[HN Gopher] Why Punish?
___________________________________________________________________
Why Punish?
Author : pseudolus
Score : 47 points
Date : 2022-07-30 16:52 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thereader.mitpress.mit.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (thereader.mitpress.mit.edu)
| superb-owl wrote:
| The idea of punishment as a deterrent is hopefully dead and
| buried at this point.
|
| The U.S. has one of the harshest prison systems in the developed
| world, and an outrageous recidivism rate - 76% of prisoners are
| arrested again within 5 years of release [1].
|
| Norway, on the other hand, has some of the most humane prisons
| [2], and a recidivism rate of only 20% [1]
|
| [1] https://harvardpolitics.com/recidivism-american-progress/
|
| [2] https://norwaytoday.info/culture/what-are-prisons-in-
| norway-...
| dolni wrote:
| Only the most naive people think that "punishment as a
| deterrent" is dead.
|
| It only takes a simple thought experiment to see why that idea
| is stupid. How many additional murders do you think there would
| be if the punishment for murder was a day in prison instead of
| 10 or more years? How many aggrieved ex-spouses, neighbors, and
| coworkers would turn to violence to solve their problems?
|
| The answer is: a lot.
| avianlyric wrote:
| You're gonna have to back up that "though experiment" with
| some data. Or at least a logical explanation, as to why you
| think the majority of the population are homicidal maniacs,
| held in check by the threat of prison time.
|
| Otherwise your comment is little more that a dark speculative
| fantasy.
| lelanthran wrote:
| > Or at least a logical explanation, as to why you think
| the majority of the population are homicidal maniacs, held
| in check by the threat of prison time.
|
| You don't need the MAJORITY of the population to be
| homicidal maniacs, only held in check by the thread of
| punishment to see a marked rise in homicides.
|
| I'd guess that even with a low rate of one out of every
| thousand people being homicidal maniacs only kept in check
| by the threat of force, you'd get 200x or more homicides
| than you have now.
|
| After all, a homicidal maniac will, almost by definition,
| kill repeatedly, and since (in this hypothetical situation)
| they are not punished for it, there's simply no reason for
| them to stop doing it.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > How many aggrieved ex-spouses, neighbors, and coworkers
| would turn to violence to solve their problems?
|
| This isn't the real problem, most people aren't murderous,
| they're kind. The problem isn't retaliation against mundane
| grievance, which is taken up by people with no sense of
| proportion and consequence anyway, but the _response_ to
| crime.
|
| If a hit-and-run drunk driver runs over my child, and the
| legal system refuses to punish them, I (and most people) are
| going to take on that punishment as my responsibility. I may
| not carry it out, but if I don't I'll take the guilt for not
| punishing that drunk driver to my grave. There's a ton of
| pressure on me to hurt that person. After I do, their loved
| ones may retaliate against me in the same way. If I fail and
| I'm killed myself, that _raises_ the level of grievance among
| my family and friends. Even people on the sidelines have to
| become involved.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| I think recidivism is more correlated to opportunities for
| rehabilitation than punishment . When I was at a boxing gymnear
| Baltimore there were kids from poor families talking about
| their life. In the US if you are poor you are pretty much
| screwed once the legal system has you. Your background check
| will exclude you from decent jobs and it's just a never ending
| downward spiral. The courts often add some kind of bullshit
| fees which unemployed people can't pay so they go back to
| prison.
|
| The US has managed to set up a cruel and heartless system that
| punishes poor people, costs enormous money and destroys the
| social fabric of whole communities.
| [deleted]
| shakow wrote:
| And Singapore has a very punitive legal system, while featuring
| a recidivism rate around 20-25%.
|
| You can't just take two cherry-picked examples and proclaim the
| ``idea of punishment as [...] dead and buried''.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| You argue against cherry-picking, and then you think you can
| prove something with _one_ single example?
|
| My dude, the other guy provided 100% more data than you!
| mrex wrote:
| >You argue against cherry-picking, and then you think you
| can prove something with one single example?
|
| Well... he can! He can prove, with one example, that the
| other person's thesis doesn't fit the facts.
|
| And he did that.
|
| So, yeah.
| Archelaos wrote:
| There is a big difference between proof and falsification.
| The grant-parent wants to establish a general rule, whereas
| the parent only wants to falsify it. Usually, a single
| example is enough for falsification. -- There is only one
| caveat (that's why I said "usually"): The evidence used for
| falsification must be true, which in itself is a deduction
| from many detailed observations.
|
| The real flaw in the argument of the parent is, that in a
| direct comparison between Singapure and Norway Norway still
| wins: If roughly the same recidivism rates are achieved in
| a very punitive and a very supportive system, the
| supportive system is superior according to utilitarian
| principles.
| shakow wrote:
| > You argue against cherry-picking, and then you think you
| can prove something with one single example?
|
| Yes, that's the whole point of a counter-example...
|
| If I try to prove the all odd numbers are prime (look, 1,
| 3, 5, 7, ... - it works!), you telling me that 9 is not is
| enough to disprove my theory.
| Cupertino95014 wrote:
| If you think a more just society requires rehabilitation &
| showing the criminals a better way, you just got schooled by the
| far-left voters of San Francisco.
|
| They found out the hard way that there are some very, very bad
| people out there, and they got sick of them. A very small number
| of sociopathic folks are not deterred by anything but the
| certainty of punishment.
|
| In the worst case, all you can do is ensure that they can't prey
| on everyone else. Lacking capital punishment for most crimes,
| we're left with imprisonment, or _Clockwork Orange_.
| vaidhy wrote:
| What got shown was that ignoring bad behavior does not make it
| go away. I do not see any effort towards rehabilitation or
| education in SFO, just no prosecution.
| Cupertino95014 wrote:
| That's right as far as it goes. What's missing is any
| realization that our society can't do "rehabilitation or
| education" effectively and if it could, just replacing the DA
| won't make it happen.
|
| Secondly, as I said, there is a non-negligible criminal
| population that's already been raised, so all the talk about
| raising your kids or your dogs properly is kinda irrelevant.
|
| For a really sociopathic person, therapy is just finishing
| school: it teaches them how to fake normal human emotions
| more effectively.
| [deleted]
| Cupertino95014 wrote:
| sonofhans wrote:
| This is mostly a history of punishment in western society.
| There's nothing wrong with that; it's interesting. It answers the
| question in the title mostly by asking what, from today's
| perspective, are the rational uses of punishment?
|
| But it doesn't get much at why we do this in the first place. Why
| do adults punish children? Why do so many people belong to
| religions with strict and explicit punishment dogmas (e.g., going
| to hell for offending a higher power). It doesn't provide a
| rhetorical or moral framework for differentiating punishment from
| abuse or torture. I think these are more interesting questions,
| although perhaps not fair to expect from a historian.
|
| Clearly punishment is satisfying to us. Revenge stories are as
| old as literature, and widely celebrated. I think that in a large
| society it's an obsolete and harmful impulse. The article
| references Plato's views: "Plato discussed punishment in terms of
| learning virtue and deterring future acts rather than just in
| terms of taking vengeance for the past, which he dismissed as a
| primitive, animalistic motive."
|
| It's interesting to me how long it takes for views like this to
| take hold and create a more just society, and how easy it is for
| cultures to backslide. Revenge is a powerful impulse.
