This. Frankly I don't understand these people who "don't get it". We're talking about the difference between moving on with your life with a guilty conscience, vs. having your entire life financially ruined due to injuring someone. I make $80k per year. If my country mandated > $100k per year for injuring someone, that's literally the rest of my life destroyed. I could not financially recover for the rest of my life. Ever. For what? An honest accident in which someone's leg is broken and they feign permanent disability?
Imagine you broke someone's leg. Would you rather kill the person and pay $1000, or spend the rest of your life in prison? Letting the person live and paying them $1000 isn't an option. You either get away scott-free, or ruin your life. I can completely understand a culture in which the reality of the consequences makes people choose the lesser punishment.
The solution isn't to increase the punishment for killing someone on the street. The solution is to abolish the ridiculous costs associated with merely injuring someone, especially if that injury comes from an accident.
Of course what's absolutely a joke is people acting all aghast about another country's culture from behind their white picket fences. You do realize that if you were born in their country, you would have the exact same perspective? What the fuck is with this high and mighty bullshit? Your upbringing in a privileged society doesn't make you better than those from less privileged societies, it just makes you privileged. Be thankful your day-to-day routine doesn't involve having to worry about the possibility of having to kill someone in order to keep your pristine life intact.
We do not have a society of forgiveness or rehabilitation. From childhood, at least in the United States, we have it ingrained in us that we are punished when we do something against society. You commit a crime and you break the law and you are punished by a forfeiture of your basic rights by being imprisoned. I don't understand why people are so surprised or against it when someone is punished for a wrongdoing, even if it's not in terms of law enforcement, because that's what we've normalized as a society to do.
You absolutely can cancel your way to a better culture. This has been happening for a century now. As a society, we have been slowly whittling down an exact definition if what we will accept as a society.
On the other hand, it can be equally traumatizing for the victim's family to see the perpetrator get off with a slap on the wrist.
We don't have to go into the extremes either way.
Also, the desire for punishment is is not about seeing the perpetrator suffer, but about paying for the damage they've done. If someone bumps your car, would you describe the desire for the guilty party to pay for the damages to be a mental illness?
A plausible alternative is that the culture in the US puts considerably more value on the lives of the victims and assigns nearly zero value to the life of the criminal. Arguing that people should "please think of the criminals" is a non-starter.
Why would we care if someone accepts the costs or not? I find our justice system to be incredibly flawed, but ultimately we jail people because we (as a society) don't want the action they committed to take place. The mentality you seem to be espousing seems to ignore that for... reasons?
So if we're willing to say a specific action is worth jailing someone for the rest of their life, why shouldn't we say "This action is not okay and we're going to do our best to prevent it"?
The point is that value is not directly mutable for a person. For instance you would probably happily give up all your property in exchange for surviving something that would otherwise kill you but would not do the same for some John Doe. Just like the victims may be happy to exchange the wrongful death fee in exchange for punishment and a millionaire might happily pay a wrongful death fee to drive around town so drunk that he can't stand up.
Then there is the key point that jail costs time which is proportional to the individual fined rather than the victim. In a proportional payment system there would be an even larger perverse incentive to get hit by moneyed people if the fine was in anyway punitive.
"But it costs society to incarcerate and is a net negative from the point after the accident on", Yes but we decided that prisoners shouldn't incur debt for being imprisoned for some very good reasons.
What of the victims? What benefits the victims more than giving them money after the fact is reducing the risk of it happening in the first place. A payment system has either a more harsh proportional punishment than the current system to decrease this happening further, or reckless driving will increase because it is more tenable for the drivers (or people are irrational when assessing jail time and money as punishment and the deterrent affect is not proportional).
So my main point is while I agree that it may be utilitarian to lower the cost to society after the fact there can be even more utility to play the ultimatum game before the event.
Yes, I can understand it while at the same time not agreeing with it.
It seems to me that one of the biggest questions on this issue that Americans need to face is: are you punishing or are you rehabilitating? I don't pretend to have a universally applicable and useful answer to that question, but societies should at least be very clear about which option is being chosen and what the consequences of that choice are.
Plenty of people want criminals to suffer. Eg, from earlier in this thread:
> In cases where the victim never gets to move on with his or her life how much should we work towards making sure the victimizer can?
Ie, “the perpetrator should suffer at least as much as the victim”. I’m sympathetic to the argument that this is medieval and not aligned with humanist ethics. But plenty of people, at least in the US obviously think this way.
Punishing crime has a disproportionate negative consequence on those who have already been traumatised by the circumstances of their lives.
Assuming this is actually true, it would be so only because we disproportionately let rich people off with a slap on the wrist, not because poor people commit more crimes. (rich and poor being imperfect proxies for whose lives suck more or less)
Plenty of people are just selfish and don't care that other people got hurt, like the Theranos debacle. That hurt many people and was perpetrated by very privileged individuals, not poor schmucks whose lives sucked from the get go.
Sure, there are certainly people who hold that justice can only be achieved if the perpetrator pays in pain, with any discouraging effects being incidental.
On the other hand, there are also plenty of people who want to reduce the amount of crime that happens, and then they are more concerned with if the justice system actually achieves this goal. Pain based justice plainly doesn't.
I am sure a lot of people in this thread would agree with this statement taken with no extra context. The problem that a lot of people have about this specific situation is that this should never have been a criminal punishment or restitution in the first place.
