Was This Taken to Far?

[EquALLity]

His suffering isn't a "good" thing. It is evil and immoral. The fact that I enjoy it merely makes me the lesser of two evils. My personal opinion is based on emotion, not rationale.

So, you think that it was wrong, but you just like the suffering. Kind of like how vegetarians like the taste of meat, but think eating meat is immoral so they won't do it.

If that's the case, and what the man did isn't something that you'd actually do if you were able to (even if you'd like the idea of doing it), then you do believe the man took it too far.

No arguments here. It is immoral, and perfectly sadistic on my part to enjoy his suffering. But I still do.
I am not advocating anyone use my own personal morality as their own. Mine was shaped by life experiences. I'm sure we both agree that society cannot function if everyone based their actions on emotion instead of morality and logic.

Now you're confusing me, because you're calling these your moral beliefs, as if you think it's ok to do.
If they're just feelings, then they're not moral beliefs.

Also, if you're aware that your 'moral beliefs' are immoral, then it's not like you can't change them.

[EquALLity]

I'm with Psycho, I like it. I also don't agree it's necessarily bad, vigilantism may be effective where they live. Haven't really looked into the details.

What do you mean, "it may be effective"?

What we do know is effective is the actual law, and it doesn't involve mauling people.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think PsYcHo is just trying to say that he doesn't really feel comfortable passing judgement on the man, because he sympathizes with him, despite knowing it's wrong.

For example, TJ is probably right about this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMAKkUO-HnA
But it's very hard to sympathize with.

This is a case of our sense of intuitive justice and rational consequential moral understanding kind of clashing.

[EquALLity]

I think PsYcHo is just trying to say that he doesn't really feel comfortable passing judgement on the man, because he sympathizes with him, despite knowing it's wrong.

For example, TJ is probably right about this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMAKkUO-HnA
But it's very hard to sympathize with.

This is a case of our sense of intuitive justice and rational consequential moral understanding kind of clashing.

I don't think he's right.

"In a country with a staggeringly high prison population, the highest in he world in fact, the only judges we want to see removed are the ones not being punitive enough for our tastes."
The prison population is so high because we lock people up for non-violent drug-related crimes. This was a violent crime, so it should get a lengthy sentence (for deterrence).

"I think a weird state of affairs when an angry mob rises up to declare that a man should lose his job for being too compassionate... But maybe I'm just playing word games."
Yeah, he's just playing word games.

The sentence was too lenient because it only gave six months (and it could end up being less than that) in prison for rape, one of the worst crimes imaginable. It's not a problem that it was 'too compassionate'. It wasn't compassionate enough, in the sense that it's not a good deterrent for future rape.

"Leniency is actually offensive to Americans. We're outraged when a criminal like Brock Turner isn't sufficiently punished for his crimes. And we're so rarely even a little outraged by the millions of people who are or have been overly punished for their crimes. Our mode of thinking is "Brock Turner has caused suffering, and now we must cause him to suffer!" And now we have the highest prison population in the world."
I completely agree that the mindset of revenge is horrible, but it's not about revenge; it's about deterring rape with punishment.

What does it say to rich, white, prestigious-college athletes (who get a different standard in the justice system, which is also really important to note about this- it's not like rapists of all backgrounds are getting the same standard) like Brock Turner when people like them only go to prison for six months for rape?

It's not always about rehabilitation. Brock Turner didn't commit rape because he has some kind of psychological issue that makes him require rehabilitation; he just felt like he could get away with abusing somebody. And apparently he's right, because he pretty much did.

About PsYcHo, if that's his position, then that's great, but then it wouldn't make sense to vote that the action didn't go too far.

[_Doc]

My questions have been answered. Was having trouble understanding how you could have two view points of the same thing but, now I understand. No more questions from me.

[brimstoneSalad]

This was a violent crime, so it should get a lengthy sentence (for deterrence).

If deterrence works, then mutilation like getting your hands chopped off should be a much better deterrent.
Does deterrence work for this kind of thing? Or does it not factor into the decision making because criminals are stupid and think they won't get caught (or think the law is unfair, and have no sense of consequence)?

The sentence was too lenient because it only gave six months (and it could end up being less than that) in prison for rape, one of the worst crimes imaginable. It's not a problem that it was 'too compassionate'. It wasn't compassionate enough, in the sense that it's not a good deterrent for future rape.

So maybe the father was the compassionate one for chopping that kid's hands off, since that will be a better deterrent to prevent others from raping? Otherwise the kid was pretty much going to get off for being a minor.

The "line" of what is too far is an empirical question. It's interesting to see you arguing both sides of it in the same thread -- one for a punishment being too harsh, and one for it being too lenient. How do you know one is too harsh and the other too lenient? How do you know where the line is? How do you know what the optimum level of punishment is for deterrence?

