on the development of self-driving cars.

As to income taxes, such devices are categorically silly, from a utilitarian perspective. Any discussion of taxes should be directed at the stage between gross sales and payroll; individuals shouldn't GET taxed on their income. BUSINESSES should get taxed. Why? Because tax should be directed at collecting money on the production of value. Things are different when it comes to property taxes, as those taxes are collected on the ongoing government services pertaining to that property; the more someone has, the more it costs to maintain government services for that property. It is a situation where the costs can be collected directly from the people that incur those costs, as opposed to things like roads where the benefits to one person also lie in the benefits to another person.

As such, I don't see why people should have to ever see income tax except where they are registered as a business and in the position of producing value of which society wishes a share for the purposes of building societal infrastructure.

If someone then does not pay taxes that they as a business are obligated to pay, then it is a simple matter of figuring out why, and treating the criminal ideation, and recovering whatever assets the money has been invested in that were not taxes. If the accountant tasked with that behavior proves incapable of being cured, they ought be barred from professions where they would be won't to apply that ideation, not to punish them, but merely because it is untenable to let them harm the rest of us that way.

 

[dismal]

You don't believe people should be punished for driving above the speed limit or failing to register their car?

How about not paying their income taxes?

Nope. I don't. I think that if people cannot drive safely, they should lose their licenses, but not as "punishment". They should get them back as soon as they are able to show that they are capable of and willing to drive at speeds which do not cause a risk to others. The costs for this service should be sourced through taxes, because it is everyone's fault for not raising children and later adults who are capable of driving properly; though I do not think that any human is capable of driving safely, and that we need to be collecting taxes and spending those taxes on the development of self-driving cars.

As to income taxes, such devices are categorically silly, from a utilitarian perspective. Any discussion of taxes should be directed at the stage between gross sales and payroll; individuals shouldn't GET taxed on their income. BUSINESSES should get taxed. Why? Because tax should be directed at collecting money on the production of value. Things are different when it comes to property taxes, as those taxes are collected on the ongoing government services pertaining to that property; the more someone has, the more it costs to maintain government services for that property. It is a situation where the costs can be collected directly from the people that incur those costs, as opposed to things like roads where the benefits to one person also lie in the benefits to another person.

As such, I don't see why people should have to ever see income tax except where they are registered as a business and in the position of producing value of which society wishes a share for the purposes of building societal infrastructure.

If someone then does not pay taxes that they as a business are obligated to pay, then it is a simple matter of figuring out why, and treating the criminal ideation, and recovering whatever assets the money has been invested in that were not taxes. If the accountant tasked with that behavior proves incapable of being cured, they ought be barred from professions where they would be won't to apply that ideation, not to punish them, but merely because it is untenable to let them harm the rest of us that way.

So, you favor punishments just not calling them punishments.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So if I decide that I am running late for work, speed and endanger other individuals its actually societies fault that I was late to work?

 

[Jarhyn]

Nope. I don't. I think that if people cannot drive safely, they should lose their licenses, but not as "punishment". They should get them back as soon as they are able to show that they are capable of and willing to drive at speeds which do not cause a risk to others. The costs for this service should be sourced through taxes, because it is everyone's fault for not raising children and later adults who are capable of driving properly; though I do not think that any human is capable of driving safely, and that we need to be collecting taxes and spending those taxes on the development of self-driving cars.

As to income taxes, such devices are categorically silly, from a utilitarian perspective. Any discussion of taxes should be directed at the stage between gross sales and payroll; individuals shouldn't GET taxed on their income. BUSINESSES should get taxed. Why? Because tax should be directed at collecting money on the production of value. Things are different when it comes to property taxes, as those taxes are collected on the ongoing government services pertaining to that property; the more someone has, the more it costs to maintain government services for that property. It is a situation where the costs can be collected directly from the people that incur those costs, as opposed to things like roads where the benefits to one person also lie in the benefits to another person.

As such, I don't see why people should have to ever see income tax except where they are registered as a business and in the position of producing value of which society wishes a share for the purposes of building societal infrastructure.

If someone then does not pay taxes that they as a business are obligated to pay, then it is a simple matter of figuring out why, and treating the criminal ideation, and recovering whatever assets the money has been invested in that were not taxes. If the accountant tasked with that behavior proves incapable of being cured, they ought be barred from professions where they would be won't to apply that ideation, not to punish them, but merely because it is untenable to let them harm the rest of us that way.

So, you favor punishments just not calling them punishments.

No. I prefer doing sane things that aren't *punishments*. I have tried my very best to outline the difference between a retributive action, a "punishment", and an action which is agnostic to such goals. You seem incapable of seeing a distinction here, where myself and many others DO see a distinction, often independently and of the same shape. The ability to emergently identify such a distinction means that the inability to see it is not evidence that the distinction is not real, but evidence that the observer who does not see it is either not looking hard enough or is in some way deficient.

It co to use to be the case that I do not believe in punishment. I believe in correction and where correction is not possible, segregation from the situation where problems would arise. Punishment has a quality about it, made of equal parts of fear and sadism. It is the difference between something being done with a reasonable utilitarian goal which can be reliably be shown as the outcome of the behavior, and doing something for the payout of receiving some manner of biologically dispensed drug, or the dispensation of such a drug.

I have been on both sides of the law. I understand criminal behavior far better than I suspect either you or ColoradoAtheist ever will or better than I suspect you are capable of. I can empathize with criminals because I have been one. I know why people commit crimes, at least of the sort I have committed (the forms of which are diverse), and your own model as to why people may commit crimes is far more telling of the dangers you few pose to society than of the people who you claim to understand.

 

[Jarhyn]

So if I decide that I am running late for work, speed and endanger other individuals its actually societies fault that I was late to work?

Yes, it is. Because society has failed in so many years to teach you reasons to understand that these actions are foolish, or in producing a situation where there is no option but to speed or to get to work late. It is equal.part the fault of parents who did not instill proper education as to how to get up in the morning, and in a natural world in which sometimes people.just forget to do things or are tempted insurmountably by biology to hit the snooze button too many times; by whatever course of events, a bad situation arose, and the solution to this is to produce ta few outcomes, all equally important: to educate you as to the reasons why speeding is illegal and I still in you an understanding of those reasons so you will find yourself not doing it, and to address whatever failures you have in wrangling your time properly. The bill for these corrective measures ought rest squarely on the shoulders of the society which failed to produce an adult who does not respect others enough to drive at a safe speed.

 

[Trausti]

So if I decide that I am running late for work, speed and endanger other individuals its actually societies fault that I was late to work?

Yes, it is. Because society has failed in so many years to teach you reasons to understand that these actions are foolish, or in producing a situation where there is no option but to speed or to get to work late. It is equal.part the fault of parents who did not instill proper education as to how to get up in the morning, and in a natural world in which sometimes people.just forget to do things or are tempted insurmountably by biology to hit the snooze button too many times; by whatever course of events, a bad situation arose, and the solution to this is to produce two outcomes, both equally important: to educate you as to the reasons why speeding is illegal and I still in you an understanding of those reasons so you will find yourself not doing it, and to address whatever failures you have in wrangling your time properly. The bill for these corrective measures ought rest squarely on the shoulders of the society which failed to produce an adult who does not respect others enough to drive at a safe speed.

That's awesome. Personal responsibility, who needs it?