Why not do all three? Why not have guilt, shame, and fear built into the system simultaneously?
I remember reading various laws saying the punishment is either "5 years in prison or a $5,000 fine", and I am like 'why not both'? Screw over the rich criminal who doesn't want his body inconvenienced by prison and screw over the poor criminal who doesn't want his wallet inconvenienced by a fine. Do all of the above, everything and the kitchen sink.
I think guilt, shame, and fear are rivalrous. If my self perception is regulated by shame, I won't feel guilty about getting away with something bad. If anything, I will feel the glee of getting something for "free". And someone seeks to shape my behavior by fear I won't feel guilty or shame in slighting them.
Well, I can see them being rivalrous in an individual, but for the affairs of the state as a matter of law, I feel like it should use the most effective of all three combined.
Some of the individuals that they are rivalrous in are your constituents. The more you rule by fear the less Shane and got people feel about breaking the law. Doesn't mean you can't mix and match, but keep in mind you have a liked budget.
Eric Posner talks about the shortcomings of shame-based punishments in Law and Social Norms (2000), at p. 92. He also points out that shame can be excessive when everyone else trys to signal they're a "good cooperator" by ostracizing the offender, even is his crime was not that serious.
I’ve been saying for a while now to bring back punishments like corporal punishment and the stockade, Singapore and Puritan style respectively, as criminal punishments. There’s a lot to recommend it versus folks having criminal records or prison sentences for minor crimes that impede employment. Shoplift, steal, litter, or shoot up in the park? Caning could be swift and effective for behavior modification, its public nature would serve as a deterrent, and the person could go to work the next day as opposed to enter the recidivism cycle.
Caning is just a more specific type of flogging, and Singapore happens to use canes, so both words are correct. As you can imagine, I am a big fan of many of their policies!
Singapore’s guest worker program is also wonderful, but we can’t do something similar here in the US (not on the same scale, at least) due to birthright citizenship. Here in the US, we have to select our immigrants for permanence, which admittedly is great for immigrants and their descendants but bad because we can’t help as many people improve their lives as we otherwise could with Singapore-style guest worker programs.
The Calipers is an anthropomorphic set of skull measurers that understands identities as intellectual prisons. It has not written this explainer essay yet, but when I do, I'll tag you.
Why not do all three? Why not have guilt, shame, and fear built into the system simultaneously?
I remember reading various laws saying the punishment is either "5 years in prison or a $5,000 fine", and I am like 'why not both'? Screw over the rich criminal who doesn't want his body inconvenienced by prison and screw over the poor criminal who doesn't want his wallet inconvenienced by a fine. Do all of the above, everything and the kitchen sink.
I think guilt, shame, and fear are rivalrous. If my self perception is regulated by shame, I won't feel guilty about getting away with something bad. If anything, I will feel the glee of getting something for "free". And someone seeks to shape my behavior by fear I won't feel guilty or shame in slighting them.
Well, I can see them being rivalrous in an individual, but for the affairs of the state as a matter of law, I feel like it should use the most effective of all three combined.
Some of the individuals that they are rivalrous in are your constituents. The more you rule by fear the less Shane and got people feel about breaking the law. Doesn't mean you can't mix and match, but keep in mind you have a liked budget.
Eric Posner talks about the shortcomings of shame-based punishments in Law and Social Norms (2000), at p. 92. He also points out that shame can be excessive when everyone else trys to signal they're a "good cooperator" by ostracizing the offender, even is his crime was not that serious.
I’ve been saying for a while now to bring back punishments like corporal punishment and the stockade, Singapore and Puritan style respectively, as criminal punishments. There’s a lot to recommend it versus folks having criminal records or prison sentences for minor crimes that impede employment. Shoplift, steal, litter, or shoot up in the park? Caning could be swift and effective for behavior modification, its public nature would serve as a deterrent, and the person could go to work the next day as opposed to enter the recidivism cycle.
I heard that Singapore does flogging--or is it caning?--pretty well, even for things like drug trafficking.
Caning is just a more specific type of flogging, and Singapore happens to use canes, so both words are correct. As you can imagine, I am a big fan of many of their policies!
Singapore’s guest worker program is also wonderful, but we can’t do something similar here in the US (not on the same scale, at least) due to birthright citizenship. Here in the US, we have to select our immigrants for permanence, which admittedly is great for immigrants and their descendants but bad because we can’t help as many people improve their lives as we otherwise could with Singapore-style guest worker programs.
I’m sorry to be off-topic, but do you have an essay that explains what type of thing The Calipers is? The backstory of The Calipers?
For example, I’m this type of thing: a ghey former deluded Democrat who turned into a conservative disapproving middle-aged retired ghey.
What type thing are you?
The Calipers is an anthropomorphic set of skull measurers that understands identities as intellectual prisons. It has not written this explainer essay yet, but when I do, I'll tag you.
Please to be thanking its Caliper-ness.
Bless.