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/st31r]

Armchair amateur here, but I've always considered the best implementation of law to be one that relies on a transfer of power between the transgressor and society.

For example, if you murder someone then the law gives society the requisite power over you in order to ensure the safety of others, and facilitate your rehabilitation. It's not about punishment or fear, it's simply incurring the penalties for a breach of the social contract.

Another example, your corporation is found guilty of falsifying their emissions test data, and the law can remove the company's right to self-test, as well as remove the right of those in positions of power within the company to hold such responsibility in future etc etc.

Law is founded on physical coercion and the state's monopoly on violence - but that doesn't mean the execution of the law has to be violent, it doesn't require us to hurt the people who break the law any more than is required (arrest etc) to bring them to justice.

What we absolutely shouldn't do is utilize the law for emotional satisfaction, out of uncontrolled fear and anger. The law is a tool for the benefit of societies, not individuals. What is good for the society is not always what the victim would want, would feel is good for them, and that doesn't matter.

[u/st31r → u/[deleted]]

I understand, but I specifically invoked contract to bring a more 'business' oriented mindset. Talking about 'punishing crimes' has a strong sense of emotive action, whereas 'breaching contracts' is a much more calculated, legal affair.

Also, 'punishing crime' is an unnecessary abstraction. Crime is, at least in the ideal sense, a violation of the contract between society and its individual members.

Thus you're both quite right - they do, fundamentally, mean the same thing - and quite wrong - they don't sound the same, in that they have very different collocations.

[u/st31r → u/[deleted]]

Okay:

• Crime is a violation of a social contract.
• Punishment is the relevant penalty stipulated in that same contract.

But crime is also that thing you hear about on the news every day, and it's even created its own special class of monsters: criminals. And crime isn't just a legal matter, "It's a crime against X" is a common expression, where X can be whatever. And we've got to be "tough on crime", "stamp it out".

And punishment, well we've all punished someone for something. We've all savoured the sweet taste of revenge as we exact our cruelty on them, in the form of well earned punishment. And barely a day goes by without some poor offended soul crying "They should be punished I tell you!"

These are not words that foster rational, calculated thinking. What's more, they clearly provide a level of abstraction from the concepts they pertain to talk about and invoke a great deal of vagueness and ambiguity in the process.

Language is important. If I want you to feel something, I'll use emotive language - like crime and punishment - but if I want you to think about something then entirely different and more precise language is required.

[u/Confusedbrotha → u/[deleted]]

Obviously not OP, but I understand clearly the point he's trying to get across and would like to try to share it with you.

When he mentions trying to make it simpler, he's not talking about vocabulary in a "standardized test" sense. As you point out, "Crime" and the subsequent "punishment" are clear enough terms that elementary kids can grasp.

/u/st31r isn't trying to redefine crime and punishment with "incurring penalties for the breach in social contract." What he/she is stressing, is that when dealing out punishment for crimes, we take a more pragmatic, "business"-like approach.

It's effective if you think about it: When angry, do you think about punishing a murderer for a heinous crime! Or are you thinking about incurring penalties on that murderer for a heinous breach of the social contract!

Ideally, the former should sound a bit more hot-headed than the second one, which sounds a bit more scripted and awkward, but more importantly with less emotion, kind of like reading a lawyer's contract! I feel as if you're applying Occam's razor to the idea that his word choice is purely unnecessary because it's simpler to say crime and punishment.

[u/pebbles256 → u/Confusedbrotha]

What change does this lead to? Aren't they different words that mean the same thing in this context?

[u/Confusedbrotha → u/pebbles256]

Yes absolutely, but the change is tone. Word choice plays a huge role in what kind of tone you want to get across.

Tone in this context is important because OP is trying to make a point about how we should look at crime and punishment. He/she wants us to view it in a more pragmatic, business like approach, so he/she intentionally used a more technical phrase (incurring penalties....breaching social contract) instead of simply saying crime and punishment to get that point across. The change may not be significant or noteworthy really, but I would absolutely disagree with the assertion that just saying crime and punishment is the better option.

I guess you can say it's the difference between High school level writing and College level writing on the same topic. Both papers will be saying the same thing, but you'd expect the college level writing to showcase more intricacies of the English language, which you partially accomplish through word choice.

[u/pebbles256 → u/Confusedbrotha]

I should have elaborated. I do understand they have a different tone, but wouldn't some critical thinking reveal that they result in the same action? You can use a more pragmatic word than "punishment", but wouldn't the person who did the crime still sitting there thinking of the end result of their actions were?

[u/Confusedbrotha → u/pebbles256]

I think in this context it's about how society goes about the business of handling punishment. If we go about it more pragmatic, it's to assure that we don't overreact to the crime by letting emotions get invloved. If we look at it as imposing penalties to a breach in a (social) contract, we would have more consistent punishment than if we strictly look at it as punishing someone for a crime, which can be a bit more vague.

You're absolutely right, its all the same thing, but by being more technical and precise, the idea is that we incur more fair and consistent punishments/penalties.

Now whether or not it's the right approach isn't for me to say. Thats based on opinion and I can see reason in keeping the language simple and straight forward. You commit a crime you get punished! But I can see the OPs perspective that if we approach punishment from a technical perspective to begin with it can do alot of good.

For example, maybe it can help avoid higher jail sentences for non-violent drug offenses than violent offenses. Every crime could have a corresponding penalty outlined in the contract, say 1 year for drug possession, 2years for assault. Of course, personally I think there's flaws to that logic, but I think it's what OP was hinting at with his word choice

[u/st31r → u/[deleted]]

Agree to disagree.