Punishment and Validity

[Ludwig]

Punishments are given when a rule is disobeyed. On this forum, it's usually bans. In Sweden, it can be loss of money or being in jail (free food).

There are two main reasons for punishments (I call them main because they are the only two I can think of and don't want to call them only because there might be more). The first one is discouragement. If you dislike losing money, you will stop disobeying the law. The second one is to make people stop disobeying the law by not giving them the opportunity to do so, they can't drive too fast or rob banks when they are in jail.

The first reason only makes sense if disobeying is intended. The criminal won't learn to want to obey the law if they had no desire to disobey it, (s)he will already have that quality.

The second reason only makes sense if it's permanent. If not, they will just
disobey the law again after they leave and then have to return (this is while assuming that the first reason isn't valid during the circumstances).

Then what if the crime wasn't done on purpose and not severe enough to for spending the rest of the life in jail? Both reasons will fail, but the criminal will still be punished. That is punishment without motivation.

One example is driving a car while drunk. The more drunk you are, the less able you are to control your actions. If you are enough drunk, you won't be able to choose to not drive the car. There was no purpose to disobey the law and no punishment for it will be permanent. Both the reasons for punishment are invalid, but the individual will still be punished. Having to get a new driver's license or losing money won't help you be better at avoiding driving the car when drunk. The decision to drink enough alcohol to be that drunk could also have been a result of being drunk.

Another example is being banned from a forum for being unintentionally rude. That is better solved by explaining why it was wrong to write that.

The debate is supposed to be about if those punishments should be given despite the reasons being null.

 

[mattj]

None of the reasons you listed are null. Punishment still serves multiple purposes. It can teach people that certain actions are not permissible and it can keep hopeless offenders from offending again and again.

I fail to see how the case that you brought up applies. If a person makes the decision to start drinking, they've made a conscious sober decision right there. No court anywhere accepts the "But I was drunk" defense. While the person may not have made the same choices while sober, they made the choice to drink and are therefore responsible for whatever consequences follow. If you don't want to do wild things while drunk, don't drink.

I had to go to court yesterday evening. I had been pulled over for having my license plate light out and couldn't find my wife's insurance card (cleverly stored away in the empty ash tray). All I had to do was show up and prove that I had insurance at the time of the ticket. I did and they threw out the ticket.

While I was waiting there was a man who had been charged with stealing food from two local grocery stores. He plead guilty and explained to the judge that he was homeless and had no job. The judge and even the prosecutor understood and instead of sentencing him to jail time or a large fine, they took his situation into consideration and simply put him on probation for a year and told him to stay out of those stores.

If we lived in a world where the punishments for even the most innocent of crimes were severe, I'd say what you've said would hold some weight. There are situations where the harshest punishments do not fit the crimes. But we don't live in that world, at least not here in the US. While we may disagree with a ruling here or there, by and large circumstances are taken into account and punishments are chosen to best fit the crime.

Punishments have historically and universally been considered useful tools for shaping behavior and protecting the population at large. You haven't convinced me personally otherwise.

 

[7 tyranitars]

I would like to add vengeance as a main reason. Humans like to see someone punished. They need someone to be guilty. They need someone to blame on of what happened. They need closure. Whenever something bad happens people scream irrationaly that someone haves to pay for this.

 

[Ludwig]

None of the reasons you listed are null. Punishment still serves multiple purposes. It can teach people that certain actions are not permissible and it can keep hopeless offenders from offending again and again.

Those are the same reasons as I listed, but phrased differently.
The first reason ("It can teach people that certain actions are not permissible") is invalid when the person isn't able to control his actions (being drunk is an example) or if the person can't tell the difference between the not allowed action and actions that are allowed. (Example is that I get infractions for being rude or trolling despite not seeing how those posts differ from other posts that are allowed).

The second reason ("it can keep hopeless offenders from offending again and again") only makes sense if the punishment is death or another way of permanently not making the person able keep offending. Permanent loss if driver's license is either not enforced or rare. The point is that if it's not permanent, they offender will keep disobeying the law (again, if assuming that reason one isn't valid during the circumstances).

