The government can meddle in your life both via both your production and consumption. That is, it can tell you how much of what to produce, and how to do that, and it can tell you how much of what to consume, and how to do that. These meddlings can be general and uniform across the population, and decided by a legislature. Or they can make more distinctions between people, and be decided by low level government employees.
I would consider retribution to be of low value and not worth for policymakers to consider (and you might argue, like Robin, that on some level retribution is also "really" about deterrence). All three other are about harm reduction which is generally considered to be the main aim of criminal justice system. If e.g. long prison sentences are ineffective at that then it might be a good reason to look for a different kind of policy.
"I'm happy to grant for the sake of argument that we evolved our wish to punish wrongdoers due to the benefits we gain from deterrence, but it doesn't follow that we should give up that preference if we can achieve deterrence by other means."
Note that I didn't bring up the evolutionary reason for the desire to punish, Robin did. I just generally think that the deterrent effect is generally the justification people would give for punishments (regardless of whether that's due to evolutionary pressures or not).
In any case, I have a desire for low crime (but a much lower desire for evildoers to just suffer without a positive effect for others). When it comes to penal policies, I think the anti-crime effectiveness should be weighed against costs. Do people really honestly and openly favor ineffective (in deterring crime) penal policies because they consider the suffering impacted on the punished to have a large inherent value?
"Yes, punishing wrongdoers makes people happy ("emotional satisfaction"). Fundamentally, that's what practical benefit is."
No, I meant the word "practical" to exclude that sort of benefits. I hope you can intuitively understand what I meant even though I can't put it precisely into words.
At any rate, I suspect such benefits are small and not worth the cost of e.g. long prison sentences.
Punishment may well deter, yes, though we should note that for really serious crimes it doesn't seem to, particularly*.
(* I mean the set of malum in se crimes as close to universally agreed to be both serious and wrong as is possible, like murder.
The vast majority of us wouldn't murder people even if the law would not punish us [no matter what we might mutter in traffic], just as the vast majority of us wouldn't start using heroin if it was made legal tomorrow.
But you can't deter people with no impulse control and no thought of the future, or with no regard for other people.
Punishment can deter, say, shoplifting, as the California experience of the last year or three amply proves.
It doesn't seem to be very effective at stopping Serious Crimes Against Persons.
But putting such people in prisons does stop them from attacking the general population again, very effectively.)
This is a strange argument. I'm happy to grant for the sake of argument that we evolved our wish to punish wrongdoers due to the benefits we gain from deterrence, but it doesn't follow that we should give up that preference if we can achieve deterrence by other means.
Similarly, the "point" of sexual intercourse is reproduction. It doesn't follow that eliminating sexual intercourse, and breeding new generations (safely! efficiently!) in birthing pods would increase human flourishing.
Yes, punishing wrongdoers makes people happy ("emotional satisfaction"). Fundamentally, that's what practical benefit is.
Not much. I know some insurance for bush fire areas have condirions on fire prevention, but most policies don't have anything. Thete's a profitable market of homeowners who don't want to bother with fire prevention. But anyway, that's a different issue. It's prior to any wrong doing.
What makes a voucher, after a guilty verdict and they have paid out the fine and presumably cancelled any future dealings with the guilty as a bad risk, go to the additional expense of tracking down and imprisoning the guilty one? I can see how their contract may give them the right, but why would they do it?
I'm not aware of a life insurance company that provides health information or once a year health checks, or takes even the slightest effort to make their clients live longer. They even pay out on suicide thus giving an incentive for clients to carry out the event being insured.
Do any fire insurance companies fight fires to limit the damage? I'm not aware of any.
I can see how vouchers would put a large amount of resources into defending their richest clients to prevent them being found guilty - top laywers, paying off judges, etc. They'd just let the poorest ones be found guilty.
Even if this didn't work best for the very richest, forcing us to do something different for them, that's a tiny % of the population.
Threatening punishment isn't the only way for vouchers to reduce crime rates. If they don't work, they'd use the other methods.
We use contracts in a great many areas of life today, even though people are bad at reading contracts. That same bad-at-reading problem also applies to voters electing politicians to solve problems such as setting crime policy.
I proposed using betting markets to estimate likelihood of getting caught, not some judge ruling. If some privacy packages are especially problematic, they could be prohibited.
The median prison sentence is 1.3 years, but prisoners aren't any less risky after that duration, so we clearly aren't picking that duration based on estimating their risk if released.
Most exiled would find another place to take them, and it is okay if there is some remainder for which none will take them - we've still saved on all the rest.
I think exile is what we do with undocumented immigrants who commit crimes, and some who are documented. Remember sad stories of a young boy brought to US, not documented, deported after conviction to a country where he doesn't know the language, etc.
"Disagree here. Job safety regulations are, and should be, tailored to the context surrounding each industry."
I think you misunderstood Robin. Job safety regulations aren't tailored to e.g. individual companies or individual factories at the discretion of individual civil servants. Any regulation applies to everyone in the same kind of job regardless of company or location (inside a given jurisdiction).
"An oil refinery should have different job safety regulations than a paper mill..."
Robin's general rule here means that it applies to e.g. all paper mills. The "meddling", on the other hand, would mean that civil servants would start to tailor policies to each paper mill separately.
I would consider retribution to be of low value and not worth for policymakers to consider (and you might argue, like Robin, that on some level retribution is also "really" about deterrence). All three other are about harm reduction which is generally considered to be the main aim of criminal justice system. If e.g. long prison sentences are ineffective at that then it might be a good reason to look for a different kind of policy.