You do know that Brock Turner has to register for the rest of his life as a sex offender, right? This will affect him for the rest of his life.

It would probably be a better deterrent against rape if we chopped his hands off, and then locked him in a pit where he was raped with a shovel every day until he died. It might make would be rapists think twice. Or it might not, if they aren't thinking period.

What does it say to rich, white, prestigious-college athletes (who get a different standard in the justice system, which is also really important to note about this- it's not like rapists of all backgrounds are getting the same standard) like Brock Turner when people like them only go to prison for six months for rape?

If whites get one punishment, and blacks get another, then whites will be deterred by the white punishment (to the extent it is a deterrent), and blacks will be deterred by the black punishment (again, to the extent it is a deterrent).

Assuming it is actually true they are treated differently (and I don't think there's evidence of that), it's irrelevant.

The only relevant consequential argument here is if that "lenient" sentence is enough of a deterrent to keep rich white boys from raping.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. And if it is, and if a harsher sentence wouldn't be a better deterrent, there's not a good reason to impose one.

Again, he's not just going to prison.

It's not always about rehabilitation. Brock Turner didn't commit rape because he has some kind of psychological issue that makes him require rehabilitation; he just felt like he could get away with abusing somebody. And apparently he's right, because he pretty much did.

He didn't get away with it, and that's not what rehabilitation is about. A large part of it is in getting people to understand what they did was wrong, and why they shouldn't do it again. Rehabilitation isn't just for people with diagnosed mental illness.

[PsYcHo]

About PsYcHo, if that's his position, then that's great, but then it wouldn't make sense to vote that the action didn't go too far.

The voting is technically anonymous. I voted different from what I said, because my statement was a reflection of what I believe is appropriate and moral in our society. Morality is one's belief about what is right or wrong. My belief on whether the father's actions were right or wrong depends on the context. For practical reasons, my belief is it was wrong. In an abstract way (say I was an omnipotent being ruling over all), my belief is his actions were an acceptable response, thus the opposite vote. Confusing I know, but it's kinda like Schrödinger's cat. (You can't be too surprised a guy who goes by PsYcHo has a weird thought process.)

[EquALLity]

If deterrence works, then mutilation like getting your hands chopped off should be a much better deterrent.
Does deterrence work for this kind of thing? Or does it not factor into the decision making because criminals are stupid and think they won't get caught (or think the law is unfair, and have no sense of consequence)?

There's a line that when crossed, an action goes from deterrence to abuse. It's like the difference between taking a toy away from a child and beating him up.

Do you really think that deterrence can't work at all for rape? If people know that rape will get them a lengthy prison sentence, why wouldn't that be a deterrent?

So maybe the father was the compassionate one for chopping that kid's hands off, since that will be a better deterrent to prevent others from raping? Otherwise the kid was pretty much going to get off for being a minor.

That's a completely different situation. A long prison sentence is not the same as mauling a person.

A long prison sentence isn't going to make every day of a person's life a struggle to do basic things, and it's not a traumatizing experience that's essentially torture.

The "line" of what is too far is an empirical question. It's interesting to see you arguing both sides of it in the same thread -- one for a punishment being too harsh, and one for it being too lenient. How do you know one is too harsh and the other too lenient? How do you know where the line is? How do you know what the optimum level of punishment is for deterrence?

These cases are really not that similar.

In one, an (adult) rapist was given a very light sentence.
In the other, a (teenage) rapist was tied up and mutilated.

One is a slap on the wrist for rape, and the other is an act of violence that could've killed the boy (for rape, but that doesn't make it ok).

You do know that Brock Turner has to register for the rest of his life as a sex offender, right? This will affect him for the rest of his life.

Well, he should be registered on the sex offender list, for the safety of others. He's a rapist.

It would probably be a better deterrent against rape if we chopped his hands off, and then locked him in a pit where he was raped with a shovel every day until he died. It might make would be rapists think twice. Or it might not, if they aren't thinking period.

Well, I think that would be a strong deterrent, but deterrence isn't the only factor that should be taken into consideration. Obviously we shouldn't be torturing and killing them in cold blood. That's totally different from a longer prison sentence.

If whites get one punishment, and blacks get another, then whites will be deterred by the white punishment (to the extent it is a deterrent), and blacks will be deterred by the black punishment (again, to the extent it is a deterrent).

Assuming it is actually true they are treated differently (and I don't think there's evidence of that), it's irrelevant.

I'm not saying it's just about race.

Also, my argument regarding how Brock Turner's privilege got him a harsh sentence isn't about deterrence. It's about the ethics of giving out different punishments based on irrelevant factors.

