New York, and several other states, are having trouble balancing their budgets. (surprise!) One balancing act which is being juggled around in Albany is a SODA TAX. If you haven't heard of the soda tax, the reasoning is this:
- There is research which correlates the price of soda with diabetes rates. If we make soda more expensive, there will be less diabetes
- Diabetes rates are related to the cost of health care. So by taxing soda, we pay less for hospitals.
- Soda is bad for you and Americans should drink less of it. See also: Obesity
Reasoning sounds okay. And yeah, I'd like the average American to drop some pounds, if only so that I have a little more room in the elevator.
But here's what I don't like about it: This is the state's way of trying to
regulate our behavior through financial incentives. And people are in support of it because "soda is bad for you". It seems that we're okay with behavioral controls as long as they're being used to
punish somebody that's doing something wrong.
This is a greater pattern I've been paying attention to, this idea of punishing people who "deserve it". In a recent discussion (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=24774.0), we talked about how people would love to enact brutal and grisly tortures upon your children's molesters. Parents have an understandable "mother bear" response when their children are threatened, and that seems to justify all sorts of inhumane behavior to be inflicted upon
perceived threats.
Nietzsche, in his Genealogy of Morals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Genealogy_of_Morality#Second_Treatise:_.22.27Guilt.27.2C_.27Bad_Conscience.27.2C_and_Related_Matters.22), talks about this phenomenon. He thinks that it comes from the ancient relationship between creditor and debtor. In the old days, if somebody screwed you on a debt, you'd be able to take a
pound of flesh from them. Nietzsche thinks that this is the real essence of it, that the autonomous individual wants to inflict suffering as
compensation for breaking a promise. This punishment is carried out without regard to the culprit's free will, autonomy, accountability, etc. The consequences of this punishment are swept under the rug of
justice.
For example, this guy Aaron Vargas was sexually abused as a child, and later in life, killed his molestor (Darrell McNeil). McNeil, an active member of the Big Brother / Big Sister program, was shot to death in front of his wife. While
I sympathize with Vargas, who seemed to believe he was protecting his infant daughter, I also feel bad for McNeil's wife and the kids he mentored, who didn't seem to live in the same universe as McNeil sick side. The community has turned out in favor of Vargas. The fact that Vargas was molested does not excuse the murder, it only confirms the motivation and degree of premeditation.
I think that we can agree that while child molestation is wrong, murder is also wrong, perhaps even
more wrong. But the local community is defending Vargas because of that "mother bear" instinct. We feel very strongly about protecting our children. And in our minds, that makes it okay to do things which we would
normally condemn.
And we feel very strongly about the economy, so it seems justified to tax behaviors we don't agree with. But where do we draw the line? Soda raises the cost of health care. So does cheese, red meat, and alcohol. In 15 years, when everybody's driving hybrids and electric cars, maybe they should tax the fuck out of gasoline just to encourage people to be more environmentally conscious. Or buy domestically manufactured products. Maybe they should medicate you so that your behaviors and preferences don't create a
financial burden for the rest of us.My roommate is missing a video camera. He has stated that if he finds out who stole it from him, he's going to put him in the hospital. My roommate described, at length, the
horrible things he'd do to this alleged thief. Because you can't just let people steal from you, you know? You gotta send a strong message.
(BTW - I think he probably just lost the camera)I agree, I just find it a little weird that behaviors we would normally find reprehensible are totally okay as long as somebody
deserves it. Nietzsche suggests this is 'cause deep down, we're hunters, and we don't have an outlet for this violence. We want to be fucking
tearing people up, but we have to sublimate these urges in order to participate in society. And Punishment is this gap in the civilized world into which we can channel our animal rage.
since people have different reasons for seeking punishment, as a reference, here are the reasons that wikipedia lists:
Rehabilitation
Incapacitation / societal protection
Deterrence / prevention
Restoration
Retribution
Education
Denunciation / condemnation
in the Vargas case that you mention, is seems that there are several possibilities. (assuming that he went there with the clear intention of killing him)
as far as Nietzsche's reasoning, that seems odd to me... is he implying that a hunter society would not feel the need to punish those who transgress societal norms, as their violence is properly channeled to the hapless quadrupeds that sustain them?
