KBSMilk t1_jd6kvwg wrote on March 22, 2023 at 5:03 AM

Reply to comment by TheGoodFight2015 in In-depth interview with Gregg Caruso, free-will skeptic by fatsosis

I'd say punishment, as I meant it, arises from a combination of intent and results.

Speeding tickets? Are intended to keep roadways safer, and are effective at deterring speeding. Not a punishment.

Now look at the death penalty. It's not really deterring people from murder more than a life sentence. In America, it's wasteful. Based on those two points and the death penalty's continued usage, I can infer that there is vindictive intent propping it up. That is a punishment.

TheGoodFight2015 t1_jdl2cdj wrote on March 25, 2023 at 4:19 AM

I want to take a step back and hear your definition of punishment (of “law breakers”); I apologize if I misinterpreted.

Do you more so mean punishment as far as “society getting revenge on an individual for a bad act they committed”? Because I believe that concept is definitely worse than the rehabilitative approach. I know this sort of contradicts my previous post, but I understand that positive reinforcement is more effective than negative reinforcement, so punishment should be more of a last resort, and reward should be a more helpful frame to work off of.

I do not agree with the death penalty in many cases; I’d say I’m 30-70 in favor of it (or 7/10 disfavor). Once I heard the argument that a death sentence should only be given in a situation proven “beyond the shadow of a doubt”, which is nearly impossible to achieve (some say fully impossible because minute doubt can always exist), then I was swayed to disfavor the death penalty all around.

Still, I have to wonder if there are certain cases where we might feel obligated to go further than a life sentence, such as when [warning, they will be harsh] a rapist would receive a life sentence, but if they killed their victim, they would receive the death penalty.

I’d say I am a rational actor and a reasonable person, so my motives for not hurting others, stealing, killing, etc come from a personal moral compass of “doing the right thing” or “do unto others as you’d have done to yourself”. Even so, I know there are some absolute animalistic people who just do not think that same way, and are entirely out for their own benefit, fuck everyone else. They would just as easily hurt you severely as I might run a stop sign, EXCEPT for the thought of their own self preservation: a person who is “sane” but violent will not act with extreme violence toward somebody they perceive as a massive threat to their existence (in a way this is a very instinctual level of “respect” toward the superior force, where they know they would be vested and do not act with violence unless they think they can get away with it).

Aha, there it is in my mind: getting away with it. The lack of perception of punishment! That’s my definition: punishment is the imposition of something unpleasant or unwanted as a result of someone’s actions. A speeding ticket is a monetary punishment. A jail sentence is a punishment restricting your freedom. Solitary confinement punishes further (not sure if it’s ethical!) Would love to discuss more.

KBSMilk t1_jdl640o wrote on March 25, 2023 at 4:58 AM

From the perspective of the punished, it may be unpleasant, unwanted. But as a society, we should never take action against someone with the aim of inflicting those feelings. They may be a side effect of whatever method is required, but never should it be the goal to do more harm. Even if someone thinks it is deserved.

Because it is never deserved. Because we're all here unwillingly. Because under determinism, even the worst murderers and tyrants didn't choose to be pitiful, terrible creatures that will never know our happiness. In a sense, they are the lowest of us, and even if all we're capable of giving them is pity, then we should still give.

TheGoodFight2015 t1_jdpx0mn wrote on March 26, 2023 at 7:05 AM

This is going to get brutal, but I believe that if a person’s entire existence on earth harms other people, then the world would be better off without that person existing (i.e. life imprisonment or death).

In my opinion, a tyrant should be assassinated if they perpetrate crimes against humanity, crimes against their own people, and show no ability to ever step back from such horrific acts. It would have been wonderful if someone could have killed Hitler earlier on in his mad run of power.

This then gets to the utilitarian realm of discussion: does the well-being of many outweigh the death of one? If some world leader was about to launch a nuclear weapon, I would be happy to hear their life was immediately put to an end. I would “celebrate” that day for the rest of my life, and teach my kids about the moment.

At some point, we get to this notion of self defense. The individual has the right to self defense, and society has the right to “self defense”, essentially now through the justice systems of the world.

What I wonder is, what is the net value to society when people believe they "got revenge" on a criminal / "they got what they deserved" / some notion of "we are happy the wrongdoers are suffering"

I truly wonder myself if that type of thinking promotes a safer society with less harmful criminal acts. Of course we MUST balance this with the sense of rehabilitation and reduction in recidivism.

Personally I believe the justice system should strive to fully rehabilitate and integrate offenders into society whenever possible, but still punish those who committed atrocious acts like rape, murder, violent robbery or home invasion.