If Brock Turner gets a six month sentence for rape, and if a less privileged person gets a longer sentence for the same crime, then that's not moral.

(and I don't think there's evidence of that)

Really? You think a poor, young, black man who wasn't in college would've gotten the same sentence?

The only relevant consequential argument here is if that "lenient" sentence is enough of a deterrent to keep rich white boys from raping.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. And if it is, and if a harsher sentence wouldn't be a better deterrent, there's not a good reason to impose one.

Again, he's not just going to prison.

I completely agree, but I don't think it's a good deterrent. Six months is barely any time.

He didn't get away with it, and that's not what rehabilitation is about.

Only getting a maximum six months in prison for rape is getting away with it (and having to register as a sex offended, because he is a sex offender).

A large part of it is in getting people to understand what they did was wrong, and why they shouldn't do it again. Rehabilitation isn't just for people with diagnosed mental illness.

Ok, that's fair then, and he should be rehabilitated. But the punitive aspect of prison acts as a deterrent, and I don't think it makes sense to do away with it completely.

It's not about vengeance. If people think that all they'll have to do for committing a crime is go to a rehabilitation program, that's not a good deterrent.

[EquALLity]

About PsYcHo, if that's his position, then that's great, but then it wouldn't make sense to vote that the action didn't go too far.

The voting is technically anonymous. I voted different from what I said, because my statement was a reflection of what I believe is appropriate and moral in our society. Morality is one's belief about what is right or wrong. My belief on whether the father's actions were right or wrong depends on the context. For practical reasons, my belief is it was wrong. In an abstract way (say I was an omnipotent being ruling over all), my belief is his actions were an acceptable response, thus the opposite vote.Confusing I know, but it's kinda like Schrödinger's cat. (You can't be too surprised a guy who goes by PsYcHo has a weird thought process.)

So, you DO believe in revenge?
If you had the power to do anything, you would not criminalize that form of violent retribution?

Also, to clarify, which way did you vote?

[brimstoneSalad]

There's a line that when crossed, an action goes from deterrence to abuse. It's like the difference between taking a toy away from a child and beating him up.

It's a curve.

Total harm = Harm to the criminal from punishment + harm to society from lack of deterrence + harm to society from cost of punishment.
The last one is significant, and one of many reasons why long prison sentences probably do more harm than good.

Do you really think that deterrence can't work at all for rape? If people know that rape will get them a lengthy prison sentence, why wouldn't that be a deterrent?

It can work for rational people, but for irrational people (likely most criminals), it doesn't help since they don't think about what will happen if they get caught, or don't understand cause and effect and consequence.

For rational people, it only takes a small deterrence to prevent rape. For irrational people, it would take something emotionally jarring like being tortured to death in order to work (something so terrifying that they won't risk it, regardless of what they think their chances of getting caught are), this comes down to human psychology and risk assessment.

Think of it this way:

Rape a girl behind a dumpster:
Chance of being caught: 10%
Pleasure from the rape: 50
Pain from the punishment if caught: 501

If the chance of being caught is 10%, the deterrence only has to be ten times stronger than the reward to deter rational people from doing it.

Or, take another example,

Price of a subway ticket: $5
Chance of being caught sneaking on: 5%
Fine for being caught: $50

Of course even I am going to want to sneak on the subway if the fine structure is set up like that. It's cheaper to be caught one in twenty times and pay the fine than to buy the ticket. It's not that I want to break the rule, it's just that it's harmful to me not to.

Raise the fine to $100 and then it's break even. Raise it to $101 and it's a perfect deterrent: no rational person would sneak onto the subway to save money, because it's statistically not probable (it's like gambling, the house always wins).

For rational people, crime and punishment is a calculus. The punishment need not be proportional to the crime, but must be proportional to: 1. The pleasure/profit obtained divided by 2. the chance of being caught

For irrational people, it doesn't matter much what the punishment is, they're either going to do it or not for the most part. These people need to be educated and reformed.

That's a completely different situation. A long prison sentence is not the same as mauling a person.

I would argue that mutilation is MORE effective as a deterrent because it also works on non-rational people, because it's horrible enough to take advantage of human psychology of poor risk assessment for scary things.
Mutilation is also cheaper for society than a prison sentence, which has an extreme opportunity cost (around $50,000 a year, right?).

A long prison sentence isn't going to make every day of a person's life a struggle to do basic things, and it's not a traumatizing experience that's essentially torture.

It just makes their lives miserable and meaningless because they have no freedom. Having your hands chopped off may in practice be better than being in prison for the prime of your life; it's something you can learn to cope with and regain some normalcy.
Also, don't forget all of the victims of the opportunity cost.

In one, an (adult) rapist was given a very light sentence.
In the other, a (teenage) rapist was tied up and mutilated.