I like that the lsit incorporates "Denunciation" there, because I think there's a real sentiment of that going around.
Smoking is BAD for you, and wanting to smoke is getting villanized to an extent. Tax cigarettes? No problem, you're only hurting smokers. Similar with the Soda example.
How much are you willing to accept resposibility for what you put in yourself and accept the consequences when it goes bad, is a key question there If I smoke my lungs into charred bricks and die, well shit that's MY fault. I lit it up and took the drags, no one forced me. I drank the soda until my pancreas huddled in a corner sobbing like an abused child, ooops. I'd rather die of my own stupidity and poor choices than from the ones made for me by people who "know what's best"
Same token, if I have a sexual fetish for fucking bricks out of my house's foundation, I shouldn't be surprised when the wall falls down. If I ask fellow apes for help rebuilding, I think they'd be within their rights to say "NO. You fucked you OWN house down fool.", or "OK, but you need to cut that shit out." They don't exactly have the duty to support my poor choices.
Richter, I think the problem that i've heard most often with that is the concept that we really are all tied together these days. It's really hard to do something to yourself that doesn't affect anyone else, either directly or socially. Cancer and diabetes are personal afflictions, but there is an economic impact on the rest of society, no matter how slight.
Quote from: Ippyas far as Nietzsche's reasoning, that seems odd to me... is he implying that a hunter society would not feel the need to punish those who transgress societal norms, as their violence is properly channeled to the hapless quadrupeds that sustain them?
I think wikipedia can explain nietzsche's better than I can:
Nietzsche develops the "major point of historical methodology" that one must not equate the origin of a thing and its utility. The origin of punishment, for example, is in a procedure that predates punishment. Punishment has not just one purpose, but a whole range of "meanings" which "finally crystallizes into a kind of unity that is difficult to dissolve, difficult to analyze and [...] completely and utterly undefinable" (§13). The process by which the succession of different meanings is imposed is driven by the "will to power"—the basic instinct for domination underlying all human action. Nietzsche lists eleven different uses (or "meanings") of punishment, and suggests that there are many more. One utility it does not possess, however, is that of awakening remorse. The psychology of prisoners shows that punishment "makes hard and cold; it concentrates; it sharpens the feeling of alienation"...
his underlying point, perhaps, is that punishment is out of step with the goals of society. Punishment may succeed as a prohibitive factor, but rarely as a re-formative one. If the goal of punishment is emotional satisfaction, it is very functional. If the goal is the reform of society, well, it might not be the best solution...
Vargas probably should have gone to the law. And the state should find better ways to balance its budget than taxing sin. (an expert I heard interviewed on NPR said, "It's not going to curb soda drinking at all, it's just going to make people buy the cheaper brands, which are generally manufactured outside of the US.")
A form of social organization, i.e. a "state," is imposed by a conqueror race. Such a race is able to do so even if those they subject to their power are vastly superior in numbers because these subjects are "still formless, still roaming about", while the conquerors are characterized by an "instinctive creating of forms, impressing of forms" (§17). Under such conditions the destructive, sadistic instincts of man, who is by nature a nomadic hunter, find themselves constricted and thwarted; they are therefore turned inward. Instead of roaming in the wilderness, man now turns himself into "an adventure, a place of torture". Bad conscience is thus man's instinct for freedom (his "will to power") "driven back, suppressed, imprisoned within" (§17).
I don't see the soda tax, or an alcohol tax, or a tobacco tax as punishment. I see it as asking those who wish to participate in an activity or behavior that creates cost burdens for their community to contribute to the funding of programs that try to offset those costs through treatment and prevention. Now, it turns out that taxes on tobacco have served to get people to quit smoking. And eventually, yes, health promotion organizations (like my own) have championed that effect of a tax increase. But really, the overarching motiviation is to make sure there is a funding source to help people addicted to tobacco, alcohol, etc. In my state the racino is required to contribute a scant 3% of their slot proceeds to a fund that helps people with problem gambling. It wasn't a punishment, it was to make sure we could provide services to the portion of gamblers who will develop a problem. And the racino was happy to provide the funding and is continuing and expanding their operations.
