[ExI] What is Grace?

[Lee Corbin]

Gordon writes

> I believe 'removal' falls under 'deterrence' as I defined it above.

As someone explained, removal probably should be seen as
a distinct concept: the point of removal is simply to
make the behavior impossible, whether or not it happens
to have a psychological effect on the subject, and
whether or not others may be deterred.

 > (I'd like to see a reference to support your claim that removal
 > is a "classic reason" distinct from deterrence, but then you
> might consider this splitting hairs.)

I only meant that it was an old idea---at least I heard
about it a long time ago. At least I called it "the three
R's plus D" or something like that.

> The real question on my mind (and yours, I think)
 > concerns the role of retribution.

Well, that's a biggie, all right. Though the main point
on my mind is the continuing injustices perpetrated
within the prisons, e.g. the commodious lifestyles of
the incarcerated gang leaders as compared to those they
intimidate, beat up, and rape.

I used to be totally opposed to retribution in principle,
but I've seen (or heard of) too many people lingering on
year after year hoping to witness the execution of some
criminal who'd killed a loved one. Therefore, I'm open
to adding to the weighing of cost vs. benefit  the
therapeutic effects on the victims.

> Simple removal from mainstream society (by cryonic
 > suspension or by any other means) with no promise of
> suffering will certainly deter the guilty from re-
 > offending, but it may do little to deter the innocent
> from offending in the first place. I think it would
 > reduce or eliminate the number of repeat offenders
 > but at a cost of more first-time offenders.

:-)   Yes, but only so long as the logic of cryonics
remains obscure to most people.

Lee