No court anywhere accepts the "But I was drunk" defense.

That's the problem.

While the person may not have made the same choices while sober, they made the choice to drink and are therefore responsible for whatever consequences follow. If you don't want to do wild things while drunk, don't drink.

Because the decision, at best, would be to become drunk, that should be what's not allowed. You don't control what happen after you are drunk so you shouldn't be punished for that. If it however is a problem that people do such things when they are drunk, the fair punishment punishes because they became drunk. Some people do bad things that they don't control when they are drunk, some people are drunk without doing bad things, both groups made the same conscious action and should therefore get the same punishment.

If we lived in a world where the punishments for even the most innocent of crimes were severe, I'd say what you've said would hold some weight. There are situations where the harshest punishments do not fit the crimes. But we don't live in that world, at least not here in the US. While we may disagree with a ruling here or there, by and large circumstances are taken into account and punishments are chosen to best fit the crime.

Not all people that will debate in this thread lives in USA.

 

[mattj]

If a person makes the decision to drink, then drives home and hits and kills a family on the way, that person is responsible for killing those people. No one anywhere accepts the "But I was drunk" defense. Choosing to drink is just as much of a conscious decision as pulling a trigger. No one accepts the "I didn't kill them. I just pulled the trigger." defense. When someone makes a choice that eventually leads to a crime, they are responsible for that crime. There is no debate on this topic. You can say you disagree with it all you want, but that's how every government everywhere throughout history has meted out punishment.

You may not be able to control what you do once you're drunk, but you absolutely can control whether or not you get drunk in the first place. If you consciously choose to get "out of control drunk" you are still responsible for whatever happens afterwards because you made the conscious choice to start drinking. Of course we should punish inebriated criminals.

 

[Malanu]

Because the decision, at best, would be to become drunk, that should be what's not allowed. You don't control what happen after you are drunk so you shouldn't be punished for that. If it however is a problem that people do such things when they are drunk, the fair punishment punishes because they became drunk. Some people do bad things that they don't control when they are drunk, some people are drunk without doing bad things, both groups made the same conscious action and should therefore get the same punishment.

Ah but seeing as you are probably not of legal drinking age (I don't know Swedish Law) All the while you are drinking you are responsible for how much you drink. For instance I know I can drink 2 pitchers of beer (Normally Killian's Irish Red) without fear of exceeding the legal limit. After the first pitcher I know whether I will be staying long enough to finish the second pitcher, and have time to let it wear off. It's not like I drink one drink and BAM I don't know what I'm doing Unless I slipped a drug. The point is once I decide to drink even a single 12 oz beer I am responsible for everything that I do after. The idea is that you knew the possibility of doing something stupid/dangerous before you started drinking And took the risk knowing the chances.

As for the Forum ban... When you signed up you agreed to follow the rules before you even posted. So if you are proven to be Trolling or posting inappropriately you had accepted the rules before you became a member. You also had plenty of opportunity to see why others had been banned (especially here on Serebii) and should avoid repeating such actions.

 

[Schade]

Some norwegian prisons seems more like hotels.
Death Penalty used to be effective.

And a s someone probably said, punishment is a good way to "show" society what kind of behaviour is unacceptable. by stating an example over an individual, or to scare the rest of society to obey the laws of society. (How many times have I said Society now...?)
I think it works wonders, as no one want to be in prison, (except in the hotels in Norway) then they follow the rules.

Did any of this make sense? It did in my head

"Fylla har skylda" punishments can be good to prevent further alcohol by minors.

 

[Ludwig]

Ah but seeing as you are probably not of legal drinking age (I don't know Swedish Law) All the while you are drinking you are responsible for how much you drink. For instance I know I can drink 2 pitchers of beer (Normally Killian's Irish Red) without fear of exceeding the legal limit. After the first pitcher I know whether I will be staying long enough to finish the second pitcher, and have time to let it wear off. It's not like I drink one drink and BAM I don't know what I'm doing Unless I slipped a drug. The point is once I decide to drink even a single 12 oz beer I am responsible for everything that I do after. The idea is that you knew the possibility of doing something stupid/dangerous before you started drinking And took the risk knowing the chances.

