This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Monday, December 14, 2020
The resemblance fallacy and the death penalty
I think it is a fallacy to think that in order to fit the crime, a punishment has to resemble the crime. People think that way about murder, but what about theft, rape, or torture?
Criminology is not in my wheelhouse. However, I found this article that challenges your "resemblance fallacy" on several points: 1) Resemblance is not the standard, the standard is commensurability. 2) The "resemblance fallacy" may be a straw man. The punishment of a crime should never be a crime in itself (such as torture for torture). 3) Deterrence is not the only standard of success in a sentencing structure. Additional factors include incapacitation, rehabilitation, and desert. Life sentencing better fulfills the goals of rehabilitation and incapacitation. The death penalty hinges more on a just desert. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=6362&context=jclc
The fallacy is just thinking that the similarity of the punishment to the crime is a sign that it is the penalty that a criminal deserves. It feels to people as if it is what they deserve because of its similarity, but this is an illusion. Now, you might, on independent grounds, conclude that this is the correct penalty, but I think the death penalty gets a certain appearance of validity because that is what the crime was.
There must be something to the theory otherwise “the punishment doesn’t fit the crime” wouldn’t be a legitimate complaint - ever. It’s not a fallacy if you think that complaint is sometimes a rational complaint.
One value of a standard of resemblance (the more refined concept is commensurate) is to limit the punishment of a crime to avoid sentencing that exceeds the crime. I understand this to be the purpose of the "eye for an eye" standard. The other value of commensurate punishment is that it is sufficient for the crime.
"Punishment" ought not be the function of the state in any case, but rather deterrence and protection of the populace. No one (and I do mean no one should ever be imprisoned unless their continued freedom poses a danger to society. Our penal system today is like a toolbox that contains only a hammer. Therefore it treats all problems as though they were nails. Currently, the answer to all crimes seems to be prison, no matter how inappropriate or irrelevant such a "punishment" is in any particular case.
6 comments:
Criminology is not in my wheelhouse. However, I found this article that challenges your "resemblance fallacy" on several points: 1) Resemblance is not the standard, the standard is commensurability. 2) The "resemblance fallacy" may be a straw man. The punishment of a crime should never be a crime in itself (such as torture for torture). 3) Deterrence is not the only standard of success in a sentencing structure. Additional factors include incapacitation, rehabilitation, and desert. Life sentencing better fulfills the goals of rehabilitation and incapacitation. The death penalty hinges more on a just desert. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=6362&context=jclc
The fallacy is just thinking that the similarity of the punishment to the crime is a sign that it is the penalty that a criminal deserves. It feels to people as if it is what they deserve because of its similarity, but this is an illusion. Now, you might, on independent grounds, conclude that this is the correct penalty, but I think the death penalty gets a certain appearance of validity because that is what the crime was.
There must be something to the theory otherwise “the punishment doesn’t fit the crime” wouldn’t be a legitimate complaint - ever. It’s not a fallacy if you think that complaint is sometimes a rational complaint.
I now see you limited this to the death penalty. My mistake.
One value of a standard of resemblance (the more refined concept is commensurate) is to limit the punishment of a crime to avoid sentencing that exceeds the crime. I understand this to be the purpose of the "eye for an eye" standard. The other value of commensurate punishment is that it is sufficient for the crime.
"Punishment" ought not be the function of the state in any case, but rather deterrence and protection of the populace. No one (and I do mean no one should ever be imprisoned unless their continued freedom poses a danger to society. Our penal system today is like a toolbox that contains only a hammer. Therefore it treats all problems as though they were nails. Currently, the answer to all crimes seems to be prison, no matter how inappropriate or irrelevant such a "punishment" is in any particular case.
Post a Comment