You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Lumifer comments on Open Thread, September 23-29, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: Mestroyer 24 September 2013 01:25AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (261)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: knb 29 September 2013 06:31:35AM *  10 points [-]

I've been working on a series of videos about prison reform. During my reading, I came across an interesting passage from wikipedia:

In colonial America, punishments were severe. The Massachusetts assembly in 1736 ordered that a thief, on first conviction, be fined or whipped. The second time he was to pay treble damages, sit for an hour upon the gallows platform with a noose around his neck and then be carted to the whipping post for thirty stripes. For the third offense he was to be hanged.[4] But the implementation was haphazard as there was no effective police system and judges wouldn't convict if they believed the punishment was excessive. The local jails mainly held men awaiting trial or punishment and those in debt.

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.

Comment author: Lumifer 01 October 2013 04:31:11PM 3 points [-]

I would much rather...

Don't look at it from the perp point of view, look at it from an average-middle-class-dude or a suburban-soccer-mom point of view.

If there's a guy who, say, committed a robbery in your neighborhood, physical punishment may or may not deter him from future robberies. You don't know and in the meantime he's still around. But if that guy gets sent to prison, the state guarantees that he will not be around for a fairly long time.

That is the major advantage of prisons over fines and/or physical punishments.

Comment author: Desrtopa 01 October 2013 04:58:52PM *  3 points [-]

On the other hand, making people spend long periods of time in a low-trust environment surrounded by criminals seems to be a rather effective way of elevating recidivism when they do get out, so the advantage as implemented in our system is on rather tenuous footing.

And of course, the prison system comes with the major disadvantage that imprisoning people is a highly expensive punishment to implement.

Comment author: Lumifer 01 October 2013 05:21:50PM 2 points [-]

I am not arguing that prisons are the proper way to deal with crime. All I'm saying is that arguments in favor of imprisonment as the preferred method of punishing criminals exist.

Comment author: knb 02 October 2013 09:25:46AM *  2 points [-]

If there's a guy who, say, committed a robbery in your neighborhood, physical punishment may or may not deter him from future robberies. You don't know and in the meantime he's still around. But if that guy gets sent to prison, the state guarantees that he will not be around for a fairly long time.

This is totally obvious, I'm not sure why you felt you needed to point that out.

The point of my comment is that it is interesting that prison isn't viewed as cruel, even though it's obviously more harsh than alternatives. Obviously there are other reasons people prefer prison as a punishment for others.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 October 2013 01:59:56AM 2 points [-]

That's only an advantage if the expected cost to society of keeping him in prison is less than the expected cost (broadly construed) to society of him keeping on robbing.

Comment author: Lumifer 02 October 2013 05:14:58PM 0 points [-]

The relevant part: "look at it from an average-middle-class-dude or a suburban-soccer-mom point of view".

They do have political power and they don't do expected-cost-to-society calculations.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 October 2013 01:49:04PM 0 points [-]

I guess I just hadn't interpreted "point of view" close enough to literally.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 01 October 2013 04:39:35PM 0 points [-]

and/or physical punishments.

well, short of death.

Comment author: Lumifer 01 October 2013 05:15:00PM 2 points [-]

Death is an existential punishment :-/