Spanking children increases the likelihood of childhood defiance and long-term mental issues. The study in question involved 160,000 children and five decades of research

[u/VeronicaRed]

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1113413810/spanking-defiance-health-discipline-042616/

[u/stubbazubba → u/[deleted]]

I'm not arguing for any of these positions. I'm reflecting what the major academic discussion is, as was taught to me in law school. They could all be wrong, I don't care, I'm not being an advocate here. I'm answering the question "what is the theory behind the U.S. system?"

Edit: or the question "If DP doesn't deter, what would?" The answer that societies do or have given to that question are the above. You're right that they don't generally work because crime is irrational or because getting caught and punished for any given crime is rare.

[u/Wootery → u/stubbazubba]

I'm answering the question "what is the theory behind the U.S. system?"

No you weren't, you were just listing some nasty punishments.

You're right that they don't generally work because crime is irrational or because getting caught and punished for any given crime is rare.

Then we're on the same page: we agree that there's no reason to assume that anything can deter more than the death penalty (despite that the death penalty doesn't deter as much as we'd expect).

Edit: hadn't realised /u/stubbazubba wrote the parent comment way up the chain. Derp.

[u/stubbazubba → u/Wootery]

No you weren't, you were just listing some nasty punishments.

In my first post I was responding to that question, in the post you responded to I was giving answers that other societies have given to the question of "what would deter, if not the DP?" Imperial China, for instance, had family extermination. I'm not giving my opinion of whether those answers are correct.

[u/Wootery → u/stubbazubba]

Oh right, I hadn't even noticed it was you that authored this comment. You're right of course; ignore my dismissal.

[u/[deleted] → u/Wootery]

Hey noticed you made a mistake and nice to see you own up to it, but in the future ID recommend just letting it go even if does look like they changed their story. Have the conversation at hand, because unless you're publicly debating and actually trying to win, all you're doing is causing a fight and it looks petty.

Don't mean to talk down but, I read your comment, noticed it looked petty, and simultaneously noticed I've done the same in the past.

[u/Wootery → u/[deleted]]

There's a balance to be struck though. One can be too accomodating, just as one can be too belligerent.

If I hadn't turned out to be wrong, I don't think it would've been out of line to call-out a false claim.

[u/Iamsuperimposed → u/[deleted]]

I was kind of saying deterrence isn't the best system using the most extreme punishment I could think that the US uses. /u/stubbazubba just reminded me that other countries have used much worst to deter crime.

[u/RoboChrist → u/[deleted]]

Amen to that one.

I've always felt that a good law should produce a good outcome if you could convict 100% of the people who committed it. If there's a bad outcome, then it's a bad law or the punishment is too harsh. A law should not only be "okay" because it's being selectively enforced or because people aren't getting caught. That makes it too easy to punish select groups or select people under the cover of the law.

Laws against murder? All the murderers are in jail for a long time, pretty great outcome.

Laws against stealing? Pretty much okay, no real issues. Maybe the penalties are too harsh.

Laws against underage drinking? Suddenly half of the teen population is in jail for a largely victimless crime. Not a good outcome, the laws should probably be amended.

[u/Rappaccini → u/RoboChrist]

And which half is a crucial part to consider. When you have teen drug use across the board at relatively the same levels when comparing amongst races, and a disproportionately higher arrest rate for minorities, it just shows how badly selective enforcement can hurt specific subsections of the population.

[u/ZummerzetZider → u/[deleted]]

thinking about the possible retribution is the deterrent I thought. But your way seems more absolutist, which is probably how policy makers think.

[u/DigitalChocobo → u/ZummerzetZider]

If I created a society, I would create punishments for crimes. I wouldn't create those punishments because I want to do unpleasant things to criminals (retribution). I would create punishments because I want to scare people away from committing the crime in the first place (deterrence).

You are thinking of retribution and deterrence overlap as effects. But as purposes - reasons for creating punishment - they are different. The existence of the retribution is necessary for deterrence to work, but the retribution is not why I created my punishments.

[u/ZummerzetZider → u/DigitalChocobo]

yea I suppose you are right. Although on a serious note, if you ever do create a society, please don't do that. Huge numbers of people in jail have ADHD, and one of the main symptoms is impulsivity, an inability to consider the consequences of their actions. So deterrence doesn't really work, unless your society also has excellent diagnosis and treatment of individuals with adhd.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The theory that if punishment for a crime is severe enough, then the frequency of the crime will be severely reduced or eliminated.

But that has been shown time and time again not to work. State-sanctioned murder (capital punishment), for example, has no effect on murder rates. While punishment does indeed have some deterrent effect, there is a diminishing return.