From: Smigrodzki, Rafal (SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu)
Date: Thu Apr 11 2002 - 13:34:46 MDT
Dave Sill [mailto:extropians@dave.sill.org] quoted;
> 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.
and wrote:
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.
### I would roughly agree with you what "crime" means, in a specific
libertarian context, where human wishes to live, to know and to be free are
paramount. However, aside from our private beliefs, the concept of crime has
a more general meaning, applicable to any society, and that is the meaning I
defined above.
------
> 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.
### There is a town in the US where eating garlic before having sex is a
crime. In Incan Peru, priests flayed the POW's and danced wearing their
skins. Probably both of us would agree which one should be a crime in the
society where we wield power (because we are similar), but then in faraway
places strangers will insist on their own definitions.
-----
> 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.
### I am all for it. Even bad people should be given a chance.
---- > 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. ### But it does a good job - it helps scare the would-be molesters from molesting, and the would-be thieves from thieving. ----- > 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. ### Agreed. It's much better to have a high-quality legal system, which can precisely target the correct persons, rather than rely on blunt force applied against whole populations. But if no legal system exists, this might be your last recourse. Mutually Assured Destruction (which saved the world) was exactly this kind of situation - targeting of whole cities full of innocent people just to inconvenience the few bad ones among them. -------- Further up the slippery slope. Regardless of whether it's effective or not, innocent associates of a criminal must not be punished. ### Say, there is a bad guy with a nuke. He doesn't care about his own life but does love his mother. Will you say "You nuke the city, I kill your mama" or just wait for the shockwave? What if you know there are lots more family-loving guys getting their nukes ready? ----- > 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. ### Yes, exactly. They are guilty too, especially if they accept Saddam's money. ----- 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. ### Agreed. ----- > 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. ### <raising my hand> Yes, if I have to choose between a 1/3 chance of being the target of unopposed violent crime (as in some savage South American tribes), and a 1/1000 chance of being shot accidentally by cops fighting bank robbers, I take the latter. You can't have perfect goodness, and absolute security, but you can reduce total risk, sometimes at the cost of another, but smaller risk. ----- No, that's just state-sponsored crime. Of *course* there are other ways to stop suicide bombers. ### Such as? ----- > 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. ### I fully agree with you. In practice we should err on the side of caution. Only if you are *absolutely* sure that there is no other way you may agree to an action with substantial risk of collateral damage. Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:25 MST