The important piece is where is the money going. If the money is going to a general fund, then obviously the tax is serving more as a punishment because the money isn't funding solutions to problems resulting from the use of the product. If there weren't mechanisms in place to get money to fund these programs, they would cease to exist. Left to their own devices the general public would not volunatrily contribute enough funding, if any, to allow these programs to exist. It would get into Tragedy of Commons territory. Nobody would have any incentive to contribute to the costs because their neighbor isn't contributing either and the problems would be worse than they already are.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 09, 2010, 04:14:27 PM
But really, the overarching motiviation is to make sure there is a funding source to help people addicted to tobacco, alcohol, etc. ......
The important piece is where is the money going. If the money is going to a general fund, then obviously the tax is serving more as a punishment because the money isn't funding solutions to problems resulting from the use of the product.
You bring up a good point, and this is a really important distinction. Because if the soda tax money were going to treat the consequences of drinking soda (obesity/diabetes), the tax would seem corrective in nature. It's merely using the sale to fund the solution for the same problem it creates. But as far as I know, the NY soda tax is not being imposed to specifically provide better health care. It's just to balance the state budget, which is slipping deeper into the red.
While I feel hesitant about the state imposing "sin tax", ie, financially encouraging or discouraging certain behaviors, I do agree that there are some industries that specifically act against public health and interest. And in these cases, discouraging participation may be more warranted. The tobacco industry, for example, does actively work to keep people addicted. But soda in itself is not responsible for the diabetes epidemic. Once you open up that door, why not tax fast food? Video games? Why not give tax breaks for joggers and vegetarians? It's a slippery slope!
Quote from: Cramulus on April 09, 2010, 04:28:37 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 09, 2010, 04:14:27 PM
But really, the overarching motiviation is to make sure there is a funding source to help people addicted to tobacco, alcohol, etc. ......
The important piece is where is the money going. If the money is going to a general fund, then obviously the tax is serving more as a punishment because the money isn't funding solutions to problems resulting from the use of the product.
You bring up a good point, and this is a really important distinction. Because if the soda tax money were going to treat the consequences of drinking soda (obesity/diabetes), the tax would seem corrective in nature. It's merely using the sale to fund the solution for the same problem it creates. But as far as I know, the NY soda tax is not being imposed to specifically provide better health care. It's just to balance the state budget, which is slipping deeper into the red.
While I feel hesitant about the state imposing "sin tax", ie, financially encouraging or discouraging certain behaviors, I do agree that there are some industries that specifically act against public health and interest. And in these cases, discouraging participation may be more warranted. The tobacco industry, for example, does actively work to keep people addicted. But soda in itself is not responsible for the diabetes epidemic. Once you open up that door, why not tax fast food? Video games? Why not give tax breaks for joggers and vegetarians? It's a slippery slope!
Sumptuary Laws, have been around for thousands of years. I'm surprised that we've survived for a few hundred years without them. It used to be the nobility's way of controlling what choices the populace made, now its the governments way of controlling what choices the populace makes.
Silly populace, they need someone to tell them what to do and what not to do with the freedom.
Now, what about all those insidious marketers? They have found ways to bypass the critical thinking mechanisms in our heads and can make the "masses" consume all sorts of fucked-up things.
Some of these laws can be seen as a corrective to unethical marketing practices.
Quote from: LMNO on April 09, 2010, 04:41:34 PM
Now, what about all those insidious marketers? They have found ways to bypass the critical thinking mechanisms in our heads and can make the "masses" consume all sorts of fucked-up things.
Some of these laws can be seen as a corrective to unethical marketing practices.
So the marketers behave evilly and to correct that, we tax their 'victims'? Seems to me that with that mindset, we should tax the soda company rather than the consumer. Or educate the public about insidious marketers?
Given today's current climate, good luck with that.
Quote from: Cramulus on April 09, 2010, 04:13:40 PM
...
his underlying point, perhaps, is that punishment is out of step with the goals of society. Punishment may succeed as a prohibitive factor, but rarely as a re-formative one. If the goal of punishment is emotional satisfaction, it is very functional. If the goal is the reform of society, well, it might not be the best solution...
