Guiding principles for quantifying punishments

[Ifat Glassman]

what should be the guiding principles for quantifying punishments for crimes?

Why should a man that committed murder spend 30 years in jail, while someone who raped serve 6 years, and someone who stole a Banana just pay a fine? all have violated rights...

[DarkWaters]

what should be the guiding principles for quantifying punishments for crimes?

Why should a man that committed murder spend 30 years in jail, while someone who raped serve 6 years, and someone who stole a Banana just pay a fine? all have violated rights...

Are you looking for something more specific than "the punishment should be directly proportional to the number of rights violated and each violated right should be weighted (in terms of the extent of the punishment) according to the severity of the infraction."? An obvious example is that stealing someone's banana would be deemed less serious than taking someone's life.

Of course, someone would still need to provide a proper frame of reference to compare punishments. Sure we can sort offenses according to their severity and express the punishment for a transgression recursively in terms of a subset of less serious offenses, but this is meaningless unless if we were to quantify the punishment for a few "base" offenses. If you are inquiring what should be the guiding principle for this, I would base it on the current penalties for comparable offenses today that seem reasonable.

Now, if we wanted to be silly, we could spend a significant portion of this thread in some Monty Python-esque discussion over the order of severity of stealing various kinds of fruits and vegetables. I would say purloining a cherimoya is more serious than stealing a watermelon, which is more serious than stealing a spaghetti squash, which is more serious than taking a butternut squash, which is more serious than taking a banana, which is more serious than taking one of those tiny bananas, which is....

Edited August 18, 2006 by DarkWaters

[Inspector]

Now, if we wanted to be silly, we could spend a significant portion of this thread in some Monty Python-esque discussion over the order of severity of stealing various kinds of fruits and vegetables. I would say purloining a cherimoya is more serious than stealing a watermelon, which is more serious than stealing a spaghetti squash, which is more serious than taking a butternut squash, which is more serious than taking a banana, which is more serious than taking one of those tiny bananas, which is....

Well, stealing fruit is always a problem... but the real issue is threatening people with fruit. Of course, I do teach a class in defending against just such behavior.

Here, now... you come at me with this bowl of raspberries.

Okay I'm done. Resume your thread.

[LaszloWalrus]

Inspector, orange you funny.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Ifat Glassman]

Are you looking for something more specific than "the punishment should be directly proportional to the number of rights violated and each violated right should be weighted (in terms of the extent of the punishment) according to the severity of the infraction."? An obvious example is that stealing someone's banana would be deemed less serious than taking someone's life.

"Number of rights violated"? It really doesn't take much to realize that this is not the criterion by which severity of offenses is sorted. If I steal a car, or if I steal a Banana I violated the same amount of rights and the same right. So my question is why should the punishment be different? Do you even think the punishment should be different?

So I repeat my question, which no one here answered yet: What should be the guiding principles to decide which crime is more severe than the other (=>How to quantify the punishment)?

Of course, someone would still need to provide a proper frame of reference to compare punishments. Sure we can sort offenses according to their severity and express the punishment for a transgression recursively in terms of a subset of less serious offenses, but this is meaningless unless if we were to quantify the punishment for a few "base" offenses. If you are inquiring what should be the guiding principle for this, I would base it on the current penalties for comparable offenses today that seem reasonable.

I agree with the frame of reference idea. Now my question is, what should be the punishment for felony of level 0, and why that punishment and not another one?

I don't want an answer like "well this is what we've been using so far and it is great, so I suggest using it some more", but a discussion about what makes it great, or not great in the first-place.

[Maarten]

Well, I think it depends on the value of the objects involved in the crime. It's a matter of acknowledging that things have a certain identity, and therefore can be of lesser or greater value than other things.

For example, a banana is not of the same value as a car would be; therefore I think it would be justified to judge theft of the car to be more serious than theft of the banana. The car-theft causes much greater losses to the owner, just as hitting a person once and beating them almost to death should require different punishments.

[DarkWaters]

"Number of rights violated"? It really doesn't take much to realize that this is not the criterion by which severity of offenses is sorted. If I steal a car, or if I steal a Banana I violated the same amount of rights and the same right. So my question is why should the punishment be different? Do you even think the punishment should be different?

If you think that I was advocating that the punishment for stealing a car should be tantamount to the punishment for stealing a banana then you have misunderstood my post. Furthermore, the number of rights that an individual has violated in no way gives indication to the severity of the rights that are violated. To my knowledge, nobody on here has ever taken such a position.

What should be the guiding principles to decide which crime is more severe than the other (=>How to quantify the punishment)?

