Punishment is never sensible. If someone is unpleasant, they are not made more pleasant by being unpleasant to them.

One needs to prevent unpleasantness if possible, and if the situation is desperate, killing an unpleasant person might be the best preventative course, if the restraint of imprisonment cannot function for some reason. It may even be merciful, though mercy-killing is a very unsafe principle.

killing an unpleasant person might be the best preventative course, — unenlightened

Here I see a problem. We're all going to die.

Either the death penalty doesn't make sense or we've all committed a grave crime.

As a penalty?

If someone is about to run into the path of a lorry, one has to prevent them. It might involve some violence. Similarly, one has to prevent the mad axeman from hacking people to death, and that might even include lethal force. But it is not a punishment. The death penalty for someone who has already been restrained is indeed senseless, unless we are unable to continue the restraint. But that is because all punishment is senseless, not because we all have to die.

I don't like what I'm saying but it looks like I have no choice: sometimes lethal force is necessary.

But that is because all punishment is senseless — unenlightened

This I find interesting. I feel that sometimes the only reason someone holds back on committing a crime is the threat of punishment. Is punishment really unreasonable?

I feel that sometimes the only reason someone holds back on committing a crime is the threat of punishment. — TheMadFool

That's called deterrence. But I call it bullying. Sometimes, deterrence works, as you say, as a prevention. Ad sometimes there is deterrent effect anyway of measures to prevent crime. So if we lock up murderers to prevent them murdering, that will perhaps deter people.

But I hold to the principle that it is both immoral and ineffective to rely on being unpleasant to one person to deter another, or to persuade by bullying and threats. Respect and kindness better makes people more amenable. Lots of folk disagree with me though.

But I hold to the principle that it is both immoral and ineffective to rely on being unpleasant to one person to deter another, or to persuade by bullying and threats. Respect and kindness better makes people more amenable. Lots of folk disagree with me though — unenlightened

How effective do you think is your philosophy in practical terms? Does it work?

The difference is that with the death penalty, we're intentionally cutting someone's life shorter than it would have been naturally.

I'm not in favor of the death penalty, by the way. And I'd have a very different prison system if I were king. For one, I would bring back prison labor--though far more varied labor than we had historically, and part of the money made by prisoners' work would go to victims/victims' families.

How effective do you think is your philosophy in practical terms? Does it work? — TheMadFool

I'm not sure it would be that much different to what goes on at the moment. Prisons would be less punitive, more educational/therapeutic perhaps. Death penalty does not exist here (UK) already.

Can we not then say that from the moment we're born we are sentenced to death. — TheMadFool

I think we can not say that, as there is nothing doing the "sentencing" when we die of natural causes at the end of our biological life span. A theist of the Judeo-Christian stripe may say that it's God which does the sentencing, or that it's all Adam and Eve's fault (original sin and the Fall and all that good stuff), but if that's the case, I'd guess you'd have to take that up with Yaweh.

Punishment is never sensible. If someone is unpleasant, they are not made more pleasant by being unpleasant to them. — unenlightened

I am curious: does this position apply to white-collar criminals, as well? That is, should Wall Street traders who commit fraud, or people like Bernie Madoff who operate Ponzi schemes not be punished?

I once tried to round up some of the usual arguments:

• Pros:
  
  • retribution (or "justice")
  • an eye for an eye, punishment fits the crime
  • deterrence (except for places where shown ineffective)
  • cost (except for places where execution is more expensive than alternatives, depends on legal system)
  • permanent incapacitation (e.g. prison escape and subsequent recurrence avoided)
  • practical
  • modern science grants higher certainties (DNA, genetics)
  • everyone dies eventually in any case [aligns with opening post]
  • closure to victim's family and friends
• Cons:
  
  • wrongful execution (seemingly faced with faceless/anonymous executioners) [also see argument below]
  • finality [also see argument below]
  • consistency [also see argument below]
  • slippery slope; plus potentially setting dangerous precedence
  • sending wrong messages (why kill people who kill people to show killing people is wrong?); two wrongs don't make a right
  • human rights, value of human life, "inhumane" societal action, international trust/acceptance
  • execution may be painful and accompanied by emotional anguish
  • somewhat "barbaric", "brutal", a "primitive feel", or otherwise uncivilized (two wrongs don't make a right again)
  • capital punishment makes it easier to ignore in-depth understanding, e.g. social causes
  • edge cases (like mental illness)
  • victims cannot be brought back to life in any case
  • impact on convict's family and friends

I'll admit to being biased...