...
Cram,
I wonder if any govt.'s principal documents state a specific goal for punishment in order to shape the methods and application of them?
also, as far as the reformative ability of incarceration, i would previously have said that it is inneffective, however, my personal experience has so far been limited to two instances where i knew somebody that was sent to prison. in both cases, the punishment (they claim) did lead directly to evoking remorse over the action itself that they feel they would otherwise not have had. one guy stole a car while on drugs and the other was caught as an accessory to selling amphetamines. they are now reformed in regards to these behaviors.
I realize that these may be minority cases, but they are a big data point on my thinking of the subject.
my mind is in a very fluid state of flux regarding the role of the state in punishment....
Quote from: Cramulus on April 09, 2010, 04:28:37 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 09, 2010, 04:14:27 PM
But really, the overarching motiviation is to make sure there is a funding source to help people addicted to tobacco, alcohol, etc. ......
The important piece is where is the money going. If the money is going to a general fund, then obviously the tax is serving more as a punishment because the money isn't funding solutions to problems resulting from the use of the product.
You bring up a good point, and this is a really important distinction. Because if the soda tax money were going to treat the consequences of drinking soda (obesity/diabetes), the tax would seem corrective in nature. It's merely using the sale to fund the solution for the same problem it creates. But as far as I know, the NY soda tax is not being imposed to specifically provide better health care. It's just to balance the state budget, which is slipping deeper into the red.
While I feel hesitant about the state imposing "sin tax", ie, financially encouraging or discouraging certain behaviors, I do agree that there are some industries that specifically act against public health and interest. And in these cases, discouraging participation may be more warranted. The tobacco industry, for example, does actively work to keep people addicted. But soda in itself is not responsible for the diabetes epidemic. Once you open up that door, why not tax fast food? Video games? Why not give tax breaks for joggers and vegetarians? It's a slippery slope!
It could be a slippery slope. The thing is though that these taxes are proposed one at a time, generally. And so each one has to go through the legislation process. So if the populace hates the idea, they get a chance to exercise that displeasure and vote out state senators and reps. Or, if your in a state like mine, collect signatures and get the tax proposal put on the ballot. So it could be a slippery slope in theory, but my feeling is that if a state legislature got a little too crazy and wanted to tax bagels, the populace would put the brakes on in one way or another, or if they don't, it obviously isn't enough of a problem.
I've seen this in action. Here in Maine there was a proposal to increase the taxes on alcohol which haven't been increased in many, many years. Eventually Gov. Smeagol got his grubby paws on the initiative and added soda and flavored water. Mainers said "fuck that noize" and voted it down. Slippery slope stopped in its tracks.
Quote from: LMNO on April 09, 2010, 04:13:27 PM
Richter, I think the problem that i've heard most often with that is the concept that we really are all tied together these days. It's really hard to do something to yourself that doesn't affect anyone else, either directly or socially. Cancer and diabetes are personal afflictions, but there is an economic impact on the rest of society, no matter how slight.
I agree there, guess I didn't assert it strongly enough in my initial post. It's a point I've found myself touching on a LOT recently. Even if it's impossible to make a truly independent action, without consequence for others, we are still able to define where we are resposible in our own morality and ways to say when, why, and how we do or don't assist or try to stop others. Not that it's easy. The current healthcare clusterfuck, I think, is a good example of the difficulty and touchy points in changing any system of who gets their asistance, reward or punishment and when.
Quote from: Richter on April 09, 2010, 06:01:32 PM
Quote from: LMNO on April 09, 2010, 04:13:27 PM
Richter, I think the problem that i've heard most often with that is the concept that we really are all tied together these days. It's really hard to do something to yourself that doesn't affect anyone else, either directly or socially. Cancer and diabetes are personal afflictions, but there is an economic impact on the rest of society, no matter how slight.
