= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
prase 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)
Which is why it's only safe to signal less vengeance if you have somebody else out of your direct control who's going to do the avenging for you. ;-) It's, "gosh, I'm full of forgiveness and love the sinner, hate the sin, but there's nothing I can do to stop the government from locking you away."
In fact, it's even better than signaling vengefulness, in a way: you are not required to be individually credible in your threats of revenge. So a default-vengeful government allows even the not-very-threatening to have safety. (In that context, being forgiving may well be countersignaling: "I'm so high-status that I don't have to pursue individual vengeance.")
I smell some misunderstanding here. I have said that I disagree with the principle that the victims could partly decide the severity of the punishment, because the vengeful are better protected. When you had reacted
by "it" you had meant what? This system, where the victims are directly responsible for a part of the punishment, or the opposite, where only the government decides?