= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JRMayne comments on Rationality & Criminal Law: Some Questions - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (147)
Before discussing justice from the standpoint of rationality, we need to agree on the goals of justice. Are they to prevent crimes, to punish those convicted, to provide relief to the victims (monetary, by injunction, or by feeling vengeance has been done), to ensure laws are implemented, or to create other second-order effects on society by being seen to enforce moral standards? And how should these goals be balanced?
Great question. Here are my answers:
Protect society by preventing and deterring crime, both in the specific case of the person being prosecuted and others.
Preventing crime includes doing so by preventing bad actors from being around other people who they could kill or maim or whatever other bad thing they like to do.
When possible, make victims whole.
I don't believe in punishment as valid, but making victims happier has substantial value. So from a societal point of view, I want punishment to have a specific purpose; part of that purpose may be giving victims a sense of justice.
"Ensuring laws are implemented," strikes me as a second-order question; we want laws to be implemented fairly and equitably to achieve the above goals. Uniform sentencing for similarly-situated bad actors is something that accomplishes crime prevention.
Make more total utilons for society.
(I'm a prosecutor; that doesn't mean I'm right about any of this.)
Off-topic, but I've been dying to ask a prosecutor this: what's your take on qualified immunity? I don't understand the rational basis for it; is there something I'm missing?