being forbidden by law means that it carries a punishment
No. Being forbidden by law means that the Powers That Be will take forceful steps to stop people doing it, even if they want to. At present, that generally means punishing people who do whatever-it-is, but in some hypothetical future surveillance-heavy society it might instead mean that as soon as someone tries to do whatever-it-is they are physically prevented by an armed robot police officer. Or in some hypothetical future brainwashing-heavy society it might mean that those who do whatever-it-is are tracked down and have their brains modified so that they won’t (or can’t) do it again. In yet another hypothetical society it might mean that anyone discovered to have done whatever-it-is feels so ashamed that they commit suicide.
It happens—and this is PhilGoetz’s point, I think—that in (almost?) all existing societies, in (almost?) all cases, a central part of how legal forbidding works is via punishment of those who do what’s forbidden, even though this isn’t the only conceivable way it could work.
You’ll note that the sentence you are taking down includes a rather explicit, “With a few exceptions,” before it. I would consider a hypothetical future society with omnipotent thought police to count as just such an “exception.” I would think mandatory brainwashing falls comfortably within the bounds of the concept, “punishment.” incidentally, I suspect that new words will evolve when (and if) new meanings exist—terms like thought-crime or pre-crime.
I saw nothing in the original post implying that the correct formulation of the criminal code involved omniscient robot police. More seriously, the original post is principally about the distinction between deterrent and non-detterrent punishment. I think commenters have sufficiently destroyed this distinction—the fact that punishment is not a deterrent ex post for party A does not mean it is not a deterrent ex ante or for parties B-Z.
On reflection I’m very confused by that sentence. It has two parts, after the “with a few exceptions” qualification: “a crime is a thing forbidden by law” and “being forbidden by law means that it carries a punishment”. Both of these seem to be definitions, and I’m not sure what sense it makes to give a definition while saying it has exceptions. The immediately following sentence said—with no qualifications—“If you aren’t punished for it, it isn’t a crime”.
So I’ll take your word for it that you didn’t mean to assert that being forbidden by law means, by definition, carrying a punishment; but I can’t see that it was unreasonable for me to think you were asserting that.
I don’t think the original post is principally about the distinction between deterrent and non-deterrent punishment. It’s about whether punishing institutions are there for reform, for deterrence, or because people just like punishing, with the suggestion that there’s a great deal of the last of those even though it’s usual to talk as if the first two are what matter.
You think having your brain forcibly re-written isn’t a punishment? A robot using physical force on you isn’t a threat? No, law = threat of punishment in every past or existing society, because that’s the only way it can work unless you have universal mind pre-emptive mind control or a godlike singleton AI.
The idea that there’s some alternative to punishing criminals only seems sensible if you redefine ‘punishment’ to leave out whatever you’re suggesting as an alternative to prison time.
Conversely, the idea that the only effective thing you can ever do to lower crime rates is punish criminals only makes sense if you define “punishment” to include anything that lowers crime rates.
Just to be concrete for a second: if stores S1 and S2 both have the same rate (R0) of shoplifting, and S1 implements a policy of prosecuting all shoplifters to the fullest extent of the law and its rate drops to R1, and S2 implements a policy of putting up signs everywhere with sad-looking cartoon characters with big eyes expressing various kinds of sadness over shoplifting and its rate drops to R2.
Are you asserting that:
...because S2′s policy isn’t punishment-based, it’s not going to reduce the shoplifting rate, so R2 ~= R0?
...because S2′s policy isn’t punishment-based, it’s not going to reduce the shoplifting rate as much as punishment does, so R2 > R1?
...we don’t know whether S2′s policy is punishment-based based on this information; if R2 ⇐ R1 then perhaps it is?
...this example has nothing to do with what we’re talking about?
Those things are doubtless unpleasant, or at least undesired, but if the unpleasantness is merely a side effect and the intended prevention of crimes happens independently of the unpleasantness then they are not punishments in the sense that’s relevant here.
Of course, if someone wants to do X and a society’s enforcement mechanisms—whatever they are—stops them doing X, or does something to make doing X unattractive to them despite their wanting to do it, then that’s going to be unpleasant for them. In that sense, crime implies punishment. But it’s a very weak sense and not, I think, the one that’s relevant to this discussion.
