Posted by
Andrews on Sunday, April 20, 2008 2:31:20 AM
I was thinking about punishment after my last post, and it occurred to me that there is a simple way to rationally decide how crime should be treated.
Obviously, like anyone else, I would find ideal a system which allowed me to do whatever I wanted without consequence, while providing enough punishment to everyone else that ti prevents them from harming me. Of course, no one would agree to allow me that freedom, and I would allow it to no one. So, the only choice which would be acceptable to all is a system where punishment is applied uniformly.
The next question is whether the system will punish everyone or forgive everyone. The forgiving system will allow me any crime, but will allow the same to everyone else. As I expect to benefit less from my own freedom than I would suffer from the freedom allowed others, it makes sense to opt for the system that punishes everyone. The loss from giving up the freedom to commit crime is small, while the protection is great.
Finally, we need to ask how harshly crime should be punished. And again, the logic is the same. I can benefit from weak punishment, but the potential harm is much greater. As I am unlikely to commit a crime, but I will suffer if even a small percentage of others do, it makes sense to punish crimes harshly enough that almost everyone is deterred from committing them.
And make no mistake, except in a few very rare cases, punishment deters crime. Ask anyone why they don't just take what they want and the first answer is "because I will go to jail". That alone says that punishment works. Of course, if I need to, I can point to the hundreds of news articles, strangely puzzled that rising prison populations go along with decreasing crime, and offer the simple explanation that the reporters miss: If people are in prison longer for crimes, it helps deter others from committing crimes ( and those in jail obviously can't commit crimes either). But do I need to prove that harsh punishment deters crime? It seems such a self-evident proposition.
Then again, the logic may seem incontrovertible to some, but it is amazing how often this very simple line of reasoning escapes people. They will argue about rehabilitation and prison reform and so on, and ignore the obvious. Punishment exists to keep people from harming others. If they are still harming others too often, then the punishment must be more severe.
Why does this prove so hard for people to grasp?