I will proceed to answer your question assuming that we must design a punitive system from scratch.

Please note that when assigning a punishment for a certain action, the following should all be taken into consideration:

* The number of rights that this action has violated. (Did you steal one person's banana, or did you steal 10,000 bananas from 10,000 different people, where each person lost exactly one banana due to your theft?)

* The severity of your actions. (Due to your infraction, will someone just have to skip their lunch? Will somebody lose their life?)

* The motive for your actions. (Did you have malicious intent? Did you unwittingly commit the crime?)

* The likelihood that you would commit additional crimes in the future.

Abstractly, whatever punishment one would receive for a transgression would be a function of the above factors and anything else pertinent that I overlooked. Needless to say, some of these points are difficult to prove so there will almost surely be some subjective factor in assigning a punishment. This would warrant appointing legal scholars to serve as judges in whatever justice system we are establishing.

I agree with the frame of reference idea. Now my question is, what should be the punishment for felony of level 0, and why that punishment and not another one?

In terms of an example, lets continue discussing petty theft (not burglary, robbery, embezzlement, grand larceny). The punishment for intentionally stealing a tangible item that cannot be returned should certainly include the present day value of the item along with an additional penalty for punitive damages. There should also be an additional penalty if the item possessed a detectable sentimental value to its rightful possessor especially if the thief had reason to perceive the item's sentimental value upon taking it.

Depending on the likelihood of the individual to continue stealing, some incarceration might be appropriate.

So why should the penalty for petty theft include a monetary fine? Well, it seems that by stealing the thief has deprived someone of their property so it seems logical to force them to reimburse the rightful owner with the cash equivalent of the property value along with the additional penalties deemed appropriate by a court of law.

Jail time would be appropriate if there is reason to believe that this individual will continue violating the rights of others and therefore there is justification to deprive this individual of his ability to do so for a professionally determined timeframe.

Does this answer your question Ifat? More examples can be provided if it will be deemed helpful. In addition, if it will be helpful, we can spend many vital hours going into great detail about which kinds of fruits and vegetables are considered more precious (in terms of having them stolen) than other kinds.

[Ifat Glassman]

Please note that when assigning a punishment for a certain action, the following should all be taken into consideration:

* The number of rights that this action has violated. (Did you steal one person's banana, or did you steal 10,000 bananas from 10,000 different people, where each person lost exactly one banana due to your theft?)

* The severity of your actions. (Due to your infraction, will someone just have to skip their lunch? Will somebody lose their life?)

* The motive for your actions. (Did you have malicious intent? Did you unwittingly commit the crime?)

* The likelihood that you would commit additional crimes in the future.

Great! Thanks for summing that up so nicely. I also agree with everything you said about present-day value of stolen items, and the compensation for sentimental value of property...

Now that you wrote down the principles, I can proceed to ask why.

See my problem is that I can't see the connection between ethics and severity of crimes.

As far as I was taught an action can be either moral or not (binary), and there is no such thing as something "evil" and "more evil", it is either evil or not (or bad if you prefer another word).

So the result of this is that once a person has stolen Banana or a car, his actions are morally bad in equal degree (since there is no such thing as a "degree of morality").

If that is the case, then the severity of crimes is a subject outside of ethics, which leads to the question - what are the principles by which we should judge "severity of crime"?

Maarten (and yourself) suggested the results of the crime as one of the criterion for that.

But you also suggest the intention behind the crime also matters: if someone run-over someone out of recklessnesses or stabbed his body to an unrecognizable mush different punishments are due, even if the outcome is similar (loss of life of 1 man).

Now, why would anyone care about the intention behind the crime, if we are not concerned with ethics?

Another important principle you suggested is:

Depending on the likelihood of the individual to continue stealing, some incarceration might be appropriate.

...

Jail time would be appropriate if there is reason to believe that this individual will continue violating the rights of others and therefore there is justification to deprive this individual of his ability to do so for a professionally determined time frame.

I agree with that completely.

But this suggests again that punishment for crimes is not in proportion to how unethical the crime was.

Which leads me again to the question of "levels of morality"...

When I think about a serial killer or a rapist, and someone who stole a Banana (or some other valuable fruit), they are both immoral, but I can't help but think that the killer/rapist are more evil.

But how can something be "more evil"?

I would appreciate help with this question...

Edited August 20, 2006 by ifatart

[DarkWaters]

Great! Thanks for summing that up so nicely.

You are welcome.

If that is the case, then the severity of crimes is a subject outside of ethics, which leads to the question - what are the principles by which we should judge "severity of crime"?

