Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (15539)	6/25/2002 10:39:55 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Or, to put it differently, it wouldn't work.

To: E who wrote (15539)	6/26/2002 8:57:31 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

"Social opprobrium" may be a deterrent in one society, or subsection of the society, and not much of one in another. Yes, social opprobrium is not a reliable deterrent. As long as we are a free and diverse people, it will never be. My model does not depend on it either as a deterrent or as punishment. My deterrent is largely that one will not be allowed to profit from the crime and that one won't be allowed back into society until one demonstrates one is not a further danger to society. The opprobrium that I brought up in connection with my model was intended to point out, for the benefit of those who just can't let go of the idea of punishment, that society would still punish what it disapproves of to some extent regardless of what the criminal justice system did. With regard to the reliability of opprobrium, in general, the best we can hope for in a society like ours is a critical mass. In my example of the woman who killed her former son-in-law, there are many who would think that no disapproval is called for--probably the vast majority of those who, like me, watch made-for-TV movies where it a common theme that the system can't or won't protect the heroine from stalkers and the plot centers around either someone killing the stalker or the stalker killing the victim. If you put that movie-watching demographic on a jury, they would likely never convict the mother, let alone impose a punishment. Still, there would be others in her community who would express their disapproval of her. After all, as Laz said, she did kill someone. Certainly the woman would be able to rely at least on the approval and gratitude of her daughter and that might be all she needs to feel she did the right thing. OTOH, she might lose customers or friends or other things of value to the disapproval of the community. For those who think she deserves to suffer for her crime, she will suffer from the disapproval of some but the disapproval will not be universal. Is the glass half empty or half full? It will never be all the way full or all the way empty. Not in this society. Designing a justice model around it is futile. Frustrating though differences of opinion may be, I wouldn't want to live in a society like the Taliban where expressed disapproval could only be universal.