In Sweden, you have to be 18 years old to drink alcohol, but 20 years old to buy alcohol that isn't beer.

And for the other thing you wrote, I already wrote an argument against that. You even quoted it. But you didn't give a counterargument.

As for the Forum ban... When you signed up you agreed to follow the rules before you even posted. So if you are proven to be Trolling or posting inappropriately you had accepted the rules before you became a member. You also had plenty of opportunity to see why others had been banned (especially here on Serebii) and should avoid repeating such actions.

I had to sign up to ask the moderators about what the rules meant. Unfortunately, they started ignoring me before I got a satisfactory answer.

Trolling is not provable.

I don't see difference between the posts resulting in infractions and the one that doesn't. Getting banned doesn't make me able to do that.

Some norwegian prisons seems more like hotels.
Death Penalty used to be effective.

And a s someone probably said, punishment is a good way to "show" society what kind of behaviour is unacceptable. by stating an example over an individual, or to scare the rest of society to obey the laws of society. (How many times have I said Society now...?)
I think it works wonders, as no one want to be in prison, (except in the hotels in Norway) then they follow the rules.

Did any of this make sense? It did in my head

"Fylla har skylda" punishments can be good to prevent further alcohol by minors.

That is irrelevant during the current assumptions.

If a person makes the decision to drink, then drives home and hits and kills a family on the way, that person is responsible for killing those people.

That person did the same conscious decisions as another person that got just as drunk but didn't kill someone. Why should they be punished differently?

No one anywhere accepts the "But I was drunk" defense.

That's a lie.

Choosing to drink is just as much of a conscious decision as pulling a trigger. No one accepts the "I didn't kill them. I just pulled the trigger." defense.

I didn't deny that choosing to drink is a conscious decision.

You may not be able to control what you do once you're drunk, but you absolutely can control whether or not you get drunk in the first place. If you consciously choose to get "out of control drunk" you are still responsible for whatever happens afterwards because you made the conscious choice to start drinking. Of course we should punish inebriated criminals.

They controlled their actions the same way as people that didn't commit crimes did. Either don't punish anyone of them or punish all people that get that drunk.

 

[mattj]

Or punish the ones that commit crimes and don't punish the ones that don't. I think most people agree that makes the most sense.

Why would you want people who don't commit crimes to be punished Ludwig?

 

[Malanu]

I had to sign up to ask the moderators about what the rules meant. Unfortunately, they started ignoring me before I got a satisfactory answer.

Trolling is not provable.

I don't see difference between the posts resulting in infractions and the one that doesn't. Getting banned doesn't make me able to do that.

Trolling does not need to proven to the Troll. If the community (more than just a few people) complain, the Mods need to make a choice based on what they read in the forum. If they decide someone is a Troll and should be banned then since that is their job, they get to label Troll, and enforce the rules. There have been many Trolls in the decade I have haunted Forums who swore up and down they weren't Trolls. but it's not their protests that get them labeled it's how and what they post.

In Sweden, you have to be 18 years old to drink alcohol, but 20 years old to buy alcohol that isn't beer.

And for the other thing you wrote, I already wrote an argument against that. You even quoted it. But you didn't give a counterargument.

Thanks for the age info Lud. As for not giving a counter argument... You know I can't help you there I guess. If you are above the legal blood alcohol level you are drunk. If you are above the legal limit and you kill someone you are drunk and a killer! You chose to drink, you need to face the consequences for your drunken actions. It's part of being responsible for being accountable, You drank, you committed a crime You are accountable and should be punished for the crime and for not knowing when you should have stopped.

 

[Ludwig]

Trolling does not need to proven to the Troll.