An argument con:

Given the irrevocability, voters-gone-executioners-gone-killers ought be held accountable and responsible, and face their own music. By appeal to logical consistency (well, plus one more life irreversibly gone, by design):

• wrongful capital punishments are known to have occurred (even youngsters); who's responsible?
• in such cases, those that endorsed death penalty have (knowingly) caused wrongful deaths (ultimately like murder in nature)
• those that endorse death penalty should not hide behind legalities as a means to justify death penalty, while (cowardly?) sitting safely back in their chairs
• the similarities among allowing wrongful capital punishments and murder cannot be ignored, especially taking the severity (and irreversibility) into account
• in case of wrongful capital punishment, the endorsers should be subject to their own sentiment
• are you (the supporter of the death penalty) willing to stake your own life thus?

Is the retentionist willing to stake their own life on the death penalty?



Weighing pros and cons, my preference is to live in a society that does not practice capital punishment.

I am curious: does this position apply to white-collar criminals, as well? That is, should Wall Street traders who commit fraud, or people like Bernie Madoff who operate Ponzi schemes not be punished? — Arkady

I'm not sure how they can be prevented from reoffending. If they need locking up to protect the public, lock 'em up. Same with drunk drivers, or whatever. I don't think White collars should make a great deal of difference one way or the other.

Since we're ALL on death row and if the law is sensible may I ask what grievious crime did we commit to deserve death? — TheMadFool

I made a similar argument for antinatalism elsewhere - basically, we did nothing to deserve the goods and bads of life, since we didn't exist before we were born so we couldn't have done any heinous or praiseworthy actions. It encompasses both the goods and the bads of life, but definitely is more poignant in regards to the bads.

From a different perspective is the death penalty a sensible form of punishment? — TheMadFool

Absolutely not. It's barbaric, and epistemically over-confident.

I'd argue that death is the reward and life the penalty.

I'd argue that death is the reward and life the penalty. — Heister Eggcart

As may Socrates:
"Those of us who believe death to be an evil are certainly mistaken. I have convincing proof of this [...] either the dead are nothing and have no perception of anything, or it is, as we are told, a change and a relocating for the soul from here to another place. If it is complete lack of perception, like a dreamless sleep, then death would be a great advantage. For I think that if one had to pick out that night during which a man slept soundly and did not dream, put beside it the other nights and days of his life, and then see how many days and nights had been better and more pleasant than that night, not only a private person but the great king would find them easy to count compared with the other days and nights. If death is like this, I say it is an advantage, for all eternity would then seem to be no more than a single night. If, on the other hand, death is a change from here to another place, and what we are told is true and all who have died are there, what greater blessing could there be, gentlemen of the jury. [...]
It is not difficult to avoid death gentlemen it is much more difficult to avoid wickedness, for it runs faster than death"
>:O >:O >:O

Since we're ALL on death row and if the law is sensible may I ask what grievious crime did we commit to deserve death? — TheMadFool

Sin.

From a different perspective is the death penalty a sensible form of punishment? — TheMadFool

Yes. Death penalty should be reserved for those cases in which the wrong-doer has committed such crimes that they have exited from the jurisdiction of human society - their crimes are so terrible, we can't even adequately and fairly judge them anymore. Death in that case is sending them to the Divine Tribunal to be judged.

Since we're ALL on death row and if the law is sensible may I ask what grievious crime did we commit to deserve death? — TheMadFool

i live in a state that has not had the death penalty for a long time. I am opposed to the death penalty. However...

It is one thing to be born, live on one's own terms more or less, and then die a timely death from a natural cause.

Clients of execution service providers usually spend 10 - 15 years, more or less, sitting on death row, which is not quite as luxurious as the usual prison cell. Finally, after many years of legal screwing around, they are given their passport to the hereafter and if they are lucky, the execution goes swimmingly well and they die pretty damn quickly.

