Cruel and unusual punishments?

[Lestat]

So say someone has been convicted 3 times of stealing. After the third time, the judge orders the criminal's hand cut off. As harsh as this sounds, what if anything, is wrong with such a punishment? More importantly, would this deter theft?

Of course, there are society's who practice this. I wonder if their statistics show a much lower theft rate? The problem is, these are usually countries with dictatorships and unfair governments. What would happen if a fair and free government applied harsher penalties?

And if this works for stealing, what about castration of pedophiles and other sex offenders? I'm actually for a society that does this. I think it would:

*Deter those who think about theft.

*It would certainly deter those who have no hands from stealing.

*It would give others a heads-up on who a person is. You would know not to trust a house painter who was missing a hand.

Feeding and housing crimminals doesn't seem to be much of a solution. There is little rehabilitation. The only problem I have with such harsh laws is making sure the legal system is fair and most of all, 100% accurate.

[Prodigy54321]

Lestat....I think you just lost my vote for 2+2 SMP poster of the year /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

maybe the anarcho-capitalists in POLITICS will give you a better response /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
What would happen if a fair and free government applied harsher penalties?

[/ QUOTE ]

There would be a lot more one handed people on the streets.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
So say someone has been convicted 3 times of stealing. After the third time, the judge orders the criminal's hand cut off. As harsh as this sounds, what if anything, is wrong with such a punishment? More importantly, would this deter theft?

Of course, there are society's who practice this. I wonder if their statistics show a much lower theft rate? The problem is, these are usually countries with dictatorships and unfair governments. What would happen if a fair and free government applied harsher penalties?

And if this works for stealing, what about castration of pedophiles and other sex offenders? I'm actually for a society that does this. I think it would:

*Deter those who think about theft.

*It would certainly deter those who have no hands from stealing.

*It would give others a heads-up on who a person is. You would know not to trust a house painter who was missing a hand.

Feeding and housing crimminals doesn't seem to be much of a solution. There is little rehabilitation. The only problem I have with such harsh laws is making sure the legal system is fair and most of all, 100% accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you been reading Heinlein?

I agree that prison is a useless waste. But the biggest deterents empirically do not seem to be stiffer legal penalties. Rather, they seem to be the probability and severity of immediate consequences of aggression. If a thief believes there is a significant chance that they may be severely injured or killed, as in being shot, they become very unlikely to aggress. And that significant chance can be a relatively small chance like 10%. When you think about it, it's like playing Russian Roulette for the thief.

[Lestat]

Who is Heinlein? It sounds as though I might be interested in reading his stuff.

[Lestat]

You don't think it would deter criminal activity better than a 5 year prison term?

[Lestat]

I'm just pondering. Don't hold it against me. Don't you ever think about ways to improve society? I know it sounds harsh, but I think it would work in deterring and reducing crime. The question is: What philosophically is wrong with such measures?

[Prodigy54321]

1) I don't think that this would deter crime better than the currently implemented techniques.

2) The government would have to provide living expenses to someone who has no hands.

3) Under the current moral standards in the US, I don't think that the general concensus would be that the punishment fits the crime... cutting off someone's hand for stealing is by no means an "eye for an eye"

[hmkpoker]

There's all sorts of ways you could do it.

Personally I think it would be in the greater interest of party who was robbed to be compensated some reasonable amount by the thief; if you had $1,000 worth of property stolen from you, then the property is returned to you plus an additional $1,000 to compensate you for your inconvenience. In the likely failure of the criminal to be able to make payment, perhaps some temporary labor to the aggreived would be in order.

Failing that, sure, cut his hand off or something. (Sorry, I'm not a lawyer /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't think it would deter criminal activity better than a 5 year prison term?

[/ QUOTE ]

Deterrance does not work! AFAIK, most psychologist would say that reward is much more effective than punishment. If I remember correctly my very first forays in psychology, about four or five times more effective.

If the objective is behaviour modification, then we are not going about it the optimal way with punishment. If the objective is to satisfy blood thirstyness, revenge and other atavistic traits in the electorate for political gain, it is a different matter. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
In the likely failure of the criminal to be able to make payment, perhaps some temporary labor to the aggreived would be in order.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like he becomes your butler? Seinfeld already explored the folly of such an arrangement.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
1) I don't think that this would deter crime better than the currently implemented techniques.
I doubt that. Since you are only providing opinion, I will at least offer anecdotal evidence: I stole beers with friends a few times in college; I can almost guarantee I would never have done so if there was a 1% chance of being caught and having my little finger clipped.

2) The government would have to provide living expenses to someone who has no hands.
Then make it fingers. Adjust based on severity/repeat of offense.

3) Under the current moral standards in the US, I don't think that the general concensus would be that the punishment fits the crime... cutting off someone's hand for stealing is by no means an "eye for an eye"
I think the poster acknowledges that. The question is whether these standards should be reconsidered.


[/ QUOTE ]

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the likely failure of the criminal to be able to make payment, perhaps some temporary labor to the aggreived would be in order.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like he becomes your butler? Seinfeld already explored the folly of such an arrangement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still prefer "slave" /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the likely failure of the criminal to be able to make payment, perhaps some temporary labor to the aggreived would be in order.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like he becomes your butler? Seinfeld already explored the folly of such an arrangement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still prefer "slave" /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but is having some thug as your slave a benefit or a burden? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Prodigy54321]

who decides how much of a finger to chop off?

steal a pack of gum, lose a fingernail?