I'll quote your text again:

As for the Forum ban... When you signed up you agreed to follow the rules before you even posted. So if you are proven to be Trolling or posting inappropriately you had accepted the rules before you became a member. You also had plenty of opportunity to see why others had been banned (especially here on Serebii) and should avoid repeating such actions.

If the community (more than just a few people) complain, the Mods need to make a choice based on what they read in the forum. If they decide someone is a Troll and should be banned then since that is their job, they get to label Troll, and enforce the rules.

If someone is a troll isn't a decision. "Troll" is a word, so it got a definition. If the person fit the criteria that the definition gives, the person is a troll. If the person doesn't fit the criteria, it is not a troll.

Or punish the ones that commit crimes and don't punish the ones that don't. I think most people agree that makes the most sense.

Why would you want people who don't commit crimes to be punished Ludwig?

I want what is considered a crime to be changed.
If the controlled decision is to drink alcohol and the non-controlled decision is to kill, the fault is drinking alcohol. And if that's the fault, it should apply equally to all that drink alcohol. Don't punish for something that isn't controlled, that's what the debate is about.

If it's not possible to determine if drinking the alcohol will result in a crime, then everyone taking that risk is doing the same wrong.

 

[Malanu]

The proof is determined by the Mods. They determine if one fits the definition of Troll, not the members.

As for your concepts of drinking and responsibility. Yup they are right up to the point where I get home safe and sound and drunk B kills someone. Remember you have to pulled over to be found drunk in the first place. The fault is you're drunk and killed someone. That's two crimes not one. I can be sober and accidentally kill someone just as I can be drunk and kill someone. the difference is you broke two laws instead of one. It's really quite simple.

 

[Ludwig]

The proof is determined by the Mods. They determine if one fits the definition of Troll, not the members.

The definition of troll includes intent, the mods can't decided what intent the member had when (s)he wrote the text. There is no way for them to know without a brain scan.

As for your concepts of drinking and responsibility. Yup they are right up to the point where I get home safe and sound and drunk B kills someone. Remember you have to pulled over to be found drunk in the first place. The fault is you're drunk and killed someone. That's two crimes not one. I can be sober and accidentally kill someone just as I can be drunk and kill someone. the difference is you broke two laws instead of one. It's really quite simple.

You're not understanding the debate.
You state how it is, what the laws are. I already know that. This thread is supposed to debate about those facts, not state them.

What is the point of punishing someone because of something that they couldn't control? If it's not controllable, being in jail a few months won't change the probability of it happening again.

And another aspect of the debate is; what's the point of punishing someone that doesn't understand why what it did is wrong? An explanation is more effective than a ban and then ignoring questions. A ban by itself won't improve the situation at all.

 

[Malanu]

Really? So if you accidentally kill someone while sober that's excusable? No You are being charged with being drunk and killing because as most people know the bars have the # for at least one taxi service. If you don't use it you are at fault for involuntary manslaughter. It would be just fine by me to charge the individual for the death over being drunk. If you are foolish enough to drink and drive, you get what you deserve if you cause harm or destruction. You don't understand that a person can be charged with multiple offenses. If your drunk that's a crime, if you kill someone that to is a crime. You have now broken two laws. The alcohol didn't kill the victim the drunk did. Two crimes for the price of one!

 

[mattj]

I want what is considered a crime to be changed.
If the controlled decision is to drink alcohol and the non-controlled decision is to kill, the fault is drinking alcohol. And if that's the fault, it should apply equally to all that drink alcohol. Don't punish for something that isn't controlled, that's what the debate is about.

If it's not possible to determine if drinking the alcohol will result in a crime, then everyone taking that risk is doing the same wrong.

The fault is not the alcohol. The fault lies in the person who chose to drink in the first place. If you don't want to run the risk of killing someone in a drunk driving accident, don't drink. If you think you can control yourself, then drink. If you take that chance and end up committing a crime, you made the choice to drink in the first place. Bad choice. Now pay the price.

You've made the claim that innocent people who commit no crime should not be allowed to drink. By your logic, innocent people who don't commit crimes should be punished and guilty people who do commit crimes should not be punished. How could this possibly make any sense?

