= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Oscar_Cunningham comments on Open Thread, September 23-29, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (261)
I've been working on a series of videos about prison reform. During my reading, I came across an interesting passage from wikipedia:
What struck me was how preferable these punishments (except the hanging, but that was very rare) seem compared to the current system of massive scale long-term imprisonment. I would much rather pay damages and be whipped than serve months or years in jail. Oddly, most people seem to agree with Wikipedia that whipping is more "severe" than imprisonment of several months or years (and of course, many prisoners will be beaten or raped in prison). Yet I think if you gave people being convicted for theft a choice, most of them would choose the physical punishment instead of jail time.
There's a post on Overcoming Bias about this here.
The key quote, "Incarceration destroys families and jobs, exactly what people need to have in order to stay away from crime." If we had wanted to create a permanent underclass, replacing corporal punishment with prison would have been an obvious step in the process.
Obviously that's not why people find imprisonment so preferable to torture, though; TheOtherDave's "sacred anti-value" explanation is correct there. It would be interesting to know exactly how a once-common punishment became seen as unambiguously evil, though, in the face of "tough on crime" posturing, lengthening prison sentences, etc.
Maybe it's a part of human hypocrisy: we want to punish people, but in a way that doesn't make our mirror neurons feel their pain. We want people to be punished, without thinking about ourselves as the kind of people who want to harm others. We want to make it as impersonal as possible.
So we invent punishments that don't feel like we are doing something horrible, and yet are bad enough that we would want to avoid them. Being locked behind bars for 20 years is horrible, but there is no speficic moment that would make an external observer scream.
It is, incidentally, not obvious to everyone that the desire to create a stable underclass didn't drive our play a significant role in our changing attitudes towards prisons... in fact, it's not even obvious to me, though I agree that they didn't play a significant role in our changing attitudes towards torturing criminals.
Because corporal punishment is an ancient display of power; the master holding the whip and the servant being punished for misbehavior. It's obviously effective, and undoubtedly more humane than incarceration, but it's also anathema to the morality of the "free society" where everyone is supposed to be equal and thus no-one can hold the whip.
(Heck, even disciplining a child is considered grounds to put the kid in foster care; if you want corporal punishment v incarceration, that's a hell of a dichotomy. And for every genuinely abused kid CPS saves, how many healthy families get broken up again?)
The idea is childish and unrealistic, but nonetheless popular because it plays on the fear and resentment people feel towards those above them. And in a democracy, popular sentiment is difficult to defeat.