| rayiner wrote:
| What makes you assume a society with less punishment is a "more
| just" one? Have you considered that maybe there is a reason
| that otherwise different societies have almost universally
| evolved to impose harsh punishments? I.e. that it's a positive
| adaptive behavior?
| lapcat wrote:
| > Have you considered that maybe there is a reason that
| otherwise different societies have almost universally evolved
| to impose harsh punishments?
|
| The linked article suggests that this sentiment actually
| comes and goes historically.
|
| How do you know that in the long term, we're not evolving in
| the opposite direction, to not impose harsh punishments?
| inglor_cz wrote:
| One of the reasons why punishments used to be so harsh in
| the past was that enforcement was very inconsistent. In
| premodern times, it might take a lot of individual crimes
| before a repeat offender was caught. Given that most crime
| tends to be committed - even today - by a small, but
| prodigiously active subset of the general population, once
| someone was caught stealing, robbing or murdering, there
| was a tacit assumption that it was a career criminal. Who,
| in case of a light punishment, would go on stealing,
| robbing and murdering his peers for the next ten years or
| so.
|
| Which is why permanent incapacitation - mostly by the sword
| or the gallows, but sometimes by being sent on the galleys,
| into the mines etc., which was scarcely more survivable
| than an actual execution, only that it took much longer to
| die - was the usual judicial punishment. At the very least,
| the criminal was branded so that he would be instantly
| recognizable forever.
|
| Nowadays, the police has a lot more tech at its disposal.
| If it is willing to do so and financed to do so, it can
| catch basically any criminal it wants to. That is why our
| laws no longer resemble the Bloody Code of early modern
| Britain.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Code
| jhrmnn wrote:
| This excellent book discusses a lot of what you touch on--D.
| Golash: The Case against Punishment
| https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Case_Against_Punish...
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I often see revenge as "you hurt me, I think you're not hurt, I
| want you to also hurt."
|
| I think we 1) assume the other is not hurting, which is very
| often false, as the other person may hurt us because they feel
| hurt and assume we aren't hurting and 2) instead of trying to
| make them feel hurt, we can tell them that we're hurting.
| However, I think we mostly don't do that strategy because it
| often requires us to cry and most cultures shun crying.
|
| So we seem to end up feeling hut, hiding that hurt, and
| assuming the other doesn't feel hurt, probably because they're
| so good at hiding it.
| danenania wrote:
| I think revenge probably evolved first and foremost as a
| deterrent. While it might feel satisfying to cause pain to
| someone who has hurt you, the damage has already been done
| and you can't undo whatever damage you suffered. But you
| _can_ show that there's a cost to messing with you, which
| could prevent future aggression. I'd guess that's why we feel
| the desire to punish in the first place.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| There was a study I read over the last year, maybe it was
| posted on here, that said we mostly seek revenge out of
| spite not deterrence. I hope I can find it again.
|
| I don't think it's about undoing the damage, it's about
| evening the damage. If you punch me and I feel hurt two
| days later, then I may still want to punch back. If I have
| healed physically and emotionally, forgiven you completely,
| do you think I'm as likely to punch you then?
| davidgay wrote:
| > There was a study I read over the last year, maybe it
| was posted on here, that said we mostly seek revenge out
| of spite not deterrence.
|
| It's easy to imagine that it's personally for spite, but
| evolutionarily for deterrence (i.e., spite is an
| evolutionarily effective way to encode deterrence).
| jimkleiber wrote:
| Ah, I found the link, "Punishment isn't about the common
| good: it's about spite" on Aeon [0]. The author doesn't
| state definitively (in the article at least) that
| punishment is about spite, but rather seems to introduce
| that it's likely that it is. I haven't read the linked
| studies yet but hope to.
|
| [0]: https://aeon.co/ideas/punishment-isnt-about-the-
| common-good-...
| danenania wrote:
| It depends on the situation, but if you're likely to
| encounter the person who attacked you again, or others
| who might attack you, and they all become aware that you
| won't fight back or get revenge in some other way,
| letting it slide could be the more dangerous option.
|
| If it's a random stranger, someone you won't encounter
| again, or you live in a society where violence is very
| rare, then it's probably a moot point.
|
| We evolved in small tribes where everyone knew everyone,
| and just about everything that happened would quickly be
| known by the whole group. Combine that with scarcity and
| a higher propensity for violence, and being seen as an
| easy target would be something to avoid at all costs.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I think you're assuming that fighting back is the only
| option. Yesterday, I saw my friend's two year old throw
| the toys of the five year old and the five year old
| didn't immediately punch his younger brother, but instead
| he cried. By crying, both parents were alerted and
| immediately came to his aid, and frankly scolded the two
| year old for throwing the toys (indirect revenge?).
|
| Maybe you could argue that by crying, the older child was
| getting revenge on the younger because he knew his
| parents would come to scold him. Or maybe the kid just
| wanted comfort because he lost something he cared about.
| It was hard for me to know whether his intention was to
| receive comfort and attention or to have his parents
| shame his brother, maybe both?
|
| > Combine that with scarcity and a higher propensity for
| violence
|
| I guess I don't see this as a given as much as it seems
| you do. I suppose I think people act violently out of
| pain, most of us just lashing out at each other because
| we think they hurt us first, more cooperative by nature
| than competitive, but maybe I'm describing your views
| inaccurately.
| Avicebron wrote:
| This may be true, but it invites escalation. Ender's Game
| revolved around this philosophy from what I can remember,
| and in the end..well...I won't spoil it if you haven't read
| it or watched the movie. but betting on preventing future
| aggression != guaranteed peace.
| jimmygrapes wrote:
| It's been awhile since I read the book(s) or watched the
| movie, but wasn't one of the core philosophical tenets
| underlying Ender's... specialness... the fact that he was
| ruthless in revenge? In the sense of "I may not be the
| one to start a fight, but I will certainly ensure that my
| response to aggression is so thorough that no further
| aggression is possible."
|
| Granted the initial 3 sequel books were large tomes about
| the corresponding guilt, repentance, and consequences
| stemming from that initial idea.
| Avicebron wrote:
| focusing on the consequences, it would be a very
| difficult earth to live on if a a response (the gp's
| point) was that using violence/punishment/retribution to
| stop further aggression was rational. I agreed that in
| the context of pure overwhelming aggression it might be
| possible (ender's game), but I doubt we would have gotten
| very far as a species or a planet if everyone followed
| that mentality with each other.
| kodah wrote:
| Moralism is a powerful thing and American moralism is far from
| dead. I think a lot of folks in America probably fancy
| themselves as being free from these chains, but subconsciously
| I think the chains of moralism are fairly deep and strong.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > Why do adults punish children?
|
| Because it works at changing their behavior.
|
| Now we can argue the merits of positive reinforcement vs
| negative reinforcement all day. But when a technique is
| effective at changing unwanted behavior, then it will be used.
|
| Punishments are absolutely necessary because some kids don't
| know when their parents disapprove of their behavior otherwise.
| I'm not talking about beating kids btw, I'm talking about
| scolding, "go to your room", and timeouts.
|
| I don't think corporal punishment is worthwhile. There's some
| studies that shows that while effective at changing behavior,
| it also teaches the kid that violence is sometimes necessary, a
| lesson that I'm not sure if we should be teaching them.
|
| But punishments in general? You don't want to reach for them as
| your first tool in your parenting toolbox. But you really can't
| just positive-reinforcement "you're doing a good job" all day
| to your kids. Its disingenuous and the kids pick up on that.
