Suppose Alice suffered a loss of 10 goats stolen and eaten by Bob. When this was discovered, the judge ordered Bob to give Alice 10 of his goats. Unfortunately, goat ownership in this country is transferred by signing certficates on each goat individually. When 5 certificates have been signed, Bob raised an objection that at that very moment he was suffering the loss of 5 goats while he deserved to suffer the loss of 10, so the punishment was not just. So he destroys the 5 signed transfer certificates and walks away.
Would you agree that this is absurd and Bob should just continue signing the certificates?
I think that this is about general notion of fairness. If someone borrowed 10 dollars from me and then returned only 5 this is more fair than not returning none at all.
not the same, sure. But the question here is not about the punishment. Suppose we agree that inflicting N units of somekind of disutility on Bob is fair and proportionate. May be we agree about this becuase we think this is fair and proportionate punishment for Bob's actions; may be we agree becuase Bob ows N units of something good to Alice and must now part with them.
Now we agree that exactly N units of disutility is the right number. The nature of many types of disutility is such that the units can be delivered only seqentially - this is the case for jail years, parting with goats, or receiving lashes. This sequential nature means that at some point bob will receive m units of disutility, where 0
This is the typical consequentialist logic. Your utility function is some vaguely defined fairness, and you suggest to measure it, in this case, in the number of goats returned to the owner over certain period of time. You judge the effect of punishment on good effects (some goats will be returned), then telling that five goats is better than none. This is exactly the kind of logic that is incompatible with retributivism
( ... )
Hm. Fifty lashes is also a punishment which "is delivered piecemeal". And a blinding must be done simultaneously to both eyes (with what precision of synchronization?) or else it "is delivered piecemeal". I guess almost any punishment except "instant death" is somewhat piecemeal. Sounds too "theoretical" for me.
I am uneasy about the morality of imprisonment. But this kind of argument is not convincing.
Had it been a technical way of delivering 50 lashes in a signle instance this is how it would be done. No one gives 50 lashes one lash a year. With imprisonment precisely such spreading is the essense of punishment. One thing are physical limitations, another is deliberate divisibility of punishment. Think through the modes of punishment approved in the Jewish Law and you will see the general trend of this kind. Trial could take a long time. Punishment needs be deivered at once. The Bible does not rationalize why, but strict retributivism is the likely rationale.
Well, the prison sentence of, say, 10 years is also delivered at once, as fast as it is physically possible - i.e. in 10 years. Would it be delivered in batches of one year duration, spread over thirty years as one year in three, it would be barbaric. This formal logic may be quite annoying
( ... )
>And I believe that the act is self-humiliating even if one is not caught.
In this light, much of the rap oeuvre (50 Cent's How To Rob) consists of self-mortification. There is something about this explanation that strikes me as wrong, but I can't put my finger on it.
>I just cannot think of a punishment that would not violate any rights.
Does getting eaten by a bear violate any rights? How about starving to death?
Has it crossed your mind how much simpler it would be to explain the world around us where rights are considered not to be things unto themselves but either conventions of behavior we adapt to make life more pleasant, or rules of conduct imposed on us by sovereigns in order to make our society more productive?
Цель imprisonment также защита новых потенциальных жертв преступника: резонно ожидать что преступник оставленный на свободе будет продолжать совершать подобные же преступления.
<< After serving, say, five years of her sentence, the prisoner objects that she is being unjustly punished: “I understand that I may deserve twenty-years imprisonment as my proportional punishment under retributivism, but what I have received thus far-five-years imprisonment-is neither deserved nor is proportional to the crime I committed. >>
Не вижу проблем: пусть скажет спасибо, что пока её наказали мягче чем она заслужила.
>>резонно ожидать что преступник оставленный на свободе будет продолжать совершать подобные же преступления.
Future expectations cannot be the basis of punishment. People are responsible for what they've done rather what they might do, however probable it may seem.
Цель imprisonment нe punishment, a защита новых потенциальных жертв преступника. Считается допустимым поскольку было установлено заранее, что за такое-то насильственное преступление (т.е. нарушение чьих то прав) полагается imprisonment и преступник сознательно совершил своё преступление т.е. он сам инициировал нарушение прав.
If the (lower limit of a) proportional and deserved punishment for an offender’s crime is X time in prison, then punishment of part of X will necessarily be disproportional, undeserved, and unjustifiedThis sounds like wordplay with intent to remove the meaning of the phrase by fiddling with the meanings of the composing words. Less punishment is disproportional, but since is is _less_, not more, it is not objectionable, provided that the missing part will eventually be delivered. I don't see this "proof" as anything but wordplay which may be briefly confusing but does not present any solid argument. It is just pretending that "proportional" must mean that in any given moment whole amount of punishment delivered so far must be "proportional" - nobody ever made this claim. It's like claiming you were robbed because somebody paid you in two bills - since between the time first and second bill were delivered you temporary had less money than agreed price
( ... )
Comments 22
Would you agree that this is absurd and Bob should just continue signing the certificates?
I think that this is about general notion of fairness. If someone borrowed 10 dollars from me and then returned only 5 this is more fair than not returning none at all.
Reply
Reply
Now we agree that exactly N units of disutility is the right number. The nature of many types of disutility is such that the units can be delivered only seqentially - this is the case for jail years, parting with goats, or receiving lashes. This sequential nature means that at some point bob will receive m units of disutility, where 0
Reply
Reply
I am uneasy about the morality of imprisonment. But this kind of argument is not convincing.
Reply
Reply
Reply
In this light, much of the rap oeuvre (50 Cent's How To Rob) consists of self-mortification. There is something about this explanation that strikes me as wrong, but I can't put my finger on it.
>I just cannot think of a punishment that would not violate any rights.
Does getting eaten by a bear violate any rights? How about starving to death?
Has it crossed your mind how much simpler it would be to explain the world around us where rights are considered not to be things unto themselves but either conventions of behavior we adapt to make life more pleasant, or rules of conduct imposed on us by sovereigns in order to make our society more productive?
Does the Torah speak of rights much?
Reply
<<
After serving, say, five years of her sentence, the prisoner objects that she is being unjustly punished: “I understand that I may deserve twenty-years imprisonment as my proportional punishment under retributivism, but what I have received thus far-five-years imprisonment-is neither deserved nor is proportional to the crime I committed.
>>
Не вижу проблем: пусть скажет спасибо, что пока её наказали мягче чем она заслужила.
Reply
Future expectations cannot be the basis of punishment. People are responsible for what they've done rather what they might do, however probable it may seem.
Reply
Считается допустимым поскольку было установлено заранее, что за такое-то насильственное преступление (т.е. нарушение чьих то прав) полагается imprisonment и преступник сознательно совершил своё преступление т.е. он сам инициировал нарушение прав.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment