Announcement

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 19, 2003, 22:32

If it were proven that Free Will does not exist, no he shouldn't be locked up.

What if him being locked up is the predetermined path?

**Zero** · January 19, 2003, 23:21

Originally posted by orange

If it were proven that Free Will does not exist, no he shouldn't be locked up.

I believe that it does, so he should be locked up as punishment.

if free will doesnt exist, it doesnt matter what we think should be done will be done or not... what will be done will be done.

I'm more concerned on what if free will exists side.

**KrazyHorse** · January 20, 2003, 00:19

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
So you wouldn't detain a person who commits a serious crime, such as manslaughter, but will not repeat it.

Say a drunk driver killed 5 people in a car crash, and after the event was so traumatised that he swore he would never drink or drive again. He is judged to be no threat to society. Should he be let off scott free?

You've invented a crystal ball?

Those who violate the law void their civil rights and are subject to those measures society deems to be necessary to protect itself. Until a foolproof method for predicting future behaviour shows up, we'll be stuck with jails.

Hell, if there was still a frontier I'd be all in favour of using it as a dumping ground for those society rejects due to criminal behaviour. But they'd get every reasonable assistance to help them thrive in the new wilderness. They wouldn't be there to make them suffer...

**KrazyHorse** · January 20, 2003, 00:26

I have no interest in the law as punishment. It is a protective measure, both as a quarantine of the dangerous and as a deterrent for the reasonable. I'd also like to point out that psychologically speaking, the certainty of punishment is much more effective than the severity of punishment. Not only are such things as the death penalty and torture ineffective as deterrents, they are unjustifiable in a modern context. Human rights may not be violated, except in cases where no reasonable alternative exists (imprisonment is not an option).

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 20, 2003, 00:30

I'd also like to point out that psychologically speaking, the certainty of punishment is much more effective than the severity of punishment.

Certainty without severity is no deterant at all. If people are certain they are going to fined $5 for theft and that is it aren't going to be detered.

**Zero** · January 20, 2003, 00:36

I would say severity would be more effective than certainty.

**orange** · January 20, 2003, 00:41

Originally posted by Calc II
if free will doesnt exist, it doesnt matter what we think should be done will be done or not... what will be done will be done.

That goes without saying

**KrazyHorse** · January 20, 2003, 00:46

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I'd also like to point out that psychologically speaking, the certainty of punishment is much more effective than the severity of punishment.

Certainty without severity is no deterant at all. If people are certain they are going to fined $5 for theft and that is it aren't going to be detered.

Duh. But it plateaus much quicker than most people think. This is based on numerous behavioural studies...

Human beings are born gamblers. They can convince themselves that the 1 in 20 or whatever that get away with it will certainly be them...

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 20, 2003, 00:49

Human beings are born gamblers. They can convince themselves that the 1 in 20 or whatever that get away with it will certainly be them...

Which is why you must proportionally increase the severity of the punishment. Make an example of the ones that do get caught in order to deter those that might think about it. You may go free 19 out of 20 times, but that time you might not... watch out.

**KrazyHorse** · January 20, 2003, 00:51

Originally posted by Calc II
I would say severity would be more effective than certainty.

You'd be wrong. And that's why we have experimental psychologists. This is not new or controversial science; anybody with an eye towards proper controls can demonstrate that people would rather take a 50% chance of going down for 20 years than a 100% chance of going down for 10.

404

http://www.ncpa.org/bg/bg148/bg148a.html#23

To quote: "However, in their decision making, prisoners are much more sensitive to changes in certainty than in severity of punishment"

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 20, 2003, 00:54

This is not new or controversial science; anybody with an eye towards proper controls can demonstrate that people would rather take a 50% chance of going down for 20 years than a 100% chance of going down for 10.

This is a flawed look. There is NO WAY to get 100% certainty of catching a criminal. The problem is that making it more certain to catch criminals is MUCH harder than increasing severity of punishments. And any attempt to increase certainty of punishment tramples on civil rights.

**KrazyHorse** · January 20, 2003, 00:54

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Human beings are born gamblers. They can convince themselves that the 1 in 20 or whatever that get away with it will certainly be them...

Which is why you must proportionally increase the severity of the punishment. Make an example of the ones that do get caught in order to deter those that might think about it. You may go free 19 out of 20 times, but that time you might not... watch out.

And again...it's ineffective. You'd do better decreasing your failure rate by half than you would to increase jail time by a factor of 4...

It loses reality after a while. What's the difference between 10 years and 20 years? Nothing, to most people. It's so hard to conceive that it has almost no behavioural impact. Don't argue with me, Imran; argue with 40 years of behavioural science...

**KrazyHorse** · January 20, 2003, 00:56

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

This is not new or controversial science; anybody with an eye towards proper controls can demonstrate that people would rather take a 50% chance of going down for 20 years than a 100% chance of going down for 10.

This is a flawed look. There is NO WAY to get 100% certainty of catching a criminal. The problem is that making it more certain to catch criminals is MUCH harder than increasing severity of punishments. And any attempt to increase certainty of punishment tramples on civil rights.

Read my post above yours. It doesn't have to go to 100%; those numbers are just to demonstrate a point. Criminals react more strongly to their risk than to the consequences.

**Zero** · January 20, 2003, 00:59

Originally posted by Frogger

You'd be wrong. And that's why we have experimental psychologists. This is not new or controversial science; anybody with an eye towards proper controls can demonstrate that people would rather take a 50% chance of going down for 20 years than a 100% chance of going down for 10.

404

http://www.ncpa.org/bg/bg148/bg148a.html#23

To quote: "However, in their decision making, prisoners are much more sensitive to changes in certainty than in severity of punishment"

Prisoners? thats a pretty bad experiment then. Prisoners are already a group of people who mostyly took risks by trying to get away with breaking the law...

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 20, 2003, 01:01

Again, you are NOT GETTING THE POINT! How do you increase certainty of capture? I mean it is absolutely silly to argue that police forces could increase certainty of getting caught and they are not doing as much as they can right now. If they could increase certainty of capture, why aren't they doing it (except for civil liberties issues).

What's the difference between 10 years and 20 years?

It ain't difference between 10 and 20 years. It is the difference between 10 years and life (or death). At least that is what the theory asserts.

Announcement

Free will, morality and crime

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment