VOY: Repentance

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Very few criminals ever expect to be caught. That is why deterrence rarely deters.

I think this misses something there are clearly a class of crimes that don't get committed unless normal deterrence goes out the window. So like looting in the case of blackouts etc.

Now some of that is disregulation caused by the fact that a lot of what we do is just doing what those around us are doing. So if people around us are smashing stuff we smash stuff. That is more about role models than deterrence.

However I do think we can think of instances where there is some general deterrence that when removed causes an uptick in crimes or other unwanted behaviour.

In some cases the deterrence may only shift the behaviour. Like if you announce speed cameras and traps on a stretch of highway, people don't speed on that stretch of highway, but everywhere else they speed as much or more than ever. People don't get mugged at the atm covered by 10 CCTV cameras but do 2 blocks over where thee are no cameras etc.

Still I think there are clear cases where if we removed deterrence, enforcement etc. more crime happened and that part of the difference between jurisdictions in crime rates is how well they enforce a law and so deter infractions. It is just that even with a good functioning enforcement system there is a level of infractions and those are the infractions that for the reason you described are not amenable to deterrence (ie reduction by adding more enforcement, harsher penalties etc.). However that is consistent with their being a large amount of anti-social/criminal etc. behaviour suppressed by the current level of enforcement and deterrence versus a potential "wild west" scenario with basically no enforcement or deterrence.

Forgive me someone, if I'm wrong, but I feel like there's room for good faith in CM's post that is looking at deterrence as a motivating factor to commit to less than savory policy measures.

It's a reflection of human behavior, that what's effective is presumed inherently justified for the sake of being in lieu of unchecked lawlessness.

... That or they were using a rhetorical device aimed to never leave room for a development in comprehensive justice procedures.

[AllanO]

Forgive me someone, if I'm wrong, but I feel like there's room for good faith in CM's post that is looking at deterrence as a motivating factor to commit to less than savory policy measures.

I'm not at all sure I understand your response.

Looking back through the thread I think I see your point CrypticMirror earlier speaks in favour of genuine preventive policing and indeed some of the examples I cite of successful deterrence could be called preventive policing.

So yes CrypticMirror's argument was more about whether the death penalty as deterrence could be justified. However it was framed as an argument for the inefficacy of all deterrence or at least all tougher sentencing policies.

So I should have said not only can their be preventive policing it seems likely that in functioning societies there is a fair amount of it, some of it done by the police and some of that is about the severity of sentence for infractions (even if only the severity of fines for example). So the blanket statement about the inefficacy of tougher sentencing is strictly false because it is missing something and requires some nuance to be plausible.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Forgive me someone, if I'm wrong, but I feel like there's room for good faith in CM's post that is looking at deterrence as a motivating factor to commit to less than savory policy measures.

I'm not at all sure I understand your response.

Looking back through the thread I think I see your point CrypticMirror earlier speaks in favour of genuine preventive policing and indeed some of the examples I cite of successful deterrence could be called preventive policing.

So yes CrypticMirror's argument was more about whether the death penalty as deterrence could be justified. However it was framed as an argument for the inefficacy of all deterrence or at least all tougher sentencing policies.

So I should have said not only can their be preventive policing it seems likely that in functioning societies there is a fair amount of it, some of it done by the police and some of that is about the severity of sentence for infractions (even if only the severity of fines for example). So the blanket statement about the inefficacy of tougher sentencing is strictly false because it is missing something and requires some nuance to be plausible.

I'm with you all the way.

As far as civic orchestration, the first thing that came to mind for me was more along the lines of asymmetric information between vertical hierarchies. Hitler's circle was a shrouded lion's den, and on the other hand I heard Trump actually installed a motorized revolving door for the entrance to the West Wing. As far as Russia's concerned, the KGB were probably really effective for keeping regional offices on Russian soil in check by operating under red taped surveillance.

[griffeytrek]

A lot of interesting debate on a rather complex moral and philosophical issue. One of the more weighty and probably long reaching decisions on the subject was just handed down today by the US Supreme Court. United States v Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon Bomber case. It's worth reading both the Opinion and the Dissent. The District Court and Jury had sentenced him to death for the terrorist bombings. The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals had vacated the Death Penalty on technical grounds. The Supreme Court rather pointedly vacated the 1st District COA's ruling and reinstated the Death Penalty. The opinions read like a Star Trek episode. Thomas wrote the Opinion, Breyer the dissent.

[Frustration]

Even people who support the death penalty conceptually might object to the particular way it's carried out. Keeping people on Death Row for decades, then executing them, strikes me as taking the worst aspects of multiple incarceration methods and combining them.

I further note that the American prison system, at least, is extremely inhumane, especially by the standards of industrialized and rich countries. Prisoners are vulnerable to abuse, not only from other prisoners, but from the guards, directly and indirectly. The system creates hardened criminals, provides them with 'educational opportunities' in crime through exposure to other criminals, and then puts them back into a society where it's much harder for them to create a life for themselves than to go further into crime.

People who tearfully protest the cruelty and injustice of the death penalty, but who would keep prisoners in the prison system for life, are making superficial and shallow points. Which is probably why anti-death penalty ideas keep popping up in Hollywood media - they specialize in superficiality.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Yeah, I'm one of the people you're talking about. I see the point of the death penalty in theory, but in practice it's proved that the state isn't responsible enough to handle it.