Punishment: Reducing The Time, Increasing The Intensity

What do you guys think about the prisoner being able to choose his length of punishment by choosing his intensity of punishment?

If a man robbed a bank, here might be two extreme choices out of several: 10 yrs in prison or limb removal? There might be more moderate punishments, where he has fingers removed along with reduced jail time. So if he agrees to have 5 fingers removed he can reduce jail time from 10 yrs to 2 or 3 yrs. Also, would it be possible to create an effective, non-physically damaging torture routine? Maybe tie someone down, cut them open and tickle their insides, all without anesthesia but w/ standard surgical procedures. Also, the torture or physical mutilation would require greater levels of intensity the more they wish to reduce time. A guy with a 50 yr sentence would have to receive extreme physical punishment if he wants the entire 50 yrs removed, but he can choose to reduce it by less than 50 yrs and receive less severe torture and mutilation.

What's the greatest level of mutilation you would be willing to receive in order to reduce a 10 yr sentence to 0?

Would it be beneficial to give any person that's not deserving of the death penalty the right to choose?

I personally don't favor the traditional concept of imprisonment. I'd prefer punishment to be first and foremost geared towards compensating victims, along the lines of some kind of indentured servitude (although this would not apply to all types of crime, only some). Also, there's an extent to which I don't think the concept of punishment in itself makes much sense. I don't like the idea of punishment-as-revenge. It has no productive value. It serves no constructive purpose. I think that instead of focusing on punishment, what should be focused on is creating an incentive structure that disincentivizes crime to begin with. The threat of social ostracism can be an incredibly powerful tool in this regaurd.

Sorry not for answering your question directly.

How do you think the torture or mutilation would effect the recipient's psychological state after theyre let go, especially mutilation?

Would you personally want the choice of mutilation or torture if you were looking at 10 years in prison?

Although my thoughts are kind of cloudy on this issue, Brainpolice has the right idea.  Compensating the victim should be the main priority.  And this compensation must come from the criminal's resources, not some government source.

But what about murder?  Walter Block wrote on this topic.  Pretty interesting. 

 http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block34.html

A murderer steals a life, and therefore forfeits his/her own to the victim's heirs.  The new owners could put the criminal to death and charge for admissions, or employ the criminal into servitude. 

 

 

pairunoyd:

How do you think the torture or mutilation would effect the recipient's psychological state after theyre let go, especially mutilation?

Would you personally want the choice of mutilation or torture if you were looking at 10 years in prison?

Personally, I'd rather serve the full term then be subjected to physical pain. But that's just me.

Punishment is meant to reduce crime and provide compensation to the victim. If the robbery sentence is 100 years, then a robber would rather kill that victim after it stole him; in order to prevent the victim from reporting it. But almost all people do not know how many years in jail for robbery. The amount of punishment is a balance to find the optimal prison sentences, minimizing the taxpayer dollars and crime. People that have a damaged prefrontal cortex are more likely to do more crime. People with damaged short term memory would be more violent and would do actions that rewards him instantly, instead of the long-term. Most people that commit crime do not instantly realize how bad the consequences are, since their short term memory is not working. If people do not commit crime if sentences are reduced to zero, then reduce it. If you brainwash people using religion that murderers go to hell, then murderers would be reduced. Austrian economics can reduce crime. Genetic engineering, transhuman technologies or artificial intelligence can prevent crime in the first place.

pairunoyd:

How do you think the torture or mutilation would effect the recipient's psychological state after theyre let go, especially mutilation?

Would you personally want the choice of mutilation or torture if you were looking at 10 years in prison?

I'm not sure how to respond to mutilation/torture as a punishment.  Instinctively, I want to say that torture for the sake of revenge doesn't sound like a great way to compensate the victim or the victim's family.  Criminals, or victims, could be given a choice of the manner of compensation.  Options could include servitude, pay up front, or "productive mutilation," such as selling organs.

If I ran a private court system, I'd deal with murder like this:

1-The family of the victim names a price.

2-The murderer (who, of course, was already convicted before this process started) can choose to pay it or not.

3-If he chooses to pay it, he gives it to the family, and pays the fees to the court in addition.

4-The murderer's "representation agency" - the name I give to a company that backs individuals, and pays if they misbehave, and I believe would exist in a free market - is notified, and may make any decisions they wish about raising premiums, requiring imprisonment as a condition of continued coverage, or cutting off coverage.

5-If the murderer does not pay, he is put to death.

I know it seems like the family would just say some ridiculous amount that the victim cannot pay, but I don't think that's true.  After all, if you say $1billion, you actually get nothing.  If you say $1million, you might very well get $1million.  If they do choose to set it so high that it's basically a death sentence, well, the murderer has given up the right to complain about such things by murdering someone.

Youre assuming the victim's family loves the victim. What if a father WANTED his son dead and told the killer to do it and then the father would pay the killer and then the killer would give the father the money back to get out of prison? Also, what about the prisoners danger to others?

pairunoyd:

What if a father WANTED his son dead and told the killer to do it and then the father would pay the killer and then the killer would give the father the money back to get out of prison?

Then the father was an accomplice to murder and should be tried, convicted, and punished accordingly.  That seems pretty risky for the father, as such money transfers could be traced back to him.  But what if the victim's only family was the father?  I guess the victim's friends or neighbors would decide on the punishment . . . . maybe? 

pairunoyd:

Also, what about the prisoners danger to others?

This is a good point.  Perhaps other residents in the area could pay the victim's family to execute the killer or keep him in a privatized prison for life.  While in prison, the criminal would be put to manual labor and forfeit his proceeds to the victim's family and prison.  The prison should be paid, as they are providing a service.

 

I question the validity of time-based punishment (incarceration/restraints) as being the main method for justice. It seems such a waste to warehouse people. I also tend to focus on what I see as the intrinsic value of punishment, i.e. 'it's just the right thing to do.' I see incarceration's protective benefits, but question the strength of its intrinsic value. Do you think there'd be any 'conversion power' in torture or mutilation? Would a man's choosing to receive limb removal be effectual in improving his morals? 

If you were facing 10 yrs of imprisonment, whats the most amount of body damage you'd be willing to exchange for 0 yrs imprisonment, esp. damage via bodypart removal?

Punishment/compensation must be in the first place proportional. The victim is entitled to no more than what they lost, their time and whatever other costs they might've incurred.

pairunoyd:

Also, what about the prisoners danger to others?

That's the purpose of the "insurance."  In order to get anyone to do business with you, you'll need to carry insurance on yourself - if you rip someone off or kill someone, the insurance company promises to pay damages.  Once you've killed someone, the only insurance policy you're likely to get (depending on the circumstances) would be one which requires you to check into a private jail.