I doubt the death penalty deters people from murdering... I don't have any evidence of this.

--I would say that threatening heinous torture would be more of a deterent than the death penalty however.

I guess I am also more willing to see a person go to jail for a crime they didn't commit than see them have their hands cut off.

If I knew that If I was falsely convicted of a crime, I would have my hands chopped off....I may never go outside.

I somewhat agree with an eye for an eye type of system, the problem is making convictions reliable..and making punishments fit the crime....ie. if someone steals, they should have things taken from them (and by "things", I don't mean their hands)

EDIT: you must be new (so few posts), welcome to SMP my friend

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
who decides how much of a finger to chop off?

Probably the same people who decide how long you have to sit in a cage if you commit a crtime.

steal a pack of gum, lose a fingernail?

Steal a car, sit in a cage for a year? Who is to say which is "right"?

I doubt the death penalty deters people from murdering... I don't have any evidence of this.

I tend to agree with your assessment. I am not pro-death penalty, just pointing out that positions are very subjective, which was the point of the OP, I believe.

--I would say that threatening heinous torture would be more of a deterent than the death penalty however.

Well, then you admit that physical harm of some kind can be a deterrent, the rest is just determining what level of harm achieves the desired effect.

I guess I am also more willing to see a person go to jail for a crime they didn't commit than see them have their hands cut off.

And we'd both prefer neither, of course. Don't mistake my devil's advocate remarks as a statement of my position--this is SMP not Politics, so I may tend to probe a question without having a dog in the fight.

If I knew that If I was falsely convicted of a crime, I would have my hands chopped off....I may never go outside.

I doubt that, since presumably you would go outside knowing that a false conviction of murder could mean death, or another false conviction could mean you get sent to a cage for years.

I somewhat agree with an eye for an eye type of system, the problem is making convictions reliable..and making punishments fit the crime....ie. if someone steals, they should have things taken from them (and by "things", I don't mean their hands)

I totally disagree with eye-for-an-eye mentality.

EDIT: you must be new (so few posts), welcome to SMP my friend

[b]Thank you. I was a regular a while back before I had my hard drive reimaged and lost my password.

[/ QUOTE ]

[slickpoppa]

I think any punishment that permanently disfigures someone would be counterproductive because it would brand them for the rest of their lives and prevent them from being a productive member of society.

However, perhaps a form of torture that causes excruciating pain, but causes no permant damage could be an effective deterrent.

[RJT]

Interesting you mentioned Heinlen, the person I wondered if Stat has read was (Nathaniel) Hawthorne.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
*It would give others a heads-up on who a person is. You would know not to trust a house painter who was missing a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

as opposed to a 1 handed painter in a non-strict society ...because you'd clearly want the 1 handed painter doing crafts on your house /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Barron

[Hopey]

Most crimes are impulsive acts. Most criminals have very poor impulse control and do not consider the consequences of their actions before they commit their crimes. Changing the severity of the consequences won't appreciably change the likelihood of a criminal committing a criminal act. Also, when a criminal commits a crime, he commits it believing that he won't get caught. This belief is based in reality, as most criminals commit numerous criminal acts before they are finally caught for any individual one. The consequences bear less weight on a criminal's decision-making when the likelihood of ever having to suffer the consequences is minimal.

Also, I disagree with the idea of cutting off someone's hands for a much more simple reason: innocent people will inevitably end up getting their hands amputated. You hear stories almost every week of someone being released from prison who was falsely convicted. The courts are fallible, and mistakes would get made and innocent people would end up hand-less.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
...what about castration of pedophiles and other sex offenders? I'm actually for a society that does this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. I have read this is a very effective way to prevent repeated offenses. Also, I grew up castrating bulls, it's not as cruel as you would think.

Chopping off hands, for some reason I don't like this. However, I am all for caning vandals, executing rapists, and sending Enron caliber theives to jail for the the rest of their stinking lives. Considering how many people will have to live on a dwindling social security check and work at Wal-Mart because of these crimes, I do not think executing them should be out of the question either.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I am all for . . . executing rapists,

[/ QUOTE ]

Empirically, doing this will not reduce the number of rapes. It will however increase the number of rapes that culminate in the murder of the victim (also empirically). Is that what you want?

This was the disastrous unintended consequence of California's infamous "3 Strikes" laws. The penalty for the "3rd strike", regardless of the severity of the felony offense, was the same as it would be for murder. Crime was not reduced, but murder rates jumped, since a dead victim makes a poor eyewitness, and hey, how could it be any worse? (See Clint Eastwood's Bloodwork for a passing reference to this issue; I love the way he works political commentary obliquely into his films without bludgeoning you over the head with it.)

[ QUOTE ]
and sending Enron caliber theives to jail for the the rest of their stinking lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be paid for out of the taxpayers' pockets, and leaving the victims without compensation? What a collosal waste of resources, and lack of justice.

[ QUOTE ]
Considering how many people will have to live on a dwindling social security check and work at Wal-Mart because of these crimes, I do not think executing them should be out of the question either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean we get to execute all of the members of government who have been robbing us all blind for as long as anyone has been keeping records, impoverishing uncountable multitudes?