|
| ----------
|
| > It answers the question in the title mostly by asking what,
| from today's perspective, are the rational uses of punishment?
|
| To change a person's behavior. If someone keeps lying,
| cheating, and stealing in society, we want to make them to stop
| so that they can reintegrate and become a beneficial member of
| society.
|
| Perhaps we've gone too far with jail times in the USA, but the
| foundational theory is quite simple and effective here. Anyone
| who has ever trained a dog or other animal knows how to use
| animal psychology / punishments / rewards to change the
| animal's behavior.
|
| Human psychology is more complex than animal behavior, but it
| shares a lot of similarities. Positive reinforcement (aka:
| rewards) and negative reinforcement (aka: punishments) are both
| useful within the framework.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| > Anyone who has ever trained a dog or other animal knows how
| to use animal psychology / punishments / rewards to change
| the animal's behavior.
|
| Use of punishment in dog training is actually pretty hotly
| debated. Not that it doesn't work, but that it has
| consequences beyond what are intended and that substitution,
| redirection, and rewards result in a happier and more
| obedient pet.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >>Perhaps we've gone too far with jail times in the USA
|
| Perhaps? I dont think that is even debatable at this point. I
| would encourage you to research actual treatment of prisoners
| in the US, we in the US are critical of nations like Russia,
| and China while willfully ignoring the abuse that occurs
| every day in US prisons.
|
| >Anyone who has ever trained a dog or other animal
|
| This right here is the exact reason for this abuse, it is
| common for the US prison system, and the correctional
| officers to dehumanize the prisoners and treat them like
| animals, not cuddly pets or dogs, but like the worst animal
| abuse stories you here from the traveling carnivals that used
| to keep Elephants and Loins for show.....
|
| We need MASSIVE reform of both the criminal system, and
| prison system. I am not talking about being "weak" on crime
| like seems to be the norm today, refusing to prosecute
| crimes, and letting people out immediately but "tough on
| crime" does not have to involve the dehumanizing treatment,
| and outright abuse that occurs that leads to nothing
| productive, no rehabilitation, and more often than not non-
| violent criminals go in non-violent but come out extremely
| violent.
|
| There is NOTHING redeeming about the US Prison system
| lelanthran wrote:
| > There's some studies that shows that while effective at
| changing behavior, it also teaches the kid that violence is
| _sometimes necessary_ , a lesson that I'm not sure if we
| should be teaching them.
|
| Isn't that true, though? Violence _is_ sometimes necessary.
|
| Teaching a child that violence is _never_ necessary is just
| as bad as teaching the child that violence is _always_
| necessary.
| Supermancho wrote:
| > Isn't that true, though? Violence is sometimes necessary.
|
| It's doesn't need to be strictly true. This isn't a
| mathematical proof, but a behavior used to influence other
| behavior.
|
| > Teaching a child that violence is never necessary is just
| as bad as teaching the child that violence is always
| necessary.
|
| I'm not sure what kind of thinking leads you to this
| conclusion, nor is it clear what this statement means if
| I'm being open about it. "Violence is always necessary"? If
| someone doesn't get out of your way you are supposed to
| shove them? If someone honks their horn at you, you should
| smash their windshield? If someone tells you something you
| don't like you punch them? You'd never learn anything of
| substance with this viewpoint.
|
| violence is never necessary != violence is always necessary
|
| The tradeoffs for survival (much less society) are unequal.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| I'm 28. In my life so far, I cannot think of a single time
| when I have _ever_ needed to engage in violence.
|
| Now, if someone attacked me, would I defend myself?
| Absolutely, as a last resort. And it's true that children
| should be told it's okay to defend themselves by whatever
| means necessary. I don't think this distinction is
| particularly difficult to understand.
|
| Corporal punishment in particular socializes children to
| let themselves be attacked and _not_ defend themselves.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| I think it's probably correct to read this within the
| context of a parent-child relationship eg one of wildly
| disparate power imbalance where one has significant
| latitude to use violence and the other has virtually none
| to stop it.
|
| We can probably assume that people who want to model this
| behavior also tackle things like self-defense, protection
| of the innocent, righteous wrath, etc when it's appropriate
| to discuss them.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Outside of very few, select circumstances, violence isn't
| the answer inside of a household.
|
| The exceptions are rape/sexual violence and self defense,
| and other crimes of that magnitude.
|
| Even if two boys are fighting it out, I'm not sure if the
| right answer is to kick their ass and spank them /
| humiliate them over it.
|
| People used to beat their kids up over bad grades or
| missing homework assignments. That's too much violence for
| sure.
| lelanthran wrote:
| > Outside of very few, select circumstances, violence
| isn't the answer inside of a household.
|
| Sure, but we're teaching kids lessons for when they're
| adults, right? Is it really a good idea to raise a
| generation who will not act out of self-defense?
|
| > Even if two boys are fighting it out, I'm not sure if
| the right answer is to kick their ass and spank them /
| humiliate them over it.
|
| I don't think violence is an answer for that.
|
| > People used to beat their kids up over bad grades or
| missing homework assignments. That's too much violence
| for sure.
|
| That's way overboard, and not what I had in mind. Rewards
| and punishments with kids is complex, and I don't want to
| come off like I am trivialising it all.
|
| Humans (and chimps, and dogs) have all been studied in-
| depth, and at this point we know for certain that the
| idea of fairness is not a uniquely human one.
|
| Take for example this very common scenario: an
| older/stronger child slapping a younger/weaker sibling.
|
| The victim in this case is likely not going to believe
| that any non-physical punishment is fair(In fact, it _isn
| 't_ fair), and all it would do is breed some resentment.
|
| If it happens just once or twice, sure, the victim can
| move on. If it happens all the time and the only result
| is that the parents take away TV for the aggressor for a
| few days, then that's going to result in plenty of long-
| term resentment.
|
| Even worse, sometimes if the victim responds, they're
| going to get punished as well because some parents don't
| usually care to adjudicate.
|
| Schools are even worse - the victim is more of a legal
| liability to the school than the aggressor, hence schools
| are more likely to pretend it never happened, or to
| punish both parties equally.
|
| Taking all this into account, I tell my boys that they
| should never hit first, and that if anyone ever hits them
| the _only_ appropriate response to to hit back.
|
| They've[1] never hit anyone thus far, but they are also
| not afraid to hit anyone who hits them, because that's
| only fair.
|
| [1] The younger one is only 3, so not yet a proper data
| point.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > Sure, but we're teaching kids lessons for when they're
| adults, right? Is it really a good idea to raise a
| generation who will not act out of self-defense?
|
| Perhaps this is my response to office gossip. But I'm
| talking about my coworker who regularly brags about
| corporal punishment and how he's a good father for
| hitting his kid on the regular.
|
| There's a lot of people out there. I don't think you and
| I are in much disagreement, although perhaps I didn't
| write my words in a way that suited your perspective.
|
| There's still a generation of parents who think that
| hitting their kids is the right response, be it from
| occasional spanking, or even wholesale beating them up to
| teach them a lesson.
|
| Beating up kids / corporal punishment isn't about "self
| defense", but instead about "learned helplessness". Its a
| different strategy to parenting, and some people still
| believe in it.
| karencarits wrote:
| > Perhaps this is my response to office gossip. But I'm
| talking about my coworker who regularly brags about
| corporal punishment and how he's a good father for
| hitting his kid on the regular.