We normally say that there are four major categories of justification for punishment:* Deterrence * Retribution* Incapacitation* Rehabilitation
Deterrence is far from the only reason that people give, and I am surprised that you imagine so.
"I'm happy to grant for the sake of argument that we evolved our wish to punish wrongdoers due to the benefits we gain from deterrence, but it doesn't follow that we should give up that preference if we can achieve deterrence by other means."
Note that I didn't bring up the evolutionary reason for the desire to punish, Robin did. I just generally think that the deterrent effect is generally the justification people would give for punishments (regardless of whether that's due to evolutionary pressures or not).
In any case, I have a desire for low crime (but a much lower desire for evildoers to just suffer without a positive effect for others). When it comes to penal policies, I think the anti-crime effectiveness should be weighed against costs. Do people really honestly and openly favor ineffective (in deterring crime) penal policies because they consider the suffering impacted on the punished to have a large inherent value?
"Yes, punishing wrongdoers makes people happy ("emotional satisfaction"). Fundamentally, that's what practical benefit is."
No, I meant the word "practical" to exclude that sort of benefits. I hope you can intuitively understand what I meant even though I can't put it precisely into words.
At any rate, I suspect such benefits are small and not worth the cost of e.g. long prison sentences.
WE accept them back into our society after a median of 1.3 years, so other nations would accept most as well.
Vouchers have many ways to discourage crime besides threats of punishment.
Exile to where? It's 2020, not 2000BC.
Punishment may well deter, yes, though we should note that for really serious crimes it doesn't seem to, particularly*.
(* I mean the set of malum in se crimes as close to universally agreed to be both serious and wrong as is possible, like murder.
The vast majority of us wouldn't murder people even if the law would not punish us [no matter what we might mutter in traffic], just as the vast majority of us wouldn't start using heroin if it was made legal tomorrow.
But you can't deter people with no impulse control and no thought of the future, or with no regard for other people.
Punishment can deter, say, shoplifting, as the California experience of the last year or three amply proves.
It doesn't seem to be very effective at stopping Serious Crimes Against Persons.
But putting such people in prisons does stop them from attacking the general population again, very effectively.)
Maybe that is a natural impulse worth questioning?
This is a strange argument. I'm happy to grant for the sake of argument that we evolved our wish to punish wrongdoers due to the benefits we gain from deterrence, but it doesn't follow that we should give up that preference if we can achieve deterrence by other means.
Similarly, the "point" of sexual intercourse is reproduction. It doesn't follow that eliminating sexual intercourse, and breeding new generations (safely! efficiently!) in birthing pods would increase human flourishing.
Yes, punishing wrongdoers makes people happy ("emotional satisfaction"). Fundamentally, that's what practical benefit is.
Not much. I know some insurance for bush fire areas have condirions on fire prevention, but most policies don't have anything. Thete's a profitable market of homeowners who don't want to bother with fire prevention. But anyway, that's a different issue. It's prior to any wrong doing.
What makes a voucher, after a guilty verdict and they have paid out the fine and presumably cancelled any future dealings with the guilty as a bad risk, go to the additional expense of tracking down and imprisoning the guilty one? I can see how their contract may give them the right, but why would they do it?
I'm not aware of a life insurance company that provides health information or once a year health checks, or takes even the slightest effort to make their clients live longer. They even pay out on suicide thus giving an incentive for clients to carry out the event being insured.
Do any fire insurance companies fight fires to limit the damage? I'm not aware of any.
I can see how vouchers would put a large amount of resources into defending their richest clients to prevent them being found guilty - top laywers, paying off judges, etc. They'd just let the poorest ones be found guilty.
Even if this didn't work best for the very richest, forcing us to do something different for them, that's a tiny % of the population.
Threatening punishment isn't the only way for vouchers to reduce crime rates. If they don't work, they'd use the other methods.
We use contracts in a great many areas of life today, even though people are bad at reading contracts. That same bad-at-reading problem also applies to voters electing politicians to solve problems such as setting crime policy.
I proposed using betting markets to estimate likelihood of getting caught, not some judge ruling. If some privacy packages are especially problematic, they could be prohibited.
What makes an insurer of your house against it burning down care if you invest in fire prevention?
There are also errors in estimating how much any one person dislikes prison, or any other punishment.
The median prison sentence is 1.3 years, but prisoners aren't any less risky after that duration, so we clearly aren't picking that duration based on estimating their risk if released.
Most exiled would find another place to take them, and it is okay if there is some remainder for which none will take them - we've still saved on all the rest.
I think exile is what we do with undocumented immigrants who commit crimes, and some who are documented. Remember sad stories of a young boy brought to US, not documented, deported after conviction to a country where he doesn't know the language, etc.
Interesting--hadn't run into the concept before. Thank you.
"Prisons aren't for deterring crime [...] They're for punishing it"
Isn't the point of punishments to deter crimes? If not, what is the purpose of punishment? Emotional satisfaction (without practical benefit)?
"Disagree here. Job safety regulations are, and should be, tailored to the context surrounding each industry."
I think you misunderstood Robin. Job safety regulations aren't tailored to e.g. individual companies or individual factories at the discretion of individual civil servants. Any regulation applies to everyone in the same kind of job regardless of company or location (inside a given jurisdiction).
"An oil refinery should have different job safety regulations than a paper mill..."
Robin's general rule here means that it applies to e.g. all paper mills. The "meddling", on the other hand, would mean that civil servants would start to tailor policies to each paper mill separately.