I agree there, guess I didn't assert it strongly enough in my initial post. It's a point I've found myself touching on a LOT recently. Even if it's impossible to make a truly independent action, without consequence for others, we are still able to define where we are resposible in our own morality and ways to say when, why, and how we do or don't assist or try to stop others. Not that it's easy. The current healthcare clusterfuck, I think, is a good example of the difficulty and touchy points in changing any system of who gets their asistance, reward or punishment and when.
What the nature of punishment, sin taxes, and morality speak of to me is the implicit themes of collectivism and individuality in society. We're extremely individualistic as a culture, in our morality as well as in our punitive measures- but our laws are trending to collectivistic thought.
An individualistic legislature would not tax these things because it would not look toward the larger impact on society. An extremely individualistic legislature would look more to vigilantism and punishment of criminals in particular, would it not? Our laws are ideologically at odds with our deeper cultural ideologies. That's why the matter of when to punish and how much is so controversial.
WHY DO YOU HATE SOCIALISM
they ought to tax fat people, its not the poor sodas fault that people drink it too much and dont know how to brush their fault
I PROPOSE A FAT PEOPLE TAX
actually my dads job is really into healthy living and they send nutritionists to check out all their workers and overweight unhealthy people get their bonuses cut :lol:
anyway.... FAT TAX!!!
Quote from: Cramulus on April 09, 2010, 04:13:40 PM
his underlying point, perhaps, is that punishment is out of step with the goals of society. Punishment may succeed as a prohibitive factor, but rarely as a re-formative one. If the goal of punishment is emotional satisfaction, it is very functional. If the goal is the reform of society, well, it might not be the best solution...
Sorry to hone in on a sliver of what's being discussed here but I find the concept of legal punishment really complex and overwhelming when what everyone wants from it is different.
The areas that try to reform generally end up with lower crime rates not because they are doing better at reform
not because they are doing a good job of it, but because it becomes part of the psyche of the society in the vicinity, the idea of reform of being a better person and all that hooha.
In areas that demand retribution, and well... vengeance for a crime have the opposite effect, the society of the area now reflects a mentality of accepted balance of crime and punishment, it actually becomes
socially acceptable to vilify a criminal which on some dark level within us a potential criminal can relate to,
being demonised is easier then being viewed as a social failure and thus crime rates increase.
Ever get a feeling when standing on the edge of a roof that some part of you really wants to just jump off. Having a death penalty doesn't prevent more elaborate violent crime, it encourages it, it adds a thrill to the danger and raises the stakes, it gives a death urge.
If this all seems nuts I'll shut up now.
Faust,
your words have iron in them.....
that plucked my brain, and i will dwell on that for a while.
thanks....
Quote from: Iptuous on April 10, 2010, 03:08:27 AM
Faust,
your words have iron in them.....
that plucked my brain, and i will dwell on that for a while.
thanks....
Agreed.
You've also cut through all the crystal waiving and newage BS and laid out the old Sanskrit definition of Karma (which is about the NOW and not imaginary future/past incarnations).
:mittens: to the whole thread.
Actually, why not give tax breaks for joggers and vegetarians?
People respond to incentives, we might as well have some that help out society. And nothing stops you making your own/paying the extra, whattever.
(I'm on the soda here not the punishment)
Quote from: Placid Dingo on April 11, 2010, 01:26:45 PM
Actually, why not give tax breaks for joggers and vegetarians?
People respond to incentives, we might as well have some that help out society. And nothing stops you making your own/paying the extra, whattever.
(I'm on the soda here not the punishment)
Because the only way to do that would be through the tax code. You'd have to have some kind of physical fitness tax credit or something. And how the heck would verification work for something like that?
I meant what's the kind of moral objection rather than the pragmatics, but point taken. Even having higher taxes on the bad4us and lower on the good4us I'm saying, might not really be that bad. I mean sure, it's designed to coerce people into behaving a certian way, but pleanty of stuff is made to do that. And this one isn't really coercing people into anything too dislikable.
If we're talking about a 'health' tax which works like Social Security and only gets used to deal with health issues (or a drug tax that only gets used to deal with drug related issues... shout out to RWHN), then its not a problem of morals for me. However, if individuals are taxed more for personal choices and that tax just goes into the general fund, then that doesn't seem right. Mostly because I would see the State finding something new to tax anytime they needed more cash.