|
| Depending on country and legislation, you may want to
| report this. In some places you may even be legally
| obligated to report child abuse, which this sounds like.
|
| It is not your (or mine) place to judge whether your
| coworker actually abuses his children (or if it is "just"
| talk, for example), only to report to the relevant
| authority so that they can investigate. Please, if you
| are worried for them, act
| lelanthran wrote:
| > Perhaps this is my response to office gossip. But I'm
| talking about my coworker who regularly brags about
| corporal punishment and how he's a good father for
| hitting his kid on the regular.
|
| Yeah, if its regular he's probably doing it wrong. In 16
| years of parenting, I've smacked my kids a total of maybe
| 5 times.
|
| > There's still a generation of parents who think that
| hitting their kids is the right response, be it from
| occasional spanking, or even wholesale beating them up to
| teach them a lesson.
|
| I don't think physical punishment is the correct response
| to anything but physical violence, and even then it's a
| rare response and should be proportional.
|
| I just don't think that it should be completely off the
| table as a _response_ to physical violence. I also think
| the kid should know that it 's on the table.
|
| "Consequences for your actions" should mean something;
| the consequences should be proportional and similar to
| the actions.
|
| "Consequences for your actions" should not mean "I lose
| TV if I hit my brother repeatedly when I am angry".
|
| >Beating up kids / corporal punishment isn't about "self
| defense", but instead about "learned helplessness". Its a
| different strategy to parenting, and some people still
| believe in it.
|
| It isn't about learning self-defense, it's about learning
| that even if they will never hit someone, they're living
| in a world where violence is never off the table. They
| need to be prepared for that.
| awild wrote:
| > To change a person's behavior. If someone keeps lying,
| cheating, and stealing in society, we want to make them to
| stop so that they can reintegrate and become a beneficial
| member of society.
|
| I think a common criticism of this stance is, that it does
| not ask why a person does something that others want to
| punish. Obviously there sometimes are no answers, but often
| it's poverty and lack of options. So this begs the question,
| why people come to steal and murder etc.
|
| I personally don't believe that "punishment" is usually well
| invested in a person. Rehabilitation and support structures
| are probably the better option.
|
| I am also realising that it gets very interesting for white
| collar crime "without a victim" such as tax evasion or
| manipulation of stocks. My intuition is to punish exactly
| these crimes, but I think that's my bias showing.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| As well, we need to clearly distinguish "punishment" and
| "revenge".
|
| Revenge is an emotional response by those who have been
| wronged in the past.
|
| Punishment can mean many things (so perhaps we need more
| specific words), but I believe in this context it is meant to
| be a rational, conscious act to influence behaviour - though
| there are other kinds of punishment, and it can be difficult
| to distinguish. A parent may raise their voice very
| intentionally, without actually being angry, to gain
| attention, distinguish and underline a point, or elicit quick
| obedience (i.e. a "STOP!!!" when a child is about to dart on
| the road), but they may also raise their voice out of
| impulse, emotion, frustration, with no specific goal in mind
| and thus no clear direction or "win conditions".
|
| (I've only recently learned of the phrase "omnidirectional
| ass-chewing" [1], which is a very intentional demenour and
| environment for receiving marines to put them into a
| constantly stressful environment to train focus. It LOOKS
| like random angry yelling, but is in fact extremely studied,
| careful, and intentional. )
|
| 1: Section 6, "Yelling" https://slate.com/human-
| interest/2013/03/why-is-boot-camp-so...
| watwut wrote:
| A lot of adults punish children, because it makes them feel
| good. They do it again and again despite kids behavior not
| getting better.
|
| People often punish out of anger and their kids are badly
| behaved as a result.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| I don't mean to oversimplify your point, so I'll phrase this as
| a question:
|
| Should we punish children for bad behavior? How do we
| discipline without punishing? How can we discipline our kids
| but avoid making them feel bad?
|
| I worry that the collapse of discipline, among other things,
| leads to a great number of young people about to enter the
| world with totally misaligned expectations about surviving and
| thriving as an adult.
| t-3 wrote:
| No matter how many times my dad beat me or my mom yelled, it
| didn't instill discipline, just resentment. What worked to
| give me discipline was getting a job and living on my own.
| Simple incentive is all that's necessary to ensure people
| show up and do work.
| McBeige wrote:
| What type of discipline do you mean? The self discipline to
| behave in a way that enables you to live a good life? Or
| external discipline that makes you behave in a way (not
| necessarily a good way) out of fear of punishment?
|
| Which of these are desirable?
|
| Is it possible and efficient to instill the former using
| punishment?
| lapcat wrote:
| > The self discipline to behave in a way that enables you
| to live a good life?
|
| Also, self-discipline tends to follow age. If punishing
| little kids helped, then why do kids often become terrors
| in their teens and twenties, then eventually grow up,
| mature, and become more responsible?
|
| Of course some people never grow up, but many of them were
| smacked around as kids anyway.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| Personally I don't want to punish but rather inform: if you
| do this, this might/will happen. It doesn't imply that
| they're a bad person for doing what they did, just speaks
| more to the cause and effect of actions.
|
| I think this may actually work better for kids. I think so
| often we praise/shame them, and they can get caught in a
| cycle of unpredictable self-worth. I dunno, for me, I like to
| let people know how I will most likely react to certain
| actions and tell them that even if I react that way, I will
| still love them. Punishing (with the intent to hurt them)
| often hurts me, so I'd rather not try to hurt them. That
| being said, I do want people to know if they punch me in the
| face, I may punch them back, leave the bar, or strongly
| distance myself from them physically. I just want people to
| be more aware of consequences rather than feel like they're a
| bad person for choosing their actions.
| hn_version_0023 wrote:
| > I worry that the collapse of discipline, among other
| things, leads to a great number of young people about to
| enter the world with totally misaligned expectations about
| surviving and thriving as an adult.
|
| Is this not already the case? I'm not entirely sure how one
| might measure this, but boy does my gut tell me that its
| already happened.
| kgwgk wrote:
| > How do we discipline without punishing? How can we
| discipline our kids but avoid making them feel bad?
|
| It's not clear what those questions mean.
| discipline verb disciplined; disciplining
| transitive verb 1 : to punish or penalize for the sake
| of enforcing obedience and perfecting moral character
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| I teach my children primarily to fix things by righting the
| wrong. I fully realize that not all wrongs can be righted,
| but it is a valuable starting point. So many times I've had
| the pleasure of seeing my children come up with genuinely
| ingenious ways to right a wrong.
|
| In disputes where I'm playing referee between two of my
| children, I gravitate away from deciding who is right and who
| is wrong. Instead direct conversation around, what happened,
| what people need, and how we can satisfy those needs within
| the creative realm of reasonable possibility.
|
| As a baseline for issues that don't have a clear needs-based
| line to follow, I consider the systemic issues involved and
| re-engineer systems to incentivize good behavior and
| disincentivize bad behavior. Most often this takes the form
| of natural consequences.
|
| Finally, I don't have angelic children. The reason it works
| is because we've been doing it for years, not because my
| children are more compliant, or I'm some saint. We all get
| upset, angry, and do things we regret. What we are all
| invested in is having a shared desire to make things better
| than we found them.
|
| What I am skeptical of, however, are responses which attempt
| to frame children as willfully non-compliant. That says more
| about the person describing the behavior than the behavior
| itself.