 

[Ludwig]

Really? So if you accidentally kill someone while sober that's excusable?

No.

You are being charged with being drunk and killing because as most people know the bars have the # for at least one taxi service. If you don't use it you are at fault for involuntary manslaughter. It would be just fine by me to charge the individual for the death over being drunk. If you are foolish enough to drink and drive, you get what you deserve if you cause harm or destruction. You don't understand that a person can be charged with multiple offenses. If your drunk that's a crime, if you kill someone that to is a crime. You have now broken two laws. The alcohol didn't kill the victim the drunk did. Two crimes for the price of one!

You keep repeating the same thing.
I have written my argument against it several times and you keep not giving counterarguments.
Either reread what I've written and try to understand it, or wait for someone else that does understand it to phrase it differently.

The fault is not the alcohol. The fault lies in the person who chose to drink in the first place. If you don't want to run the risk of killing someone in a drunk driving accident, don't drink. If you think you can control yourself, then drink. If you take that chance and end up committing a crime, you made the choice to drink in the first place. Bad choice. Now pay the price.

You've made the claim that innocent people who commit no crime should not be allowed to drink. By your logic, innocent people who don't commit crimes should be punished and guilty people who do commit crimes should not be punished. How could this possibly make any sense?

I did not make that claim.
What I wrote to Malanu applies to you too.

 

[Malanu]

What frightens me is this is the second thread of his I have seen that questions accountability for criminal actions.
You fail to realize I have understood what you are saying. One is only responsible for getting drunk after which the drunkenness excuses the individual of fault. That is not the case.

One example is driving a car while drunk. The more drunk you are, the less able you are to control your actions. If you are drunk enough, you won't be able to choose to not drive the car(Drunk Driving charge). There was no purpose to disobey the law and no punishment for it will be permanent(No punishment is perminent. you pay your fine, get your licence back eventually). Both the reasons for punishment are invalid, but the individual will still be punished. Having to get a new driver's license or losing money won't help you be better at avoiding driving the car when drunk. The decision to drink enough alcohol to be that drunk could also have been a result of being drunk.

No the reason for punishment is you failed to obey the law. The Law is don't drink and drive. If you don't follow the law you are to pay the price for the violation. If you add vehicular homicide to the drunk driving then you are charged with two crimes as two laws are broken. It's quite clear to understand Ludwig.

 

[mattj]

You've made the claim that innocent people who commit no crime should not be allowed to drink.

I did not make that claim.

Some people do bad things that they don't control when they are drunk, some people are drunk without doing bad things, both groups made the same conscious action and should therefore get the same punishment.

Yes, you did make that claim. That's what's wrong with your incomprehensible stance on punishment. 99.9% of the world agrees that people who do bad things should be punished. You have repeatedly made the claim that innocent people who have done no wrong should be punished, and that people who do commit crimes should not be punished, in this thread. No one agrees with you Ludwig.

I don't know if this is just from being butthurt from your last ban or what, but literally everyone everywhere, but you, agrees that people who commit crimes should be punished. There is no way you're going to convince anyone otherwise. People universally agree that punishment serves many positive purposes. It pressures everyday people to not commit crimes in the first place. It pressures criminals to not commit crimes again. And it protects everyday people from criminals who are bent on committing crimes again. Despite your incomprehensible posts (and I don't mean any offense by that, but most of us do have a hard time understanding what you're trying to say) you have not addressed these three positive points about punishment to anyone's satisfaction.

 

[Charizardfan900]

As both Mattj and Manalu have said, most people except the risk of being drunk and most people understand when enough is enough.

You have to punish someone who has commited a crime while drunk (Or, as lots of people say 'under the influence) because people could get drunk to commit any crime there is and get away with it.

 

[mattj]

@Ludwig:

If you deny that punishment has any positive benefits such as deterring crime, deterring repeat crime, and locking away unrepentant criminals (etc) how do you propose that governments, parents, businesses, and groups deal with the problems of crime and disobedience?