The "adult" kid was not much older than the teenager, and his crime was committed on an intoxicated on a girl who was passed out drunk and didn't even remember it (her fault for being drunk in a strange place; it's virtually entrapment -- that doesn't excuse the rape, just like it doesn't excuse a drunk driver hitting a pedestrian at night if the person was running in the road in all black, but it is an important consideration).

The teenager raped an innocent baby, and would have probably gotten off with little to nothing at all (even less than Turner) if the father hadn't taken justice into his own hands.

One is a slap on the wrist for rape, and the other is an act of violence that could've killed the boy (for rape, but that doesn't make it ok).

It wasn't a slap on the wrist. It's six months of prison and a life on the sex offender list which will follow him forever.
The kid was left tied by the road where he would be found, given he was screaming. The father could have killed him if he wanted that.

Well, he should be registered on the sex offender list, for the safety of others. He's a rapist.

You have to understand that such a thing is also a very effective deterrent for rational people. Its function is also as a punishment; like a scarlet A on his clothes. Everybody knows, and he will be shamed and ostracized for the rest of his life.

Well, I think that would be a strong deterrent, but deterrence isn't the only factor that should be taken into consideration. Obviously we shouldn't be torturing and killing them in cold blood. That's totally different from a longer prison sentence.

Different as in better, since it's a more effective deterrent against irrational people (and it only takes a small deterrent for the rational). Better also as in it's very cheap, and won't have an opportunity cost of $50,000 a year taken from other social programs to take care of a prisoner for decades.

You're right to consider harm to the culprit. But it's harm to culprit vs. harm to others because of lack of deterrent, where the others vastly outnumber the culprit. Even a small change in the efficacy of a deterrent can make a huge difference to the many.
And then, as I said, there's also harm from opportunity cost because of the expense of the punishment.

It's about the ethics of giving out different punishments based on irrelevant factors.

That doesn't matter much. I think you're getting distracted by this irrelevant issue.

If Brock Turner gets a six month sentence for rape, and if a less privileged person gets a longer sentence for the same crime, then that's not moral.

It's not "fair" from some perspectives. Fair is not moral, and moral is not fair.
The moral question comes down to the cost/benefit equation.

Really? You think a poor, young, black man who wasn't in college would've gotten the same sentence?

Doesn't matter. But college IS relevant. So are priors.

I completely agree, but I don't think it's a good deterrent. Six months is barely any time.

It's a great deterrent for rational people. He'll probably also have to pay the victim huge sums of money. He's also lost his athletic dreams. It's not worth it to rational people for a few rapes.

For irrational people, no amount of prison is going to be a very effective deterrent. Even a painless death probably wouldn't be.
Mutilation, on the other hand? There are some psychological principles that suggest this would be if it's horrible enough.

He didn't get away with it, and that's not what rehabilitation is about.

Only getting a maximum six months in prison for rape is getting away with it (and having to register as a sex offended, because he is a sex offender).

That's not what "getting away with it" means.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/get+away+with

get away with something and get by with something
to do something and not get punished for it. (See also get away with murder) You can't get away with that! Larry got by with the lie.
See also: away, get
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
get away with something
to avoid blame, punishment, or criticism for doing something bad She cheated on the test and thought she could get away with it.
Usage notes: often in the form get away with it, as in the example
See also: away, get
Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003. Reproduced with permission.
get away with
1. Escape the consequences or blame for, as in Bill often cheats on exams but usually gets away with it. [Late 1800s]
2. get away with murder. Escape the consequences of killing someone; also, do anything one wishes. For example, If the jury doesn't convict him, he'll have gotten away with murder, or He talks all day on the phone-the supervisor is letting him get away with murder. [First half of 1900s]

He is most certainly being punished and blamed for the act. Just because you don't think the punishment was harsh enough doesn't mean he got away with it.

You may say he "got off light"
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/got+off+light

He might have gotten off light, but he did NOT get away with it.

But the punitive aspect of prison acts as a deterrent, and I don't think it makes sense to do away with it completely.

It's not about vengeance. If people think that all they'll have to do for committing a crime is go to a rehabilitation program, that's not a good deterrent.

I agree, but such claims should be based on actual research and evidence of how much punishment is actually a deterrent, and which kinds of punishment work.
If it stopped rape to flay this kid alive on national television, maybe that would be worth doing. Medieval punishments are more likely to work than prison, which just cost money and don't really discourage irrational people from committing crimes.
Either way, it should be based on evidence of efficacy, not assumptions.

You're assuming a longer prison sentence would be a better deterrent, but I don't think that's true. Chopping off his hands might be. But more prison -- no. That would just waste money, and probably teach him to be a more hardened criminal by the time he got out and even increase the chance of recidivism.