| 57457802 wrote:
| Punishment/revenge is satisfying to a lot of people, but I'm
| repulsed by it. I don't feel an instinct to punish people who
| have wronged me, and I feel just as bad for people who are
| suffering regardless of what they did before. I wonder what
| makes me different from people who favour punishment. Is it
| just because I was never punished as a child, or is there a
| neurological difference?
| superchroma wrote:
| it's definitely a base instinct. When I'm stressed and
| preoccupied, lashing out is certainly easier than when calm.
|
| I also wonder how people rationalize seeking punishment. More
| often than not, no forced act can undo wrought damage,
| particularly emotional damage, and people don't really feel
| better seeing others suffer, even if that's what they believe
| they want.
|
| People also are extremely prone to forgetting the core intent
| of society's justice system and prisons, which is (or should
| be) reform, which is sad. Many balk at the idea that prison
| is humane in any dimension. We have a lot of growing to do :(
| wizofaus wrote:
| I don't have an issue that the threat of prison is a useful
| deterrent, therefore it needs to obviously be a less
| desirable option than whatever lives people live now. But
| nor should it ever be inhumane. The big problem with
| prisons is that those put there consequently spend a
| significant period of their lives interacting with nobody
| but criminals (and prison guards, who aren't exactly known
| for their ability to inspire the best in others). I'd wager
| a significant number of career criminals only end up making
| those life choices after spending time inside. OTOH reform
| is genuinely hard and not often successful.
| dolni wrote:
| Personally, I think prison ought to be structured a lot
| more like life outside prison. You teach people what they
| need to do to be successful outside, which has some
| obvious benefits.
|
| Provide for jobs, pay a reasonable market wage, a fair
| amount of paid time off and/or sick leave.
|
| Then teach them how to pay bills and prioritize. Charge
| reasonable rates for accommodations, food, and amenities.
| Let people upgrade their room for an increased monthly
| fee. Maybe they can pay for cable. If someone wants a
| steak on their birthday, they can splurge and get one --
| but it will cost them more than their usual meal.
|
| Now you're probably asking: "but what if they refuse to
| work?" I say: the same thing that happens outside a
| prison. You don't work, you don't get paid. You don't get
| paid, you can't buy food. You can't buy food, you don't
| eat. The problem will solve itself after a while.
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| I'm on the same boat as you. I feel like when we do things
| that would be emotionally satisfying as a reaction to
| something, it is almost always the wrong thing to do in the
| bigger picture. The space of possible reactions is infinite,
| and picking the first choice coming to mind just feels
| totally wrong.
| dolni wrote:
| Have you ever been wronged in a substantial way? Something
| that shook you so much, that you carried it with you for
| months or years afterwards? It's the kind of thing that when
| it happens, you think: "I wish nobody else had to go through
| what I did".
|
| If you haven't, consider yourself lucky. Some of us aren't
| so.
| 57457802 wrote:
| Yes, I would say I have. I have been sexually assaulted for
| example, but that doesn't mean I want the person who did it
| to suffer as well. That would just mean more suffering.
| dolni wrote:
| So you would be okay with the person you assaulted you
| not facing consequences, like prison?
| 57457802 wrote:
| I am okay with that. I don't gain anything by another
| person's suffering. It would make me feel worse, not
| better, and it would make the world a worse place because
| prison generally makes people worse. It would also expose
| other prisoners to a predator they can't avoid as easily
| as someone on the outside can. It would be a lose-lose
| for everyone.
| scythe wrote:
| There's a lot of difficulty in actually measuring the long-term
| effects of punishment and policy on society that gets breezed
| over when we are faced with a brute contrast between retribution
| and deterrence. It's fine to point out that branding criminals on
| the face created more repeat offenders, but most other effects
| are more subtle. I wish I could hear less ethics and more
| epistemology when the philosophers come to talk about justice.
| mihaic wrote:
| I know it's almost always taboo whenever I bring it up, but in
| recent years I've become convinced that a moderate level of
| retaliatory violence could lead to a better society.
|
| There seems to no longer be any negative consequences for many
| minor antisocial acts (types of bullying, shoplifting in some
| parts, even reckless driving/endangerment). It's impossible in
| practice to legislate being an asshole, so until recently we
| relied on group shaming or the thread of a minor beating from
| someone wronged to keep this sort of behaviour in check.
|
| Because of past cruelties, we've determined that all amount of
| verbal and psychological abuse is milder that a single slap, and
| I'm honestly wondering if we're leaving too many usable options
| to better society on the table.
|
| That, combined with shaming and some amount of indoctrination of
| morals and ethics in our youth seem to have been abandoned
| completely, instead of being mostly toned down.
| maest wrote:
| I disagree - I think you are conflating 1. "how to punish
| someone" vs 2. "whether to punish someone".
|
| You are arguing that we should change 1. by allowing violence.
| But in the examples you gave, it's not an issue of _how_ those
| acts are punished, but whether they are punished at all.
|
| In other words, maybe we need to enforce current punishment
| more strictly rather than increase the pain of currently
| loosely enforced penalties.
| mihaic wrote:
| Punishment is actually not my intented point, it's having
| negative repercussion for a large class of antisocial
| behaviour.
|
| Being rude and verbally abusive in many situations for
| instance gives you a stricly positive outcome, from a game
| theory perspective. I'm arguing to add something in the mix
| to make that outcome negative, and corporal punishment and
| shaming are the only things I can see.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Honestly, maybe spending a day at stocks on public square might
| be effective tool. And probably relatively cheap punishment.
|
| We could even stream it online. Show advertisements and have it
| pay itself.
| mihaic wrote:
| Yeah, or imagine what effect adding 50 lashed to the CEO on
| those $100 million fines that get easily paid.
| d0mine wrote:
| Imagine the current cancel culture is even more widespread (it
| is a nightmare).
|
| [My personal point of view is that] the society should not
| punish, it should try to prevent future crimes. For example,
| capital punishment: according to studies I've read, it is not a
| real deterrent, and false positives are likely (innocent people
| are killed) -- therefore I'm against capital punishment (if the
| capital punishment were effective to prevent murders, I'd
| reconsider it).
| mihaic wrote:
| Sure, that's exactly my point: capital punishment is over the
| top, and prevention would have been achieved with much less.
|
| If light corporal punishment were shown to be just as
| efficient at prevention as a 1-year in jail sentence, would
| you consider it?
| inglor_cz wrote:
| There definitely is an element of vengeance in capital
| punishment as well. "Eye for an eye".
|
| I am not fully on board with that, but, on the other hand, I
| cannot pretend to myself that I'd consider "Eichmann being
| hanged" somehow morally bad or evil. In a sense, he had it
| coming, like many of his peers. More recently, the people who
| raped and killed their way through Bucha, deserve the same
| treatment.
|
| But I can see that them hanging won't deter further butchers
| of next Buchas. People commit such crimes while feeling
| virtually sure that they won't ever be punished for them, and
| they are often right - too many war criminals expired in a
| luxurious bed at home. Notably, Stalin's executioners were
| never tried by an international tribunal unlike their Nazi
| counterparts, because the USSR won the war.
|
| If the butchers of Bucha were to hang, it would be mostly
| motivated by vengeance.
