[ExI] free-will, determinism, crime and punishment

[Michael M. Butler]

On 8/21/07, gts <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> As I mentioned to Lee, it is very controversial whether capital punishment
> deters homicide better than prison sentences. In fact there is evidence to
> support the hypothesis that it has the opposite effect. Some researchers
> theorize that capital punishment has a 'brutalization' effect on society
> in those states in which it is legal, an effect which could encourage more
> homicide than otherwise by cheapening the perceived value of human life.
> And unlike any other kinds of punishment, there can of course be no hope
> of rehabilitating a criminal by killing him.
>
> In other words, deterrence and rehabilitation are weak arguments for
> capital punishment. It's mostly about retribution.

I can't think that anyone in their right mind would claim that an
actual prompt death penalty woul dhave any rehabilitative effect, so I
can't address that part of what you just said.

As for the rest: OK, I've heard this before and it might even be true.
I am not arguing. I am reporting that in the specific case I mentioned
I see a likely outcome of suddenly changing the rules and giving
creeps a "kill someone while drunk, get out of Death Row free" card.

I agree that having executions broadcast live on network HD TV would
have a brutalizing effect. But I am not sure what the curve is.
Certainly I am not as sure as you seem to be.

Do you seriously believe the counterwording of your claim?

Do you hold that the abolition of the death penalty and knowledge that
no amount of deathdealing will ever result in being killed, even in a
standoff with hostages, let's say...

...that the forgone knowledge present in the mind of anyone who ever
contemplates a crime that _he will not be killed for it_... ...that
_he can in fact assassinate at will_ and there is _zero_ chance of
dying for it... ...that there will be no retribution... ...which
perhaps the perpetrator _himself_ believes in...

Creates _less_ crime? Everywhere? Under all circumstances? No edge cases?

I think it is entirely arguable that there is no good solution, that
such undertakings have their own flaws.

Show me a civilization without this claimed brutalization. How about
the Yanomamo? They don't have the death penalty, they just kill
people. No, maybe that's a bad example.

Your secular "im'sh'Allah" has limited utility for me. If someone
seeks retribution, that's just in their nature, by your own reasoning.
As I said, it seems to be one of the things that makes the world seem
fair and lets some people feel more able to relax. There must be an
end to disputes and a limit on fear or nothing gets built. People
should vote with their feet. I'll stick around where the death penalty
is _rare, but available_.

"If someone does something horrible and terminates me and everyone I
know, well, I'm relieved that they'll get the best therapy available."
I don't see the evolutionarily-stable survival advantage for that
society. The calculus of death is tricky.

Pass the soma. It's not for me, but I can sell it to some suckers I
know down the block. :)

-- 
         Michael M. Butler  :  m m b u t l e r  ( a t )  g m a i l . c o m
         "I'm going to get over this some time. Might as well be now."