In retrospect, I realized that I should have said "severity of the consequence of a crime" as opposed to the "severity of a crime." I will proceed to answer your questions assuming that they are concerning evaluating the severity of a consequence of a crime.

Now, why would anyone care about the intention behind the crime, if we are not concerned with ethics?

Why are we no longer concerned with ethics? (This is the ethics messageboard, right? )

I agree with that completely.

But this suggests again that punishment for crimes is not in proportion to how unethical the crime was.

Which leads me again to the question of "levels of morality"...

When I think about a serial killer or a rapist, and someone who stole a Banana (or some other valuable fruit), they are both immoral, but I can't help but think that the killer/rapist are more evil.

But how can something be "more evil"?

Please note that the above passage of mine was in reference to the specific case of a petty thief, not any arbitrary criminal. A serial killer or rapist commit actions that are more evil than a petty thief because the consequences of their actions are more severe, their intent is is to inflict greater (unjustified) harm to other individuals and their future actions are more likely to be more heinous than those of a petty thief. Even in the unlikely situation that there is good reason to believe that a serial rapist or a mass murdered will cease committing crimes, they still deserve to be incarcerated for the abhorrent actions that they have done.

I hope that this helps!

[Ifat Glassman]

But this suggests again that punishment for crimes is not in proportion to how unethical the crime was.

Which leads me again to the question of "levels of morality"...

When I think about a serial killer or a rapist, and someone who stole a Banana (or some other valuable fruit), they are both immoral, but I can't help but think that the killer/rapist are more evil.

But how can something be "more evil"?

A serial killer or rapist commit actions that are more evil than a petty thief because the consequences of their actions are more severe, their intent is is to inflict greater (unjustified) harm to other individuals and their future actions are more likely to be more heinous than those of a petty thief.

You say that the degree of "evil-ness" of an action depends on the consequences of the action, or on the intended consequences of the action (which one, BTW?).

As I said, I never saw any literature in Objectivism that discusses "degrees of evil/good".

Can anyone refer me to any?

Or if not, present the basic ideas or premises in Ethics on which the hierarchy of "degree of evil/goodness" comes from?

[Olex]

You say that the degree of "evil-ness" of an action depends on the consequences of the action, or on the intended consequences of the action (which one, BTW?).

That would be both. Criminal intent comes from the errors in principle. Criminal consequences come from either errors in principle or from errors in knowledge.

Both are errors that initiate physical force, which in turns deprives another of individual rights. Thus, those rights must be protected against those two kind of errors. This is the key here - it is the initiation of force that must be judged and quantified. Intent can be a source. Consequences [in this context] (even without intent) are initiation of force. This is what binds intent and consequences together, and why they come together.

As I said, I never saw any literature in Objectivism that discusses "degrees of evil/good". Can anyone refer me to any?

I don't have in mind a direct text on degrees of evilness and goodness. However, I did see number of comparisons of the following nature: holding principle A is bad, but holding principle B is worse. This presupposes a possibility of comparing different evils, and thus degree of evilness.

The Age of Envy in Return of the Primitive is an example for the above, where it compares envy versus hate of good for being good.

[DarkWaters]

You say that the degree of "evil-ness" of an action depends on the consequences of the action, or on the intended consequences of the action (which one, BTW?).

Both the consequences of an action and the actor's intent when committing the action are crucial factors when evaluating an action, benign or malicious.

Edited August 23, 2006 by DarkWaters

[Ifat Glassman]

That would be both. Criminal intent comes from the errors in principle. Criminal consequences come from either errors in principle or from errors in knowledge.

Both are errors that initiate physical force, which in turns deprives another of individual rights. Thus, those rights must be protected against those two kind of errors. This is the key here - it is the initiation of force that must be judged and quantified. Intent can be a source. Consequences [in this context] (even without intent) are initiation of force. This is what binds intent and consequences together, and why they come together.

There should be a separation between compensation and punishment, and those should be determined primarily by intention and type of mistake made by the (rights) violator which led to the occasion where rights have been violated, and secondarily by the consequences.

the first question we must ask, is about the intention of the violator. Did he intend to cause damage?

Yes? you should compensate and be in prison. How much time in prison? that depends on the severity of damage involved (when the standard is human life), chances of that person to continue violating people's rights if that person is free, and it depends on the severity of the damage of their possible further criminal activity.

No? then:

Second question we should ask is was the incident caused because of lack of concern for other people's rights by the violator: which means recklessness, not taking proper precautions when a risk of harming someone is involved, etc'.

If the answer is Yes, then he should compensate and be punished.

No? then the next question is:

Could the violator prevent the incident from happening had they used their mind in a better way?

Yes? Then they should compensate, but not be punished further.

