THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (15963)	6/29/2002 12:26:13 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) of 21057

WHY is it not sufficient that punishment of the criminal deter others even if it has no effect on the criminal? I'm not saying it's not. I'm just trying to isolate the various purposes in the current system in the process of analyzing it. I listed them in my initial outline, all but punishment, of course. Deterrence is an important one. Neo said that punishment was a deterrence. I'm asking if punishment serves any other purpose. If deterrence is the only purpose of punishment, then we're looking at the wrong thing. We should be looking at deterrence, which is the object, rather than punishment, which is the means, one possible means among many. If we are punishing people as an end in itself, that is, to make them suffer... Many systems fail because they get means and ends mixed up. People get so accustomed to the means that the means somehow is perceived as an end. I'm just trying to sort them out. My model was based on the notion that punishment was not an end in itself and served no purpose that could not be served just as well or better without it. I'm still testing the model by asking Neo questions.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next