If there is a direct correlation:"Your acts may/will cost the State more in the future, so pay a bit toward that now" it seems a bit slippery, but not horrible. If its "We can market a popular "soda tax' off of the anti-corn syrup, pro-health nuts, or a tobacco tax off of the current anti-smoking vibe and use it to fund random State business" that seems unfair and boils down to "You're in the minority, therefore we'll tax you more!" Many people would, I think, be horrified if they taxed 'insert ethnic food here' because it might contain carcinogens, or might contribute to weight gain.
If Ohio taxes soda, can South Carolina tax chitlins? Could we be sure that the tax was not ethnically motivated, rather than health motivated?
Now, if the tax went to help obese/diabetic ethnic minorities, maybe it would be less repugnant, but I don't really know.
Everybody,
Stop saying that taxation of luxury products is punishment or coercion.
The only ones getting griefed are the soda companies.
You(the customer) are completely free to drink what you want, when you want.
This kind of taxation in fact empowers you, you can now influence how much tax you pay by changing your feeding habits.
right, like how if the government decided to put a tax on generic pharmaceuticals
you are still free to choose which pharmaceuticals you want
the only people this effects are the pharm companies
you should really thank them because they're giving you the freedom to stick it to them by making the market choice that the government prefers.
is that what you're saying?
Hey, I know a great way to tax the makers of high-fructose corn syrup
it's called "stopping corn subsidies".
Also, giving a tax break to healthy people is one step shy of eugenics, you Nazi fucks.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on April 18, 2010, 03:52:11 PM
Hey, I know a great way to tax the makers of high-fructose corn syrup
it's called "stopping corn subsidies".
Also, giving a tax break to healthy people is one step shy of eugenics, you Nazi fucks.
Oh Godwin...
But yeah; Fuck corn.
Quote from: Cramulus on April 18, 2010, 02:00:59 PM
right, like how if the government decided to put a tax on generic pharmaceuticals
you are still free to choose which pharmaceuticals you want
the only people this effects are the pharm companies
you should really thank them because they're giving you the freedom to stick it to them by making the market choice that the government prefers.
is that what you're saying?
I think you missed a word when reading my post.
i said 'luxury'.
Also, I'd rather have my government try to persuade me to act a certain way than force me to act a certain way.
ETA:
Remember: Taxes will increase tremendously.
This is a fact.
Do you want taxes on the rich (not gonna happen on a large enough scale to help), taxes on the poor (you bastard!), flat tax(you bastard!) or taxes on luxury products that will have little effect on the spending habits of the rich (they will pay most of these taxes), trick the poor into acting in their own best interest and simultaneously lessen the amount of taxes that need to be levied?
One possible alternative, the govt defaults on the loans and will have to run on a positive budget for the forseeable future.
Quote from: Faust on April 10, 2010, 12:59:57 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 09, 2010, 04:13:40 PM
his underlying point, perhaps, is that punishment is out of step with the goals of society. Punishment may succeed as a prohibitive factor, but rarely as a re-formative one. If the goal of punishment is emotional satisfaction, it is very functional. If the goal is the reform of society, well, it might not be the best solution...
Sorry to hone in on a sliver of what's being discussed here but I find the concept of legal punishment really complex and overwhelming when what everyone wants from it is different.
The areas that try to reform generally end up with lower crime rates not because they are doing better at reform not because they are doing a good job of it, but because it becomes part of the psyche of the society in the vicinity, the idea of reform of being a better person and all that hooha.
In areas that demand retribution, and well... vengeance for a crime have the opposite effect, the society of the area now reflects a mentality of accepted balance of crime and punishment, it actually becomes socially acceptable to vilify a criminal which on some dark level within us a potential criminal can relate to, being demonised is easier then being viewed as a social failure and thus crime rates increase.
Ever get a feeling when standing on the edge of a roof that some part of you really wants to just jump off. Having a death penalty doesn't prevent more elaborate violent crime, it encourages it, it adds a thrill to the danger and raises the stakes, it gives a death urge.
If this all seems nuts I'll shut up now.
