Punishment as Deterrence

[MoonRaven]

Re: Punishment as Deterrence

Can I just emphasise that the subject for this thread "does punishment work as a deterrent", not "is punishment emotionally satisfying to the rest of us". Because is the case latter I think most of us would say yes.

As for punishment being a deterrent, nearly every study carried out on this reach the conclusion that no, punishment is not a deterrent. And raising the number of years a person can go to jail or the price of the fine they have to pay, is similarly ineffective. Why? Because the vast majority of all crimes are either commited in the spur of the moment, compare number of manslaughters to first degree murders just to take an example, or by people who are desperate and don't really care about getting caught anyway.
The possibly greatest exception to this rule is the real big wigs in organised crime, but they know that the chance of a) getting arrested, and b) actaully being convicted is so small that the possibility deosn't work as a deterrent anyway.

[thalassa]

Re: Punishment as Deterrence

Can I just emphasise that the subject for this thread "does punishment work as a deterrent", not "is punishment emotionally satisfying to the rest of us". Because is the case latter I think most of us would say yes.

The problem with this idea though, is (as Corbin mentions) that if there isn't a perception of justice (which includes the emotional satisfaction that someone is being punished for their actions), then there's a problem with the justice system--eventually it will cease to function at all, instead of just functioning in mediocrity.

And this is where what we (the public) think, emotionally (that prison is a place to "pay" for what you've done), starts to diverge from what we (well, the people that study this stuff) actually know from experience and observation. The problem is that we (the public) are the ones that determine how the justice system works (via our elected officials) that generally lack the education and motivation to do anything that would actually work in the long term, because it would get their asses kicked out of office.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Punishment as Deterrence

If punishment is not a deterrent, I wonder why it is that in places where the rule of law breaks down for extended periods - like war zones, places where governments collapse, and disaster areas, or even for short periods - like during riots, blackouts, and police strikes - do crime rates skyrocket?

Obvious answer would seem to be that people figure they can get away with it...

[thalassa]

Re: Punishment as Deterrence

If punishment is not a deterrent, I wonder why it is that in places where the rule of law breaks down for extended periods - like war zones, places where governments collapse, and disaster areas, or even for short periods - like during riots, blackouts, and police strikes - do crime rates skyrocket?

Obvious answer would seem to be that people figure they can get away with it...

Or because of insecurity. Looting occurs during periods of instability because it confers power to the persons doing the looting. If you have *stuff* then you have leverage. Moral identity, empathy and guilt decline in such times, making it easier for people to do things they ordinarily wouldn't do. And...its sort of a thrill, exciting. Interestingly, looting is one of the examples of crime where socioeconomics don't play a role in who is/is not more likely to be a looter. And really, if you think about it, the threat of punishment doesn't go away, in fact, its probably worse and more immediate...instead of going to jail, the store owner might beat the crap out of you, or shoot you, etc, or someone else might jump you for your booty (yargh!). I'm not saying that punishment has absolutely no effect at all, after all, humans are "monkey see, monkey do" creatures, and if we see one guy getting away with "it", then we start to think "maybe we can too"...but its not a primary unmotivator. Someone likely to commit a crime either a) doesn't care about the punishment or b) considers it worth it or c) thinks that it won't apply to them somehow.

[Rowanwood]

Re: Punishment as Deterrence

I have no statistics or studies to back up this thought, but can we really compare child rearing techniques to adult behavior? I thought one of the primary things that happens as we mature is the ability to use critical thinking to make decisions, which is something children don't have the skills to do.

I don't use marijuana, but frankly, only because its illegal and I don't want the headache. If it was legal, I'd be eating a pot brownie RIGHT NOW.

The possibility of punishment absolutely deters me from doing this thing.

I can't imagine I'm the only person who's reached this conclusion.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Punishment as Deterrence

Or because of insecurity. Looting occurs during periods of instability because it confers power to the persons doing the looting. If you have *stuff* then you have leverage. Moral identity, empathy and guilt decline in such times, making it easier for people to do things they ordinarily wouldn't do. And...its sort of a thrill, exciting. Interestingly, looting is one of the examples of crime where socioeconomics don't play a role in who is/is not more likely to be a looter. And really, if you think about it, the threat of punishment doesn't go away, in fact, its probably worse and more immediate...instead of going to jail, the store owner might beat the crap out of you, or shoot you, etc, or someone else might jump you for your booty (yargh!). I'm not saying that punishment has absolutely no effect at all, after all, humans are "monkey see, monkey do" creatures, and if we see one guy getting away with "it", then we start to think "maybe we can too"...but its not a primary unmotivator. Someone likely to commit a crime either a) doesn't care about the punishment or b) considers it worth it or c) thinks that it won't apply to them somehow.

d) thinks they won't get caught.

Economic instability, increase in substance abuse, fractured social mores (people stop caring what the neighbors think), and so on, and the belief that they won't be caught (and therefore will go unpunished) would all apply.

