From: Robin Hanson (rhanson@gmu.edu)
Date: Tue Jun 05 2001 - 08:58:57 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
>A very good question, "Who should get punished if one of a
>number of duplicates commits an evil act?". ...
>Classically, are four reasons societies punish wrongdoers:
>
>1. Deterrence
>2. Removal
>3. Retribution
>4. Rehabilitation
>
>(Personally, I believe that right now only 1 and 2 are
>both logical and feasible, but 4 is a possibility for
>the future, and possibly works on animals right now.)
>
>So if one of N close duplicates commits a crime, should
>that duplicate alone receive punishment, or should all
>the close duplicates? I would say that if the crime
>related to "lower level" impulses, then the individual
>duplicate should be punished, but if the crime directly
>resulted from beliefs, ideologies, or other "higher level"
>patterns, then punishment for all the duplicates ought to
>be considered.
I teach undergraduate law & economics this fall. Law&econ
analyzes the deterrence motive for law. This sounds like a
great topic for me to assign a paper on.
If the split between duplicates happened so long ago that
the original could not conceivably have anticipated and
taken actions to prevent the crime, then it seems clear
the other duplicates should not be punished. But if the
original could have so prevented, then it becomes more of
an open question I think. And if the duplicate is easier
to find and punish, the case gets stronger.
Robin Hanson rhanson@gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu
Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:58 MST