| jimmygrapes wrote:
| Capital punishment certainly works as a deterrent in the
| sense that a dead person commits no crime. But the way its
| conducted and the number of false positives makes me not a
| fan, in most cases. I imagine there are some situations where
| it is highly effective, but only if done immediately; I
| cannot fathom the whole "death row" thing for those
| hypotheticals. I believe strongly in innocent until proven
| guilty, speedy trial, due process, beyond a reasonable doubt,
| preponderance of evidence, trial by jury of peers, and all
| that fun stuff, and I acknowledge even all that goes wrong
| sometimes. However, assuming full uncoerced confession and
| irrefutable evidence and eyewitness testimony, why do we
| still make a (say, serial killer) suffer in death row instead
| of just execute them immediately? Revenge?
| pessimizer wrote:
| > There seems to no longer be any negative consequences for
| many minor antisocial acts (types of bullying, shoplifting in
| some parts, even reckless driving/endangerment).
|
| This is a current media panic and PR campaign, not a reality.
|
| edit: It's made up. After the administration changes hands, the
| _perception_ (which, I 've been assured, is actually _more_
| important than the reality) that crime is out of control will
| evaporate. Coverage of crime in SF after the Boudin recall has
| disappeared as completely as "concentration camps on the
| border" did after Biden was elected.
| yodsanklai wrote:
| > I've become convinced that a moderate level of retaliatory
| violence could lead to a better society.
|
| I'm against this based on purely ideologic principles but...
| when I try to think about this question objectively, I don't
| find compelling arguments against it (other than it doesn't
| work, but I'm not quite sure about that).
|
| Intuitively, I think that violence brings violence, and making
| violence legitimate will generate more rather than less
| violence.
| mihaic wrote:
| I agree that it's a potentially slippery slope, which would
| need to be carefully addressed and constantly balanced. Not
| all laws need to be eternal, some just apply to the current
| social status.
|
| I think your principles also come from us not defining any
| clear separation between minor violence (a slap, a shove,
| anything that completely heals within a week and is a
| singural episode) and major violence (breaking a bone, acid
| attacks, etc) -- in the same way there is a distinction
| between asault and battery.
| pfisherman wrote:
| I grew up in a place and time where everyday life was permeated
| by a constant threat of violence. What I can tell you from my
| experience is that idea of minor retaliatory violence is kind
| of ridiculous.
|
| The thing about violence and retaliation is that it can and
| will escalate very fast. What are you going to do when you tap
| them on the knuckles and they come back blasting? My advice is
| that you should avoid violence unless backed into a corner and
| all other options are exhausted.
| mihaic wrote:
| It sounds as if you lived in a place where the rule of law
| was also absent, and you are right that violence can often
| spiral. Could you say where this was?
|
| What is was envisioning was a decriminalization of minor
| violence as long as we can't criminalize general rude
| behaviour and I just wanted to explore that idea.
| tomohawk wrote:
| The state must punish, or the citizenry will resort to revenge,
| or just realize that the state isn't worth supporting.
|
| The more the state allows people to infringe on others rights,
| the less reason for it to exist.
| superchroma wrote:
| Presently in America, the state punishes and the citizenry
| isn't too enamored with the state. It punishes the poor and
| poorly connected savagely and the well-off inconsistently.
|
| Generally, I disagree with the assertion, and I would not be
| seeking to refine how we punish to be more effective and
| consistent.
|
| The goal ought to be to remove a person from their situation,
| show them a better way to live and slowly and patiently attempt
| to re-form them as people through real growth (skills,
| character, etc.) so that they can go back into the world better
| and don't need to reoffend. Obviously there's a long way to go
| to get there, but I think many countries have tried the other
| path and I'm not convinced it works.
| ryan93 wrote:
| Like half the murders in Chicago go unsolved.
| WaitWaitWha wrote:
| I care not about if some individual gets a speeding ticket on the
| other side of town. I have zero revenge ideas. I do care that I
| am (and others are) aware there are consequences to speeding.
| That is a direct, and explicit deterrent to me. It is also a
| social contract that I or others who break this contract will be
| punished. That is a comforting thought. Why is it that I am
| comfortable crossing the intersection when I have a green light?
| Because I have confidence that those who would break the social
| contract of following agreed upon laws will be punished, so they
| are deterred from breaking them. I cross without hesitation. We
| think of others as having near-similar ethics (following social
| rules) as we do.
|
| When such contract is broken and punished I am appalled not
| because I want vengeance, but because I am relying for my life to
| keep such contract.
|
| Punishment is a deterrent, not vengeance.
|
| Ethics and morals must not die.
|
| I am really trying not to be cynical about the article's framing.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I wonder if there can be a difference in intention between
| "punishment" and "consequences."
|
| I personally hear punishment and think of an intention to harm,
| whereas hear consequences as lacking that intention, more of an
| intention to inform.
|
| For example, say that if someone runs a red light, they will
| receive a bill for $500. Am I giving them the bill because I
| believe they are a bad person and deserve to be punished? Or as
| a way to let them know that these are the rules and the
| consequences of the rules?
|
| I'm ok with the latter and can feel very sad at the former, as
| I think it just perpetuates pain and increases distance in
| society.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| Inform? Do you really believe that they are _un_ informed,
| that they are unaware of the rules and that there are
| consequences for breaking said rules.
|
| People are not informed by speeding tickets. There is no
| element of surprise there. They knew the rules, they broke
| them anyway. Same with theft and so on. I could understand it
| for some obscure tax law, but basic things like this, no.
|
| Maybe you reached for the wrong verb there, but they are not
| ignorant of the rules.
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| >> Why is it that I am comfortable crossing the intersection
| when I have a green light? Because I have confidence that those
| who would break the social contract of following agreed upon
| laws will be punished, so they are deterred from breaking them.
|
| Don't ever go to Phoenix.
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| > Why is it that I am comfortable crossing the intersection
| when I have a green light? Because I have confidence that those
| who would break the social contract of following agreed upon
| laws will be punished, so they are deterred from breaking them.
|
| It's really quite telling that in countries where religious
| strictures are held to be more important than individual
| freedom, like the US, the prevailing attitude is that "people
| will only do the right thing if they are afraid of being
| punished if they don't".
|
| Whereas, in a country like the UK, with considerably more
| rights and freedoms and less reliance on Judeo-Christian
| religion, the idea is that "people will do the right thing,
| because they expect others to do the right thing in return".
| ericmcer wrote:
| That isn't unique to the UK, every country has a moral code
| and the general populace will be hesitant to break it. Why do
| you think most people are willing to try drugs but very few
| would assault someone and steal their money. Both are
| illegal.
| WaitWaitWha wrote:
| I am not sure that your two points are counter to each other.
|
| I can be both afraid of being punished and can think that
| people will do the right thing.
|
| I sort of eluded to this, but you said it better, and help me
| crystalize it.
| gunshowmo wrote:
| In what way does the UK have "considerably more rights and
| freedoms" than the US?
| ojhughes wrote:
| Kids have the freedom to go to school without fear of being
| shot. Mothers have the right to take 6 months paid
| maternity leave. Workers generally have more rights and
| protections, although this is getting worse.
| watwut wrote:
| Less fear of everything.
|
| Kids are mote likely to move freely around the town too.
| nickelpro wrote:
| Rules and consequences exist because people have different
| ideas about what "the right thing" is, not because society
| thinks people are inherently immoral.
|
| Very few individuals believe their actions unjustified or
| that they are "the bad guy". If we went only be individuals
| self-assessment of their actions, there would be very few
| criminals.
| lapcat wrote:
| > Why is it that I am comfortable crossing the intersection
| when I have a green light? Because I have confidence that those
| who would break the social contract of following agreed upon
| laws will be punished, so they are deterred from breaking them.
