From: Dave Sill (extropians@dave.sill.org)
Date: Wed Apr 10 2002 - 15:11:51 MDT
"Smigrodzki, Rafal" <SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu> wrote:
> Kai Becker [mailto:kmb@kai-m-becker.de] wrote:
>
> > Philosophy 101: A crime can not be justified by another. Guilt is
> > always individual.
>
> Depends how you define your crimes. And it's also useful to ponder the
> meaning of guilt.
>
> I think that most of us will agree that a crime should be defined as
> a type of reprehensible behavior, which deserves inescapable and
> possibly violent punishment by the society.
That's way too fuzzy. It depends almost entirely upon the definition
of reprehensible. I define crime as a non-defensive act that deprives
others of their health, freedom, or property, where "act" can include
planning, conspiring, or failing to report evidence of a crime.
> Not all types of reprehensible behavior deserve punishment - some of
> them are not serious enough. The status of others as reprehensible
> might be uncertain, especially if there is disagreement within the
> society, so for the sake of peace, punishment is not meted out.
> Therefore, the idea of crime is a highly evolved social construct.
I don't think crime should be so subjective. One shouldn't have to
take a poll to determine if some act was criminal--if it meets the
definition, it's a crime.
> But how do we come to form this idea in the first place? If you
> agree that blowing up young girls in discos is a crime, then
> punishment (by the definition of a crime) is in order.
I'd prefer that punishment be mandated by law, not definition. And by
my definition, that *is* a crime--no agreement necessary.
> The justification for the punishment is twofold: diminishing the
> likelihood of further crimes, and extracting a revenge, satisfying
> the deeply ingrained, evolutionarily favored need to maim or
> otherwise inconvenience those who are felt to be responsible.
How about rehabilition and prevention? Incarceration serves not only
to punish the offender and possibly deter other would-be offenders,
but also to reduce the risk to the public from a likely repeat
offender. And, of course, rehabilitation would also reduce the risk to
the public.
> The revenge motif can be in an evolutionary psychology framework
> derived from the same source - the need to reduce the incidence of
> undesirable actions.
Revenge should not be part of crime and punishment, in my opinion.
It's emotional, not rational.
> Guilt is both a state of mind and an attribute of a person, related
> to vis acceptability of being the target of punishment. Let's talk
> only about the latter meaning. Since the primary reason for
> punishment is the need to favorably influence future behaviors, the
> attribution of guilt should reflect that. Under most circumstances
> this is achieved by targeting the perpetrator of a crime. However,
> sometimes other targets may be chosen, with good control of
> behavior.
Warning: slippery slope. This same argument can be used to rationalize
the prosecution of innocents, which should *never* be acceptable.
Preventing injustice is as important as delivering justice, if not
more so.
> If the perpetrator is principally unavailable (as in being dead),
> punishment may target his associates, or family. This approach was
> frequently taken in historical times, with the killing of families
> of political opponents - the threat of destruction of one's kin may
> stop even the young males who are willing to sacrifice their own
> lives.
Further up the slippery slope. Regardless of whether it's effective or
not, innocent associates of a criminal must not be punished.
> The threat of being the target of punitive action may induce family
> members to exert control over their relatives.
If relatives were aware of a criminal's actions but didn't report
them, they're guilty of a different crime.
> A crime may not justify another. But, it does justify punishment, if
> the punishment results in the reduction of future incidence of
> crime.
Or the likelihood thereof.
> Sometimes there is no way of delivering individual justice without
> hurting bystanders.
In such cases, punishment should probably be delayed. It's not OK to
nuke the city block where you know the convicted murderer is hiding.
Of course, if you're talking about less direct damage such as that
caused by incarcerating a head-of-household, thereby causing financial
hardship to the family, then I'd agree that it's necessary.
> As long as the number of collateral damage victims is significantly
> smaller than the number of innocent persons saved from future
> crimes, the action is acceptable.
I could see shooting down a jumbo jet bearing down on a key target,
but in most cases, collateral damage should be unacceptable. Raise
your hand if you're willing to be collateral damage.
> If killing of supporters, even the proud (and therefore guilty)
Of a different crime...
> families of suicide bombers turns out to be the only way of reducing
> the number of 16-year-olds smeared on cafe walls, then such killing
> is not a crime - it's a just way of defending the innocent.
No, that's just state-sponsored crime. Of *course* there are other
ways to stop suicide bombers.
> Long-term effects on the survival of innocent persons are
> the only basis for judging the desirability of an action.
The ends justify the means? That sounds great in theory, but in
practise it's not that straightforward. In theory, you can easily
tally up the numbers of innocent victims that would result from
various actions. In practice there'd be lots of guesswork, and
probably lots of wrong guesses. I don't get a particulary good feeling
about trusting the typical elected official to make such decisions
wisely.
-Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:23 MST