Do you have sources for all this? I need some.
no, most of it is paraphrased bits I've picked up over the years, some of it comes from Burroughs observations on crime and punishment and the rest comes from a discussion I was having with my uncle, he's a psychoanalyst, but I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
Quote from: Faust on April 21, 2010, 07:58:18 PM
he's a psychoanalyst, but I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him[/b].
Smart move.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 24, 2010, 12:09:58 AM
Quote from: Faust on April 21, 2010, 07:58:18 PM
he's a psychoanalyst, but I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him[/b].
Smart move.
He is a crackpot who cant manage his own life but he has some interesting ideas. Burroughs was more my source but I'm not going to go citing pieces, if you disagree I'd be interested to hear what you have to say.
I have no idea, it sounds right, but if I just accepted things because they sound right to me I'd be no better than a psychoanalyst. I got access to psychinfo back though, so I may take a look through it and see whats been done on this later today.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 24, 2010, 06:32:50 PM
I have no idea, it sounds right, but if I just accepted things because they sound right to me I'd be no better than a psychoanalyst. I got access to psychinfo back though, so I may take a look through it and see whats been done on this later today.
I generally take things posted on a forum with a pinch of salt anyway.
QuoteCriminologists report that the death penalty does not deter murder
A recent study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology reported that 88% of the country's top criminologists surveyed do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide. Eighty-seven percent of them think that the abolition of the death penalty would not have a significant effect on murder rates and 77% believe that "debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems." (M. Radelet and T. Lacock, DO EXECUTIONS LOWER HOMICIDE RATES?: THE VIEWS OF LEADING CRIMINOLOGISTS, 99 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 489 2009)
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty
SOme other stats suggest the opposite:
QuoteDuring the temporary suspension on capital punishment from 1972-1976, researchers gathered murder statistics across the country. In 1960, there were 56 executions in the USA and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and 1975, after six more years without executions, 20,510 murders occurred rising to 23,040 in 1980 after only two executions since 1976. In summary, between 1965 and 1980, the number of annual murders in the United States skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040, a 131 percent increase. The murder rate -- homicides per 100,000 persons -- doubled from 5.1 to 10.2. So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank. Researcher Karl Spence of Texas A&M University said:
"While some [death penalty] abolitionists try to face down the results of their disastrous experiment and still argue to the contrary, the...[data] concludes that a substantial deterrent effect has been observed...In six months, more Americans are murdered than have killed by execution in this entire century...Until we begin to fight crime in earnest [by using the death penalty], every person who dies at a criminal's hands is a victim of our inaction."
Notes Dudley Sharp of the criminal-justice reform group Justice For All:
"From 1995 to 2000," "executions averaged 71 per year, a 21,000 percent increase over the 1966-1980 period. The murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2 (per 100,000) in 1980 to 5.7 in 1999 -- a 44 percent reduction. The murder rate is now at its lowest level since 1966. "
http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Again, same arguement, this time from David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D., a Senior Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.
QuoteUsing a panel data set of over 3,000 counties from 1977 to 1996, Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul R. Rubin, and Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution, on average, results in 18 fewer murders.[17] Using state-level panel data from 1960 to 2000, Professors Dezhbakhsh and Shepherd were able to compare the relationship between executions and murder incidents before, during, and after the U.S. Supreme Court's death penalty moratorium.[18] They found that executions had a highly significant negative relationship with murder incidents. Additionally, the implementation of state moratoria is associated with the increased incidence of murders.
But then somebody else points out the homocide RATE does not increase with executions;
QuoteFrom 1976 to 1996, the number of executions per year in the United States has increased from 0 to just under 60. The homicide rate per 100,000 population has remained constant at just under 10. 3...
In 1967, a study by Thorsten Sellin 6 compared the homicide rates between neighboring states in which some had the death penalty, and others did not. Sellin also compared murder rates before and after states either abolished or reinstated the death penalty. He found no statistically valid difference in rates in both cases. These results were summarized in a book by J.Q. Wilson. 7 The study might have been affected by the numbers of executions at the time; they had dropped to near zero in the U.S., so that even those states with death penalty laws on the books were not exercising them fully....