No? Then they should not be held responsible at all, not even to compensate.

Here are examples (+ their corresponding principles):

1. If I violated someone's rights by mistake that could have been prevented if I had used logic, then I should compensate them for their damage, but I should not be punished (further).
   If the damage was an inevitable accident (inevitable in regards to whether or not I could prevent it by using logic), then even if I was involved in the accident, I should not be compelled to compensate.
   Example:
   • If I forgot the cooking gas on and it caused my neighbor's apartment to burn then I should pay.
     
   • If I was cooking, went outside to the yard to pick a lemon, and all of a sudden had a stroke (which I had no way of predicting), and the neighbor's house got burned, then the damage to the neighbors' house should be considered as created by "forces of nature", and I should not be held responsible by law to compensate.
     

[*]If I violated someone's rights by recklessness and neglect (which is more than just making a mistake, but involves deliberate evasion, then I should compensate, AND I should be punished.

Example: Driving fast and not paying attention to the road and hitting someone.

[*]If I deliberately violated someone's rights but it was an extraordinary event in my life, I should compensate, and I should be punished, but less severely than a person who is more likely to repeat the crime.

Example: Catching wife cheating and beating her up, and it is the first time I beat someone up.

[*]If I violate peoples' rights on a daily basis, as profession or to satisfy some perverted psychological need, then I should compensate and be held in prison until there is reason to believe I will not repeat that behavior if set free.

Example: A serial killer/rapist, or professional bank robber.

Now to talk about the amount:

• Compensation should be determined by the value of the ruined goods, and also according to sentimental value like DarkWaters suggested.
  
• Punishment should be determined according to the need to prevent rights from being violated, not just by criminals, but also by potential criminals. Which means that the punishment should not just be according to the likelihood that a person will repeat a crime, but also serve as a way to deter people from committing the crime/felony. The punishment should not be determined according to how evil or bad the deed is (though the two may overlap, and it is even logical that they would overlap). the purpose of punishment is to prevent violation of rights, or more accurate, to prevent damage.
  

Everything I said so far is just a summary + conclusions from what was said, according to how I understand it, and does not represent my final opinion on this matter, because I think that there is something about this that I am missing, which is the relation of ethics to severity of crimes.

An outcome of determining crime by the severity of the consequences is that a person might be punished very severely for something they did even if ethically, their action was not "very bad".

Since there is no organized analysis/theory about degrees of evilness/goodness in Objectivist literature (which is a HUGE piece that is missing in Objectivism), there is nothing more I can add, until I understand that subject.

Edited August 24, 2006 by ifatart

[MichaelMartin]

In contrast, property crimes are fundamentally different than crimes that violate one's person, too. Rand had a lot to say about people who initiate violence. A crime such as murder is fundamentally and objectively different than stealing the same person's banana or car precisely because it is irreversable.

Comparitively, murder is a kind of theft in that the murder steals EVERYTHING that person values, will value, can value, might value, etc. It also takes from other anything of value that person may have been to them. In that sense, the theft of any one object is relatively inconseqential, isn't it?

With any crime, the criminal must make the victim whole again. Steal a banana, provide the value of the banana. He must also make up for the fact that he had no right to take it. That is punitive damages in civil law and fines or incarceration in criminal law. Criminal law really does not account for the victim in the same way civil law does. That is why it is not Victim v. Criminal but rather The People v. Criminal.

So, my feeling is full compensation to victim plus what it cost him to pursue, plus something to make up for the aggravation for any kind of theft.

Murder is really a whole other subject.

Michael

There should be a separation between compensation and punishment, and those should be determined primarily by intention and type of mistake made by the (rights) violator which led to the occasion where rights have been violated, and secondarily by the consequences.

the first question we must ask, is about the intention of the violator. Did he intend to cause damage?

Yes? you should compensate and be in prison. How much time in prison? that depends on the severity of damage involved (when the standard is human life), chances of that person to continue violating people's rights if that person is free, and it depends on the severity of the damage of their possible further criminal activity.

No? then:

Second question we should ask is was the incident caused because of lack of concern for other people's rights by the violator: which means recklessness, not taking proper precautions when a risk of harming someone is involved, etc'.

If the answer is Yes, then he should compensate and be punished.

No? then the next question is:

Could the violator prevent the incident from happening had they used their mind in a better way?

Yes? Then they should compensate, but not be punished further.

No? Then they should not be held responsible at all, not even to compensate.