Many of the comments here about the utility of punishment is very utilitarian, which is ironically fitting since we're talking of SBF.
What I never see acknowledged (or believed) by more lenient people is the fact that adequate punishment (sometimes harsh is adequate) serves to send a message not only to other offenders, but maybe most importantly to non-offenders, that the justice system is worth something.
"Crime doesn't pay" is to me a greater message to people who are not willing to commit crimes in the first place.
Well it makes sense to me. Your reading is a little bit uncharitable. Seems almost like you didn't make any effort to understand it, and just rather pretend that it's stupid...Sigh. But I suppose I could have helped you by saying the other part which I think about this:
That's why the legal system is so important. We need a way to do these things, that's not about individuals getting revenge. So...you kill me, then society takes it up with you, through their legal/punitive officers--rather than my family.
But even so...that doesn't fully resolve it for me, the paradox I see there.
But at the same time, I get your point of view. I mean, what that means we can't punish anyone? Because we don't want to seem bad, by pushing back against the bad people? Are you saying we just turn the other cheek? That's crazy.
Yeah, I get that...But I think it's important...You do some crime, and I say, "I have to get back at you". But no, I'm the one that has to be moral. Individuals have to be moral. The state doesn't have to be moral in the same way. But we can't let that spill over to individuals otherwise everything collapses.
I mean, I'm not saying I can resolve this right here--and your strong reaction to what I said, indicates that I have raised a complex, subtle point that's not easy to resolve. People face stuff like that, it's difficult, so they react strongly, or emphatically, like you did.
So I think we need the state, the organs of the state, to be able to enact this violence on our part (take their money, their freedom, their life--maybe? I'm not sure about the last one). Then we can afford to be moral and live up to that, and that's good overall. It's not perfect but then what other options do we have?
Punishment isn't any sort of compensation. Victims receive compensation. Compensation replaces a portion of the loss represented by crime. Perpetrators receive punishment, and it doesn't replace anything. It actually represents even more loss (in the US to the tune of something like $40K a year per prisoner.)
edit: Punishment for the victim is like a gift-wrapped empty box. It doesn't fix anything that the crime did, and the system pretends like they're doing it for the victim. The system punishes perpetrators in order to stop the victims from doing it themselves. It's not a favor.
To punish them. For all the talk about rehabilitation and compensation, our "justice" system is fundamentally still about making some people happy by letting them watch other people get hurt.
All I can say in response to this is: this certainly is tricky!
Punishing crime has a disproportionate negative consequence on those who have already been traumatised by the circumstances of their lives.
So I agree with your point about everyone's needs being met, but we can't have that until we, collectively / globally, make some significantly different choices.
So we'll probably have to continue getting by with an obviously suboptimal crime and punishment system.
I like how that sounds, so idealistic. I think that in some cases, the penalty can make the crime seem like a worthwhile financial transaction, I dont know about this specific case or how a disability relates to it.
There are many crimes that take peoples future and damage families for generations with only a slap on the wrist enabling them to repeat the crime. I don't think there is a good solution to keep everyone happy, the best solution is just to not be involved in crimes as either the perpetrator or victim, sadly perpetrators look like regular people.
I think (I'm pretty far away from all of this so this is just my impression) the point of these people, often poorly made and sometimes exaggerated, is that petty crimes (especially in a world where everyone is insured anyways so the actual damage is minimal) are not worth ruining human lives over. The American justice system is atrocious, with for profit prisons and extremely high recidivism rates, not to mention racial bias at many levels. Is it worth it to throw away a human life in that black whole over a bottle of wine?
In abstract both arguments (strict enforcement of all laws; and that the system's results are inhumane so lesser laws should be ignored) make surface level sense. A middle ground sounds best (some laws are loosened, leniency is used on first offenses, prison system reform to rehabilitate instead of punish, etc.).
I don't think I've been advancing the idea that this should have been consequence-free. I just think some people (who, fortunately, haven't had much insight into "the system") may not be aware how the burden, financial and otherwise, for punishment can be in excess of the explicit punishment for a crime, and fall on far more people than just the offender, in ways that result in punishment being de facto much worse for the poor than the rich, even when prison time is in some way involved, and cause significant harm to families and communities in ways that don't seem particularly useful to the pursuit of justice. I find some of the ways these things are applied to be poverty-reinforcing, which is a really bad idea if you want less crime to happen, rather than more.
Imagine you broke someone's leg. Would you rather kill the person and pay $1000, or spend the rest of your life in prison? Letting the person live and paying them $1000 isn't an option. You either get away scott-free, or ruin your life. I can completely understand a culture in which the reality of the consequences makes people choose the lesser punishment.
The solution isn't to increase the punishment for killing someone on the street. The solution is to abolish the ridiculous costs associated with merely injuring someone, especially if that injury comes from an accident.
Of course what's absolutely a joke is people acting all aghast about another country's culture from behind their white picket fences. You do realize that if you were born in their country, you would have the exact same perspective? What the fuck is with this high and mighty bullshit? Your upbringing in a privileged society doesn't make you better than those from less privileged societies, it just makes you privileged. Be thankful your day-to-day routine doesn't involve having to worry about the possibility of having to kill someone in order to keep your pristine life intact.
reply