The Problem with Punishment, the thread

[LMNO]

ok, I haven't even gotten into it yet, just reading the overview, and I am immediately struck by the fact that I was confused.  Then, I was reactionist.  What do you MEAN the state is immoral to punish.  It's a society of laws!  He who breaks the law goes back to the house of pain....

Something tickled the back of my head, that the punished are still members of society, and the state as an obligation to the citizen, which MAY have a slight opposition.

But I have a lot of resistance.  Which means I will be challenged by this book.  Which means I want to read more.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Ooooh hold on, this is a book? I think I need to read that book.

I am just finishing Ghosts From The Nursery, which is about the roots of childhood violence. One of the problems it talks about is how, due in part to our punishment-fetishist society, parents who really need help for drugs, alcohol, abuse, neglect, or mental illness don't access it because our social reaction is "Oh, you have a problem? We're going to punish you for it" rather than having a network of intervention services that can help support the parent in doing better.

[Faust]

ok, I haven't even gotten into it yet, just reading the overview, and I am immediately struck by the fact that I was confused.  Then, I was reactionist.  What do you MEAN the state is immoral to punish.  It's a society of laws!  He who breaks the law goes back to the house of pain....

Something tickled the back of my head, that the punished are still members of society, and the state as an obligation to the citizen, which MAY have a slight opposition.

But I have a lot of resistance.  Which means I will be challenged by this book.  Which means I want to read more.

Sounds interesting, punishment is unscientific. Think of it as a process. What do you want at the end of the process, for me it's less crime. Punishment generally doesn't act as a deterrent and those put in jail are more likely to re-offend.
Without any emotional investment in whether the offender suffers or not I don't think punishment is the right tool for the job. Square peg, round hole.

[Junkenstein]

ok, I haven't even gotten into it yet, just reading the overview, and I am immediately struck by the fact that I was confused.  Then, I was reactionist.  What do you MEAN the state is immoral to punish.  It's a society of laws!  He who breaks the law goes back to the house of pain....

Something tickled the back of my head, that the punished are still members of society, and the state as an obligation to the citizen, which MAY have a slight opposition.

But I have a lot of resistance.  Which means I will be challenged by this book.  Which means I want to read more.

For me, it's pretty fundamental to look at how any society treats those on the lowest rungs. The way in which you treat prisoners/criminals/the homeless/etc. shows just how advanced (or not) and compassionate (or not) the systems are that deal with these things.

Faust, the Re-offending angle ties into that nicely. Part of the problem with the prison pipeline is that once you're in it, circumstances make it exceptionally difficult to get out. For example, getting a job today with a criminal conviction would probably be a struggle in most places. You could however, become self employed with a small loan from a local crack merchant and be earning enough to feed yourself and possibly family members. "3 Strikes" laws and the like perpetuate this exact problem.

[Junkenstein]

Also, something that may work well with this is "Punishment for Sale" by Donna Selman.

[LMNO]

Ooooh hold on, this is a book? I think I need to read that book.

Yeah, it's from this thread: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=36335.msg1338142#msg1338142

You don't have to do the entire torrent dump; I can send you the PDF, if you'd like.

[LMNO]

Again, I'm not even past the Overview, so the questions I have are probably answered, but I'm interested in what his definition of "punishment" is.  At it's most broad, I would personally put it as "state enforced consequences to the violation of agreed upon behaviors".  But that's broad enough to encompass both rehabilitation, renumeration, and physical restraint/damage.  Maybe he just means the latter.  We'll see; like I said, I'm not that far into it.  Just wanted to get the ball rolling.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Ooooh hold on, this is a book? I think I need to read that book.

Yeah, it's from this thread: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=36335.msg1338142#msg1338142

You don't have to do the entire torrent dump; I can send you the PDF, if you'd like.

Sadly I can't, for the time being, read online due to a lack of available screen time (I'm literally doing all my reading, including homework, on the bus or train), but I will squirrel it away for future reference.

[Reginald Ret]

Bookmarked for the weekend.

[Pæs]

Again, I'm not even past the Overview, so the questions I have are probably answered, but I'm interested in what his definition of "punishment" is.  At it's most broad, I would personally put it as "state enforced consequences to the violation of agreed upon behaviors".  But that's broad enough to encompass both rehabilitation, renumeration, and physical restraint/damage.  Maybe he just means the latter.  We'll see; like I said, I'm not that far into it.  Just wanted to get the ball rolling.

He gets into the definition as his second step.

I feel like he was still justifying making "causes harm" part of the definition of punishment when he used that being a condition of punishment to explain why whipping a masochist isn't punishment but I may need to reread that bit, starting very slowly.

[Cramulus]

I'd love to check out that PDF. Is it pointing in the same direction as Foucault?


Over time, I'm becoming more uncomfortable with the concept of punishment... it seems to preemptively excuse the punisher for an action that we consider wrong. Like teaching kids not to hit each other by hitting them. It addresses a violation of some rule by permitting another violation. This shows that the rules themselves are secondary, their job is mainly to create a hierarchy of power and respect for authority.

Reminds me of Nietzsche's genealogy of morals - that deep down, we WANT to punish others. We CRAVE the opportunity. We used to turn out in droves to watch criminals be tortured to death. It gave us a sense of security----it left us in awe of the institution which wields that power. The real purpose of a public execution is not to punish the criminal, but to return the stolen power to the state, and to influence the spirit of those who observe the execution.

[LMNO]

PM me your email, I'll send it over.

[Pæs]

Got back into this, about a third of the way through. It's a challenging thing because the idea being disputed seems to be a pretty fundamental part of a lot of other ideas in our culture.

I've raised the subject with friends while reading and the reaction is generally "WHAT? OF COURSE YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO PUNISH CRIMINALS." but the justification is harder for them to come up with.

What I've found interesting and somewhat, I don't know, redeeming of the idea, is that the author doesn't seem to be challenging the idea that some criminals should be locked up, if that's the best way to keep them from reoffending and causing more harm. What he's challenging is the idea that they should be locked up *with the stated aim of making them uncomfortable or causing them to suffer for their crime*. He goes into a lot of detail to explain why he believes there is a difference between intended harm and harm as a foreseen and accepted side-effect of an action.

[LMNO]

Thanks for continuing this. I've been lax in driving.  I do agree with the moral stance I've read so far, but I've had a hard time reconciling it with reality.