|
| I would say it's because most people have no desire to murder
| other people, even if they could get away with it legally.
| closeparen wrote:
| Riding a bicycle around cars would pretty quickly dispel that
| notion.
| lapcat wrote:
| You think I haven't ridden a bicycle around cars?
|
| Are drivers sometimes headless? Yes. Are they murderous?
| No. Otherwise you and I would be dead now.
| closeparen wrote:
| I'm very familiar with environments where people drive
| however the fuck they want. A cyclist wouldn't last long
| there. Maybe it's not murderous intent, but it's at least
| reckless disregard for life.
| lapcat wrote:
| Which environments would those be? Every major city has a
| large number of non-dying cyclists.
| mantas wrote:
| A possibility of punishment is a great way to remind to
| check whereabouts of one's head...
| pasiaj wrote:
| Road rage and horribly antisocial driving behaviour
| exists. I don't think it usually includes murderous
| intent, but intentionally dangerous behaviour is quite
| common.
| lapcat wrote:
| Yes, they exist, they're illegal, and the legal
| consequences don't actually stop them.
|
| If the argument is that everyone would road rage and
| drive dangerously if there weren't legal consequences, I
| dispute that. Many people don't do it simply because they
| don't feel like doing it.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Maybe not everyone. But probably sizable proportion of
| road users would. And I think that is the point.
| Punishment is effective tool for stopping at least
| sizable fraction of them.
| watwut wrote:
| I am someone who used to ride bike for transportation a
| lot. It was nit that bad. It may be cultural, but people
| were not horribly antisocial.
| nickelpro wrote:
| The person who runs a red light doesn't intend to murder,
| they intend to be reckless under the belief they are skilled
| enough to avoid hurting others. That the rules were meant for
| others, less capable than they.
|
| The consequences for rule breakers exist in part to deter
| those lacking the wisdom to understand why the rules were
| created in the first place, not because society believes that
| class of rule breakers wants to hurt others.
| lapcat wrote:
| But the consequences don't actually deter them, as
| evidenced by the countless cars that run red lights.
|
| Those who believe they are skilled enough to avoid hurting
| others also believe they won't get caught by the police
| running a red light.
|
| The question is, which is the worse consequence, getting a
| ticket for running a red light, or killing another person
| in a crash? I would say the latter, in the minds and hearts
| of most people.
| Ekaros wrote:
| I think it comes back to failure of enforcement and size
| of punishment.
|
| I think lot less people would run red lights if they were
| reliably punished for it and the punishment were non-
| trivial. This is why I support Finnish model of income
| based fines. You end up paying some fraction of your
| monthly income. So it will hurt rich and poor more
| equally.
|
| The fines are often very trivial for certain fraction of
| population.
| lapcat wrote:
| If you have a whole society that mostly doesn't have
| inherent respect for social norms or laws, then it would
| be incredibly difficult to enforce those norms or laws
| effectively. You'd need a police state. Massive levels of
| surveilance. And how could you even trust the police
| themselves, if people generally don't respect social
| norms or laws? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
| nickelpro wrote:
| But we're not talking about an entire society of
| normalized rule breaking. I agree, there are places where
| a traffic light is little more than ornamentation, but in
| much of the West the average driver respects most rules
| of the road (speed limits being the least commonly
| respected).
|
| So we're talking about a how to affect the size of a
| minority subpopulation in an otherwise rule following
| society. Here the consequences give rule-breakers pause.
|
| "Is running this red light really worth the fine?"
|
| "I already have 5 points on my license and I'll lose my
| job if it gets suspended"
|
| That's the value of consequences. You'll never stop all
| rule breakers or enforce consequences with perfect
| fairness, but some will be deterred which makes the
| system worthwhile.
| lapcat wrote:
| > So we're talking about a how to affect the size of a
| minority subpopulation in an otherwise rule following
| society.
|
| I don't think that's what we were talking about.
|
| WaitWaitWha: "Why is it that I am comfortable crossing
| the intersection when I have a green light? Because I
| have confidence that those who would break the social
| contract of following agreed upon laws will be punished,
| so they are deterred from breaking them."
|
| Me: "I would say it's because most people have no desire
| to murder other people, even if they could get away with
| it legally."
|
| WaitWaitWha seems to be arguing that we don't have "an
| otherwise rule following society", and only the
| punishment is preventing widespread rule breaking.
| Whereas I was arguing that we do have an otherwise rule
| following society regardless of the punishment. I would
| also argue that punishment doesn't actually do much to
| deter the people who don't respect the rules in the first
| place.
|
| Indeed, I would say that speed limits are the least
| respected because speed limits are rather arbitrary.
| Speed limits change over time (they were set to 55 in the
| 1970s to save gas, not to save lives), and they vary
| widely by locality. Not to mention that speed limits
| don't vary by day/night or by weather, which makes no
| sense. Whereas red and green lights have had the exact
| same meaning the whole time, and the consequences of
| violation are rather obvious, because a red light means
| cars may drive through the intersection perpendicular to
| you, one of the most dangerous situations you can
| imagine.
|
| > I agree, there are places where a traffic light is
| little more than ornamentation
|
| I don't know what you're agreeing with, because I didn't
| say or intend to imply that.
|
| > "Is running this red light really worth the fine?"
|
| Well, the primary thought has to be "Can I make it
| through without dying?"
| nickelpro wrote:
| > I don't know what you're agreeing with, because I
| didn't say or intend to imply that.
|
| > If you have a whole society that mostly doesn't have
| inherent respect for social norms or laws, then it would
| be incredibly difficult to enforce those norms or laws
| effectively.
|
| The latter sentence is predicated on the existence of a
| society that ignore rules, I'm allowing that such
| societies exist but the context is not applicable to the
| average Western drivers.
|
| > WaitWaitWha: "Why is it that I am comfortable crossing
| the intersection when I have a green light? Because I
| have confidence that those who would break the social
| contract of following agreed upon laws will be punished,
| so they are deterred from breaking them."
|
| > Me: "I would say it's because most people have no
| desire to murder other people, even if they could get
| away with it legally."
|
| There are three populations at work:
|
| * People who will not run the red light because they
| respect the rule of law
|
| * People who would run the red light, but don't because
| they fear the consequences of breaking the law
|
| * People who will run the red light regardless of
| consequences
|
| I won't speak for WaitWaitWha, but what I am arguing is I
| would not feel safe relying on just the first group. If
| the first group is 90% of people (which is still "most
| people"), the second group is 9% of people, and the third
| is 1%, I don't like those odds. We don't know what the
| breakdown actually is, but I feel better knowing both the
| first and second group won't run the red light in a
| society with consequences and in that vaguery I feel
| safe.
|
| > Well, the primary thought has to be "Can I make it
| through without dying?"
|
| No, the kinds of people running the red light and perform
| other reckless actions rarely contextualize that widely.
| That's why we need legal consequences in the first place.
| They don't consider in the moment the risk to their own
| and others lives, because they think their skill or a
| sense of invincibility prevents such bad outcomes from
| happening. Legal consequences pose a barrier that they
| can mentally recognize as independent from their own
| invincibility complex.
| lapcat wrote:
| > The latter sentence is predicated on the existence of a
| society that ignore rules, I'm allowing that such
| societies exist but the context is not applicable to the
| average Western drivers.