Mistakes get made. Sometimes someone who said they were innocent actually was innocent. Illinois executed so many people later found to be innocent that the state gave the executioner a furlough. Sometimes the execution is botched and there is too much gasping, groaning, and squirming for polite society. ("Can't you lie still, damn it, and die quietly?")

That's called deterrence. But I call it bullying.

But I hold to the principle that it is both immoral and ineffective to rely on being unpleasant to one person to deter another, or to persuade by bullying and threats. — unenlightened

You take an extreme non-interventionist position. I agree, though to this extent:

What deters most people from committing crime is a good childhood, a cohesive society, a reasonable level of economic security, and good family life. It isn't that most people fear punishments so much. They just don't want to actually perform very illegal acts that can result in prison or hanging.

They don't murder people because, really, they've just never developed the habit. On a bad day they limit their rages to imagining the demise of a deserving bus load of assholes (or a stadium's worth).

As the famous lawyer Clarence Darrow once said, I have never killed any one, but I have read some obituary notices with great satisfaction.

Come on, unenlightened: putting armed robbers in prison for 5 years isn't bullying. It's the exercise of socially approved coercion. Bullying is when the leading thug in the fifth grade beats you up and takes your lunch money, or takes every opportunity during the day to make one feel like a worm, using rougher methods than words where slugging is more amusing. The bully is operating outside social bounds.

You take an extreme non-interventionist position. I — Bitter Crank

No I don't. And don't you just hate it when folks attribute the wrong 'ism to you. Let's have lots of intervention, and lots of social control, but let's base it on treating folks decently as far as possible, even if they are arseholes, because we don't want society to be the biggest arsehole of them all.

Come on, unenlightened: putting armed robbers in prison for 5 years isn't bullying. — Bitter Crank

Come on BC. I have suggested no such thing. Protection of society is a jolly good idea, and in extemis, I'm even for killing the big shits if there's no other way of stopping them. I have already made that clear to anyone who bothers to read my posts carefully. Prevention is not bullying; imprisonment as prevention of repeat offending is not bullying. I know what bullying is. Bullying is using threats and violence to coerce. It is a bad way to get people to behave well. Just to be clear, lock the robbers up, and treat them well, having disarmed and convicted them is my policy.

Punishment is never sensible. If someone is unpleasant, they are not made more pleasant by being unpleasant to them. — unenlightened

Punishment is also for the victims and society's sense of justice. This even applies to studies where participants play a game that gives them a chance to cheat, and others will go out of their way to punish the cheaters, even at cost to the themselves.

Humans have an innate need for some form of justice. It's not all about the perpetrator.

Punishment is also for the victims and society's sense of justice. — Marchesk

Yes. My loss is ameliorated by the perpetrator's loss; its called retribution, and society's fear is ameliorated likewise. Fear and pain becomes anger. I don't deny that it happens, I deny that it makes any sense as a way to make a happy and cooperative society.

The grudger tactic you talked about is rather set up in the experiment by leaving no other option to control the miscreant. Always a good way to get the result you're looking for.

all punishment is senseless — unenlightened

You take an extreme non-interventionist position. — Bitter Crank

Don't you just hate it when folks attribute the wrong 'ism to you. — unenlightened

I beg your pardon. I must have been hallucinating. "all punishment is senseless" is a totally interventionist statement suitable for law and order types.

I don't know who will execute the kindness and caring program for felons -- you don't like psychologists and their kind, so I guess it will be up to some other group of mechanics.

"all punishment is senseless" is a totally interventionist statement suitable for law and order types. — Bitter Crank

Exactly so. Like many unthinking sloganeers, you don't know the difference between law and order and punishment, and resort to sarcasm rather than start thinking seriously. As if sarcasm is a suitable punishment for my wooly thinking.

Law and order are not the same thing; intervention and punishment are not the same thing. We have a lot of law, and a lot of disorder, and a lot of punishment and not enough intervention.