Here are examples (+ their corresponding principles):

1. If I violated someone's rights by mistake that could have been prevented if I had used logic, then I should compensate them for their damage, but I should not be punished (further).
   If the damage was an inevitable accident (inevitable in regards to whether or not I could prevent it by using logic), then even if I was involved in the accident, I should not be compelled to compensate.
   Example:
   • If I forgot the cooking gas on and it caused my neighbor's apartment to burn then I should pay.
     
   • If I was cooking, went outside to the yard to pick a lemon, and all of a sudden had a stroke (which I had no way of predicting), and the neighbor's house got burned, then the damage to the neighbors' house should be considered as created by "forces of nature", and I should not be held responsible by law to compensate.
     

[*]If I violated someone's rights by recklessness and neglect (which is more than just making a mistake, but involves deliberate evasion, then I should compensate, AND I should be punished.

Example: Driving fast and not paying attention to the road and hitting someone.

[*]If I deliberately violated someone's rights but it was an extraordinary event in my life, I should compensate, and I should be punished, but less severely than a person who is more likely to repeat the crime.

Example: Catching wife cheating and beating her up, and it is the first time I beat someone up.

[*]If I violate peoples' rights on a daily basis, as profession or to satisfy some perverted psychological need, then I should compensate and be held in prison until there is reason to believe I will not repeat that behavior if set free.

Example: A serial killer/rapist, or professional bank robber.

Now to talk about the amount:

• Compensation should be determined by the value of the ruined goods, and also according to sentimental value like DarkWaters suggested.
  
• Punishment should be determined according to the need to prevent rights from being violated, not just by criminals, but also by potential criminals. Which means that the punishment should not just be according to the likelihood that a person will repeat a crime, but also serve as a way to deter people from committing the crime/felony. The punishment should not be determined according to how evil or bad the deed is (though the two may overlap, and it is even logical that they would overlap). the purpose of punishment is to prevent violation of rights, or more accurate, to prevent damage.
  

Everything I said so far is just a summary + conclusions from what was said, according to how I understand it, and does not represent my final opinion on this matter, because I think that there is something about this that I am missing, which is the relation of ethics to severity of crimes.

An outcome of determining crime by the severity of the consequences is that a person might be punished very severely for something they did even if ethically, their action was not "very bad".

Since there is no organized analysis/theory about degrees of evilness/goodness in Objectivist literature (which is a HUGE piece that is missing in Objectivism), there is nothing more I can add, until I understand that subject.

[Lathanar]

As I said, I never saw any literature in Objectivism that discusses "degrees of evil/good".

Can anyone refer me to any?

Or if not, present the basic ideas or premises in Ethics on which the hierarchy of "degree of evil/goodness" comes from?

I believe this is covered in OPAR with the concept of justice. If good is a positive value, and evil a negative value, you reward each appropriate to it's value level, punishment being a negative reward. I believe that was the jist of it.

[Vladimir Berkov]

Another important consideration is the effectiveness and costs of different punishments. For example, a system in which the punishment for all crimes is life in prison would likely be untenable regardless of its philosophical underpinnings. I thus think the creation of a penological system is much more economics-based than philosophy-based.

A good penological system should seek to create disincentives proportional to the incentives for the offenses. For instance, life in prison is too great a disincentive for stealing a banana. Imposing such a severe punishment would reduce the number of banana thefts, but it carries a lot of "dead weight" costs because reduction of banana thefts can likely be accomplished with the imposition of a $500 fine.

Too, you have to weigh the value of rehabilitation with the value of punishment. Putting people in prison causes great hardship for the inmate's ability to function in society even when they are released, and in many ways putting some people in prison makes them more dangerous to society when they get out than when they were put in.

Essentially, the nature of the offense is just the starting point. You also have to look at the cost of imprisonment in monetary terms, in terms of rehabilitation, incentives/disincentives for other offenders, etc.

[softwareNerd]

Since there is no organized analysis/theory about degrees of evilness/goodness in Objectivist literature (which is a HUGE piece that is missing in Objectivism), there is nothing more I can add, until I understand that subject.

My memory is a bit fuzzy on this, but I think you might find some material in Dr. Peikoff's lecture titled "Judging, Feeling and not being Moralistic". There may also be some material in Dr. Bernstein's lecture titled "Villany: The Nature of Evil". As far as I remember, these do not address severity of crime though. They address questions like: was Kant more evil than Hitler?

Punishment for crime should be based on things like the intent, severity, and prevention of further harm -- as some posts above have indicated. I don't think a criminal penalty should be based on the degree of a person's evil, only on the external manifestation of that evil as it violates the rights of other people. For instance, one might consider a "hate crime" to be more evil -- because of its nihilism -- than a crime where the criminal is trying to get something of value from his victim. However, this is not something for the courts to take into consideration.