|
| It was a counterfactual hypothetical.
|
| >There are three populations at work: * People who will
| not run the red light because they respect the rule of
| law * People who would run the red light, but don't
| because they fear the consequences of breaking the law *
| People who will run the red light regardless of
| consequences
|
| This is missing the 4th and most important population:
|
| * People who will not run the red light because it's
| likely to kill themselves and/or others.
|
| That's the population I rely on.
|
| > They don't consider in the moment the risk to their own
| and others lives, because they think their skill or a
| sense of invincibility prevents such bad outcomes from
| happening.
|
| Do you have any empirical basis for this claim? Does it
| come from personal experience? We can't read minds,
| except our own.
|
| I think it's bizarre to say that risk is not a factor,
| since nearly all red light runnings occur right after the
| yellow, when the relative risk of a crash is lowest,
| rather than in mid-cycle, when the risk of a crash is
| highest. Unless the streets are deserted. Hardly anyone
| ever thinks they're invincible enough to thread the
| needle of present perpendicular traffic.
|
| Even when the streets are deserted, red light runners
| don't just plow through mid-cycle. They treat the red
| light like a stop sign.
| scombridae wrote:
| tl;dr Because punishment deters and because it feels good
| ("desert").
|
| Article raised insignificant, pathological counter-arguments:
|
| If robbery is punishable by death, then thieves are more likely
| to kill their victims to squelch witnesses.
|
| Since suicide was religiously verboten, suicidal mothers engaged
| in capital crimes to enlist the authorities to off them.
| andrewstuart wrote:
| The article is about society in general, but on a personal level
| I have a "no punishment" policy with my son.
|
| I never punish him and never have.
|
| Whenever he behaves in a way that's not OK with me I first ask
| myself "does he understand my expectations here, have I already
| explained my expectations to him?". Usually not, so I explain
| that his behavior isn't acceptable and why. I very rarely need to
| do this.
|
| The one time he behaved in a way that made me really angry I
| dealt with it at the time by speaking to him about it and also
| with the other people involved and there was still no punishment.
| m463 wrote:
| I can't help but think of this other article -- only loosely
| related
|
| How Inuit Parents Teach Kids To Control Their Anger
|
| https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/53283/how-inuit-parents-teach...
|
| however I don't know how this translates to the whole of society
| vs a small community
| WalterBright wrote:
| The recent trend towards decriminalization of various crimes like
| shoplifting have resulted in a crime wave.
| superchroma wrote:
| It's not fair to discuss this without data.
| nradov wrote:
| The problem is that we don't have any high quality data on
| most crimes. Virtually all murders are reported. But victims
| often don't report lesser crimes, especially in places like
| San Francisco where they know that the police won't bother to
| investigate and the DA won't bother to prosecute.
|
| The closest thing we have is the National Crime Victimization
| Survey (NCVS), but so far they only have data through 2020.
|
| https://bjs.ojp.gov/data-collection/ncvs#publications-0
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| You have proof of causality in that direction, right?
| lkey wrote:
| Honestly Walter, if shoplifting is decriminalized then it won't
| count as 'crime' will it? It's in the word.
|
| From what I can see the trend has more to do with covid
| restrictions lifting than anything else. Violent crimes and
| gun-based homicides are the things that have risen most
| sharply, so that has little to do with larceny.
|
| And generally speaking, if you are frustrated by shoplifting,
| you should be _even more_ frustrated by civil asset forfeiture,
| which deprives Americans of more wealth than all burglaries put
| together. However, it is state sanctioned with no real recourse
| or insurance to protect victims.
| watwut wrote:
| Except that is nit true. Tough on crime cities had crime wave
| too, bigger one.
|
| It was more about emotional investment into "gotta imprison as
| many people as possible".
| 57457802 wrote:
| I don't think that's true at all. People say that crime
| increased in San Francisco because of the more progressive DA,
| but ignore that crime increased less in San Francisco than
| nationwide.
| lelanthran wrote:
| > I don't think that's true at all. People say that crime
| increased in San Francisco because of the more progressive
| DA, but ignore that crime increased less in San Francisco
| than nationwide.
|
| Well, yeah ... if shoplifting isn't reported as a crime, then
| it doesn't matter how high the shoplifting rate goes, then
| official crime rate will still be low.
|
| TLDR: If shoplifting is unreported, then reported levels of
| shoplifting will be zero.
| anonporridge wrote:
| You can't talk about crime statistics without talking about
| whether people are actually reporting crimes at the same
| rate.
|
| It's entirely possible that a city with a progressive DA that
| doesn't prosecute certain types of crimes sufficiently or
| judges that don't actually pull criminals off the streets,
| end up with a social atmosphere where citizens don't bother
| reporting crime as much, because they know nothing will be
| done about it anyway.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| Adding to that, police don't operate in a vacuum and may
| respond to the election of a progressive DA by reducing
| their level of effort, whether that's in retaliation, or
| out of a fear of being prosecuted for misconduct, or as a
| form of strike [1]. Or, like you said, we just see drops
| because they don't bother to make arrests they know won't
| get prosecuted (e.g. nonviolent drug arrests in philly
| following Larry Krasner's election follow this pattern
| [2]). Or, its some demographic, or socioecenomic, or some
| other trend unrelated to the DA (or which also happened to
| result in the DA being elected in the first place).
|
| Basically, stats are hard, crime stats are really hard, and
| someone who tells you Crime rates did X because Person A
| did thing Y without a 20 page paper probably doesn't have a
| clue, including me.
|
| [1] https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/170-atlanta-police-
| offic...
|
| [2] https://data.philadao.com/Arrest_Report.html
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Do you have any numbers that shows this? To discuss the
| disproportionate rise in crime in progressive DAs' cities
| isn't to ignore the rise in crime across the board.
| 57457802 wrote:
| Some relevant links:
|
| https://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-
| california/
|
| https://citycrimestats.com/statistics/
|
| https://applieddivinitystudies.com/sf-crime-2/
| gruez wrote:
| Except for property crimes, there are reason to believe
| that the official statistics are totally unrepresentative
| of actual number of crimes committed. For instance:
| https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/shoplifting-data-
| Targ...
| 57457802 wrote:
| Sure, the statistics are not very good, but we don't have
| anything better. We have some evidence that property
| crime has gone down relative to other parts of the
| country (and much better evidence for homicide, which
| doesn't have the same under-reporting risk), and no
| evidence (as far as I know) for the opposite.
| [deleted]
| pessimizer wrote:
| This seems to really dance around the fact (getting very close a
| number of times) that the primary reason for punishment is that
| if you don't punish the perpetrator, the victim, their family,
| and their loved ones will consider the matter unresolved, and
| attempt to carry out what they think would be an adequate
| punishment themselves. Then the perpetrator and their family
| would retaliate, and society eventually dissolves in the tit-for-
| tat. The justice system is something that you use to prevent a
| civil war.
|
| A secondary reason is touched upon here, but if the perpetrator
| of crime is not punished, only isolated comfortably, committing
| crime becomes attractive in and of itself to the portion of
| people who are currently less comfortable than prisoners. That's
| why the treatment of prisoners is a great metric for the quality
| of a society: it sets a baseline for the way non-prisoners are
| treated. You can't give prisoners free, high-quality education,
| no matter how helpful it would be to prevent crime after they're
| released, if you're not giving it to the general public, or else
| the general public would commit crimes to be educated.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-30 23:01 UTC)