I don't know who will execute the kindness and caring program for felons -- you don't like psychologists and their kind, so I guess it will be up to some other group of mechanics. — Bitter Crank

Again, you make a careless misreading of my position which I made very clear in a number of posts, that it is scientific psychology that I don't like, and I don't like it precisely because it takes a mechanical view of humanity. Your 'guess' is entirely wrong again.

So, start again. By 'punishment' I mean an action intended to make another unhappy in some way, as a way of controlling behaviour, their's, and that of others. I emphasise the intention, to encourage you to see that actions to intervene to control behaviour can make another unhappy without being a punishment. So I might turn off the tv and internet until homework is done, but the intention is to get homework done, not to punish for it not having been done.

As a personal code, your view is admirable that all punishment is senseless, or that it is both immoral and ineffective to rely on being unpleasant to one person to deter another, or to persuade by bullying and threats. Karl Menninger (a psychiatrist) argued that the way we (the U.S.) manages prisons is itself a crime. (That was in 1968; prisons have gotten worse.)

It is difficult to conceive scaling up this approach in very large economically, socially, and culturally diverse societies, let alone actually achieving the up-scaling.

One of the most promising interventions I have heard of is a Harlem children project in which program workers intervened in the lives of poor black children, sometimes before they were born, by training mothers to talk and read to their babies -- greatly increasing the volume of positive language the children heard from birth (if possible) or at least in the language-formation years before kindergarten. At the same time the mothers were encouraged to decrease the amount of negative and command language they expressed.

The program was founded on the principle that initial language deficits (formed before age 5 or 6) become permanent deficits, and that the consequent poor school performance led to social marginalization from which it was very difficult for an individual to escape. The Harlem program goes on, but is underfunded, of course.

"Youth diversion programs" are more common later attempts to syphon off potential prison inmates before they offend seriously enough to end up in prison. Again, very underfunded. Restorative justice programs involve community efforts to avoid "punishments" by trying to reconnect the early minor offender with his community. All these programs are small and voluntary.

But when you take the best possible positive view of police and the courts, dealing not with dozens, hundred, or thousands of cases -- but millions, and many of the crimes quite serious, it is difficult to see how your approach can be scaled up. The problem isn't just the badness of many of the offenders. It's the size of the institutions (city/county/state governments, various police forces, courts, prosecution and defense offices and staff, not to mention the probation, prison, and parole systems.

It is particularly difficult to scale up your admirable approach when the economic and social structure of large portions of society are crumbling. People don't just feel "disempowered" and marginalized; they are disempowered and marginalized--often by design.

It is particularly difficult to scale up your admirable approach when the economic and social structure of large portions of society are crumbling. People don't just feel "disempowered" and marginalized; they are disempowered and marginalized--often by design. — Bitter Crank

I'm having a hard time even defending the idea that it is possible or reasonable, I'm not expecting to get elected any time soon.

I'm not expecting to get elected any time soon. — unenlightened

Even if you were elected, you wouldn't get very far with abolishing punishment. Literally every society engages in some form of retributive justice.

Literally every society engages in some form of retributive justice. — Marchesk

Well what hasn't been done cannot be done and must be a bad idea. I concede.

Well what hasn't been done cannot be done and must be a bad idea. I concede — unenlightened

It would be like promising to get rid of money if you got elected. Now maybe one day in the future we'll be post scarcity and there won't be money or prisons (maybe a neural adjustment will fix criminal impulses). But that possibility says nothing about the reality of a politician abolishing punitive forms of justice today.

It would be like promising to get rid of money... — Marchesk

Yes. I wouldn't promise to get rid of money, but I might point out that it is beneficial to obsess a little less about it, and focus on other stuff like social care and all the other ways we have of relating.

A punishement is something that you can feel during your living time, and that will make you act differently compared to the non existence of this punishement, if your parents gives you a sanction, you are supposed to remember it.

If your parents however, decide to let you starve in the street and let you down for the rest of your life without never going back to you, this is not a sanction. They instead decided that you sucks so hard that they just don't want you in their life, because they have nothing to do with you. They failed your education and failed to love you.

Death is the same thing but for the society to a criminal, the condemned do not learn from the sanction, instead he disappears for the sake of the humanity.