No. Being forbidden by law means that the Powers That Be will take forceful steps to stop people doing it, even if they want to. At present, that generally means punishing people who do whatever-it-is, but in some hypothetical future surveillance-heavy society it might instead mean that as soon as someone tries to do whatever-it-is they are physically prevented by an armed robot police officer. Or in some hypothetical future brainwashing-heavy society it might mean that those who do whatever-it-is are tracked down and have their brains modified so that they won’t (or can’t) do it again. In yet another hypothetical society it might mean that anyone discovered to have done whatever-it-is feels so ashamed that they commit suicide.
It happens—and this is PhilGoetz’s point, I think—that in (almost?) all existing societies, in (almost?) all cases, a central part of how legal forbidding works is via punishment of those who do what’s forbidden, even though this isn’t the only conceivable way it could work.
Another way that’s currently used in the United States is that the state may refuse to enforce your contracts, if these call for illegal activity.
It’s also common with minor crimes to obtain a conviction with a suspended sentence; does that count as not being punished?
Being forbidden by law means that the Powers that Be might take forceful steps in an effort to stop people from doing it.
The law is only an approximation of government behavior, and there are many laws which are no longer enforced.
Agreed: “might, and in some sense are supposed to” would have been better than “will”.
You’ll note that the sentence you are taking down includes a rather explicit, “With a few exceptions,” before it. I would consider a hypothetical future society with omnipotent thought police to count as just such an “exception.” I would think mandatory brainwashing falls comfortably within the bounds of the concept, “punishment.” incidentally, I suspect that new words will evolve when (and if) new meanings exist—terms like thought-crime or pre-crime.
I saw nothing in the original post implying that the correct formulation of the criminal code involved omniscient robot police. More seriously, the original post is principally about the distinction between deterrent and non-detterrent punishment. I think commenters have sufficiently destroyed this distinction—the fact that punishment is not a deterrent ex post for party A does not mean it is not a deterrent ex ante or for parties B-Z.
On reflection I’m very confused by that sentence. It has two parts, after the “with a few exceptions” qualification: “a crime is a thing forbidden by law” and “being forbidden by law means that it carries a punishment”. Both of these seem to be definitions, and I’m not sure what sense it makes to give a definition while saying it has exceptions. The immediately following sentence said—with no qualifications—“If you aren’t punished for it, it isn’t a crime”.
So I’ll take your word for it that you didn’t mean to assert that being forbidden by law means, by definition, carrying a punishment; but I can’t see that it was unreasonable for me to think you were asserting that.
I don’t think the original post is principally about the distinction between deterrent and non-deterrent punishment. It’s about whether punishing institutions are there for reform, for deterrence, or because people just like punishing, with the suggestion that there’s a great deal of the last of those even though it’s usual to talk as if the first two are what matter.
You think having your brain forcibly re-written isn’t a punishment? A robot using physical force on you isn’t a threat? No, law = threat of punishment in every past or existing society, because that’s the only way it can work unless you have universal mind pre-emptive mind control or a godlike singleton AI.
The idea that there’s some alternative to punishing criminals only seems sensible if you redefine ‘punishment’ to leave out whatever you’re suggesting as an alternative to prison time.
Conversely, the idea that the only effective thing you can ever do to lower crime rates is punish criminals only makes sense if you define “punishment” to include anything that lowers crime rates.
Just to be concrete for a second: if stores S1 and S2 both have the same rate (R0) of shoplifting, and S1 implements a policy of prosecuting all shoplifters to the fullest extent of the law and its rate drops to R1, and S2 implements a policy of putting up signs everywhere with sad-looking cartoon characters with big eyes expressing various kinds of sadness over shoplifting and its rate drops to R2.
Are you asserting that:
...because S2′s policy isn’t punishment-based, it’s not going to reduce the shoplifting rate, so R2 ~= R0?
...because S2′s policy isn’t punishment-based, it’s not going to reduce the shoplifting rate as much as punishment does, so R2 > R1?
...we don’t know whether S2′s policy is punishment-based based on this information; if R2 ⇐ R1 then perhaps it is?
...this example has nothing to do with what we’re talking about?
...other?
Those things are doubtless unpleasant, or at least undesired, but if the unpleasantness is merely a side effect and the intended prevention of crimes happens independently of the unpleasantness then they are not punishments in the sense that’s relevant here.
Of course, if someone wants to do X and a society’s enforcement mechanisms—whatever they are—stops them doing X, or does something to make doing X unattractive to them despite their wanting to do it, then that’s going to be unpleasant for them. In that sense, crime implies punishment. But it’s a very weak sense and not, I think, the one that’s relevant to this discussion.