A 1998 research study conducted for the United Nations concluded: "This research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis."
This same source concedes thAT...
QuoteA study by Isaac Ehrlich found that the murder rate responded to changes in the likelihood of execution. He concluded that 7 or 8 murders were prevented by each execution from 1933 to 1967....
A study by Kenneth Wolpin showed that each execution, on average, reduced the number of murders in England by 4...
Though they also said...
QuoteComparing adjacent states where one state has the death penalty and the other does not, frequently shows that the states with capital punishment have a much higher homicide rate...
The FBI Uniform Crime Reports Division publication Crime in the US for 1995 reports that there were 4.9 murders per 100,000 people in states that have abolished the death penalty, compared with 9.2 murders in those states which still have the death penalty. "In no state has the number of murders diminished after legalizing the death penalty"....
Canada's homicide rate has dropped 27% since the death penalty was abolished in that country (for ordinary crimes) in 1976. For many years prior to 1976, the federal government had converted each death sentence to life imprisonment.
(All from http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut4.htm)
Finally, my favourite economists say this;
Quote
Associated Press reporter Robert Tanner writes an article today stating that evidence strongly supports the conclusion that the death penalty reduces crime. As with most media coverage of controversial issues, there is a paragraph or two in which the other side makes its case. In this instance, the lone voice arguing against the efficacy of the death penalty is Justin Wolfers, a professor at Wharton who just can't seem to keep his name out of our blog. Tanner does his best to make Wolfers look bad, quoting him as dismissing these studies because they appear in "second-tier journals."
Given the evidence I've examined, I believe that Wolfers is on the right side of this debate. There are recent studies of the death penalty — most bad, but some reasonable — that find it has a deterrent effect on crime. Wolfers and John Donohue published an article in the Stanford Law Review two years ago that decimated most of the research on the subject.
Analyses of data stretching farther back in time, when there were many more executions and thus more opportunities to test the hypothesis, are far less charitable to death penalty advocates. On top of that, as we wrote in Freakonomics, if you do back-of-the-envelope calculations, it becomes clear that no rational criminal should be deterred by the death penalty, since the punishment is too distant and too unlikely to merit much attention. As such, economists who argue that the death penalty works are put in the uncomfortable position of having to argue that criminals are irrationally overreacting when they are deterred by it.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/does-the-death-penalty-really-reduce-crime/
So what if it works? It's irreversible, and there's no means to redress an error.
I was meaning to provide a reference salad for Faust's point. There's some in there with the stats that suggest it does work, then others that say it doesn't. Plus a couple which suggest Capital Punishment INCREASES the liklihood of violent crimes, which seems consistant with Fausts point. The impression I get is that it is NOT an efficient way to discourage crime, but figured I'd let people read the stats as they saw fit.
Also, I'd generally agree with your point about redress.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on April 25, 2010, 09:52:12 AM
I was meaning to provide a reference salad for Faust's point. There's some in there with the stats that suggest it does work, then others that say it doesn't. Plus a couple which suggest Capital Punishment INCREASES the liklihood of violent crimes, which seems consistant with Fausts point. The impression I get is that it is NOT an efficient way to discourage crime, but figured I'd let people read the stats as they saw fit.
Also, I'd generally agree with your point about redress.
Awesome, cheers. I was pretty much expecting that, Most of the studies are probably biased in whichever direction the researchers believe, it would explain the mixed results.
Ah, what I'm specifically looking for in what faust was saying earlier is the idea that treating criminals as failures rather than demons is an effective deterrent to crime. Thing is, if this is true, then it provides a way to get some of the effects of reform based crime fighting without the consent of the government. All you would have to do is convince people or the media to change the way they talk about crime.
It could also be used to say, combat civil issues like music piracy (well, some people just aren't successful or ethical enough to pay for our stuff...) or to provide deterrent against the kinds of things the government has no intention of trying to stop (see the financial fuckery thread).
Finding stuff that says reform based programs have lower recidivism than punishment is *easy*, its the reasons behind that I'm looking for details on.
Do these studies even consider the amount of violence and crime that happen _in prison_?