Like you, Thalassa, threat of punishment never stopped me from doing the things I wanted to do (at least not for very long) - what it did do is teach me the value of the high art of being clever, and the value of privacy (i.e.: keeping my secrets secret) to living free. But that's me, and that's you.

For some people, though, I am certain that it does act as a deterrent (I know this is different from what I said earlier - I spent some time in thought). Maybe not for most people, maybe not all the time, maybe maybe maybe... But sometimes.

Complex phenomena tend to have complex causes. Deterrence can be a part, without being the whole. A sense of justice can be a part, without being the whole. Add in other factors and we'll have a much more complete picture...

Accepting that deterrence may be a part of a much larger whole doesn't mean punishment - alone - is the solution to crime problems. Rehabilitation (real rehabilitation), substance abuse treatment, education, mental health treatment while in prison and so on, along with social improvements that really help people and give them real hope for the future before they get into trouble should, I think, all be part of the big picture.

There are babies in the bath water. In our efforts to simplify complexity, let's try not to forget that.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Punishment as Deterrence

I have no statistics or studies to back up this thought, but can we really compare child rearing techniques to adult behavior? I thought one of the primary things that happens as we mature is the ability to use critical thinking to make decisions, which is something children don't have the skills to do.

I don't use marijuana, but frankly, only because its illegal and I don't want the headache. If it was legal, I'd be eating a pot brownie RIGHT NOW.

The possibility of punishment absolutely deters me from doing this thing.

I can't imagine I'm the only person who's reached this conclusion.

LOL - which is why I'm sitting here with a gallon jug of Carlo Rossi instead of giggling like an idiot...

[MoonRaven]

Re: Punishment as Deterrence

If punishment is not a deterrent, I wonder why it is that in places where the rule of law breaks down for extended periods - like war zones, places where governments collapse, and disaster areas, or even for short periods - like during riots, blackouts, and police strikes - do crime rates skyrocket?

Obvious answer would seem to be that people figure they can get away with it...

It doesn't always happen. There are lots of stories about neighbourhoods or towns that was hit by black outs, natural disasters cutting them off from rest of society, whatnot, and where rather than see law and order breaking down everyone helped each other. Without the threat of official sanctions. I think it has more to do with a strong sense of community, as strong "us" identity, because generally most of the things that are concidered criminal, theft, robbery, murder ect, are things we wouldn't do to "us".

[thalassa]

Re: Punishment as Deterrence

d) thinks they won't get caught

I was considering that part of my "c) thinks that it won't apply to them somehow". I equate thinking you won't get caught with thinking that if you *do* get caught, you'll get out of it somehow.

Like you, Thalassa, threat of punishment never stopped me from doing the things I wanted to do (at least not for very long) - what it did do is teach me the value of the high art of being clever, and the value of privacy (i.e.: keeping my secrets secret) to living free. But that's me, and that's you.

For some people, though, I am certain that it does act as a deterrent (I know this is different from what I said earlier - I spent some time in thought). Maybe not for most people, maybe not all the time, maybe maybe maybe... But sometimes.

I tend to think though, that it depends on the "crime". Punishment absolutely stops me from doing things like speeding excessively (I don't want the ticket), though I will speed a little bit (were it legal, I wouldn't be noshing down on a pot brownie though). But (at least at the beginning of this) I thought we were more talking about violent crime. The fact that it is illegal and I could go to jail isn't what stops me from robbing a bank--the fact that it is wrong to take something that belongs to someone else (particularly by force) is what stops me from doing so.

(where's a criminologist when you need one?)

I have no statistics or studies to back up this thought, but can we really compare child rearing techniques to adult behavior? I thought one of the primary things that happens as we mature is the ability to use critical thinking to make decisions, which is something children don't have the skills to do.

I don't think so either, though I think there are certainly parallels.

Honestly though, this entire discussion is conjecture (though amusing) that goes back to the comment I made a couple days ago: And this is where what we (the public) think, emotionally (that prison is a place to "pay" for what you've done), starts to diverge from what we (well, the people that study this stuff) actually know from experience and observation. The problem is that we (the public) are the ones that determine how the justice system works (via our elected officials) that generally lack the education and motivation (for the elected officials) to do anything that would actually work in the long term, because it would get their asses kicked out of office. (where is that criminologist?)

[Rae'ya]

Re: Punishment as Deterrence

Just how much of a crime deterrence is punishment or threat of punishment?

Positive punishment (the application of a [usually unpleasant] stimulus in order to decrease a behaviour) is only a deterrant if the stimulus is painful enough. Which makes it a very subjective method of behaviour modification. I don't read studies on humans but the studies on dogs show that in order for it to really work, it needs to be a) painful or scary enough to leave an impression and b) happen consistently enough that the perceived chance of it happening is suitably high.

As a human example, take speeding tickets... most of us speed, because the fine is like $200 and a losing a demerit point and the chance of being caught is fairly low. But if every single time you sped you were fined $2000, you'd stop speeding. Current punishment for speeding is not a deterrent, but it COULD be if the consequences and consistency were ramped up.

Parents use punishment all the time... 'negative punishment', which is the removal of a (usually pleasant) stimulus in order to decrease a behaviour. That's what time out is. That's what no dessert after dinner is. That's what 'no you can't have the toy because you've been naughty today' is. Again, it's only a deterrent if the stimulus that you're taking away is important enough to the culprit. Taking away a person's i-phone for ten minutes is probably not going to make them stop checking facebook during work hours. Taking it away and smashing it on the ground might.

So the problem with 'punishment to fit the crime' is that the punishments usually don't end up being painful enough, which means they are useless as a deterrent. On the flip side of that, punishments that actually ARE effective deterrents are generally abusive and damaging.

What keeps you from performing illegal deeds, or doesn't keep you from criminal acts? How about on a smaller scale? If you're a parent, does punishment actually deter your kids from being bad? How about at work?

Depends on the illegal deed. I speed sometimes... not much, just a little over the limit on the roads that I know are safe to do so on.... because there is no consequence and therefore no deterrent. Other than that I don't do anything illegal because of my own internal ethics and morals, which has nothing whatsoever to do with possible punishments or deterrents. I don't WANT to do illegal things, and that's deterrent enough for me.

I don't have kids myself, but I teach puppy classes and I can say that in puppy-world (which is eerily similar to toddler-world), punishment is not that effective unless it's abusive or unless the receiver has the personality that is particularly sensitive to minor punishments (verbal reprimand can be very effective in some personalities... but those same personalities are traumatised by physical reprimand).

But the core issue is that humans are actually not very good at consistent consequences... we change the boundaries... we don't follow through... we give too many 'warnings'... we get soft hearted and go back on our word... mum and dad argue over what is appropriate and undermine each other... we think that harsh punishments are over the top... we decide that chain gangs are unconstitutional and make prisons comfortable... we're just bad at doling out effective punishment. Which makes punishment not effective.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Punishment as Deterrence

If harsh punishment were a deterrent, then those states in the US that have the death penalty would have a significantly lower rate of murders.
If harsh punishment were a deterrent, then what happened to the girl on the bus in India in December 2012 (I think) and the subsequent death sentence for all her attackers would have been a deterrent. But it wasn't. Almost exactly a year later we see another rape that results in death...

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/01/02/fresh-protests-as-india-after-teen-sets-herself-on-fire-after-being-gang-raped-twice/

I still believe that education of some sort has to be the key. I didn't smack my children because I didn't need to. I took a lot of time and talked to them. Did I talk them out of everything? Of course not. They weren't angels. But I do believe that I tried to instill into them some sort of moral code. And I suspect it's the nature of the moral code that causes a lot of the problems.

For example, many people who are pro-death penalty are also anti-abortion (not all,but it's just an example). How do you get that into a moral code that actually makes sense? You can't, not really. And I suspect (though cannot prove) that the problem is that the gaps in consistent thinking end up making people feel they can operate outside the law. And then again, often the law itself is flawed.

And I know, I just know, that this is probably a discussion I had better back away from because it usually gets me into all sorts of trouble... (though of course, I may be back )

[Rae'ya]

Re: Punishment as Deterrence

If harsh punishment were a deterrent, then those states in the US that have the death penalty would have a significantly lower rate of murders.
If harsh punishment were a deterrent, then what happened to the girl on the bus in India in December 2012 (I think) and the subsequent death sentence for all her attackers would have been a deterrent. But it wasn't. Almost exactly a year later we see another rape that results in death...
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/01...g-raped-twice/

My point is that punishment does NOT work as an effective deterrent, specifically because we don't use it in an effective way.

You site the rape in India as an example. My point is that this sort of punishment would only be effective if every single rapist in India was caught and put to death. If every single rapist was executed... if every single rapists was caught and executed... then it might work. But until then, it wont. For it to work it has to be harsh, consistent, and have no chance of getting away with it.

I don't advocate positive punishment at all. It doesn't work because we don't do it right. And we never will do it right. And I honestly don't believe that we SHOULD do it.

[Maria de Luna]

Re: Punishment as Deterrence

And I know, I just know, that this is probably a discussion I had better back away from because it usually gets me into all sorts of trouble... (though of course, I may be back )

Is it wrong that i love it when you get yourself into trouble? You say such fun things that make me giggle in the course of doing so... :P

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Punishment as Deterrence

Since we can tell when a person does something (despite the threat of punishment), but not when a person does not do something (because of the threat of punishment) I wonder what value there is in citing examples of people who commit crimes?

I don't imagine that any half-way intelligent person imagines that anything works every time, without fail.

[Rowanwood]

Re: Punishment as Deterrence

For example, many people who are pro-death penalty are also anti-abortion (not all,but it's just an example). How do you get that into a moral code that actually makes sense? You can't, not really.

I actually don't hold this view, being pro-death penalty and pro-choice (to a point), but I don't see any moral confusion. A baby is innocent. A convicted criminal is not.

What I don't understand is the other way -- abort babies, but don't kill criminals. I will never get that.