Threats

[Drew1776]

How would an Objectivist view threats? If I threaten to kill you what should my punishment be. This is assuming that to kill you is clearly within my power and is not an idle threat or a joke. How should/would the punishment of a threat be related to the threat it’s self? For instance if I threaten to steal your watch that doesn’t seem quite as bad as threatening to kill you. I think Rand may have talked about this somewhere but I can’t find it. I’m interested in the philosophical implications of threats but I’m more interested in thoughts on how this translates into what a just punishment should/would be.

As far as my thoughts I’m not sure because I’m not grasping the underlying philosophical implications. Someone who threatens to kill someone doesn’t actually kill someone so it doesn’t seem that their punishment should be the same as that for a murderer. Also I’d be pretty understanding of someone who was mad saying “I’m going to kill you.” People can get wrapped up in the moment and may say things that they wouldn’t say otherwise. But then I look at people who send death threats. The intent of these is to cause fear. It uses threats to force an action. I’m really disgusted by things like this because it is impossible for the receiver of such a threat to know what the sender is really thinking. This means that any such threats would be treated by the receiver as the most dangerous. As with all things context is everything. I just wanted to know how threats should be “judged” on a philosophical level and how that might translate into a general rule or rules regarding punishment.

[DavidOdden]

A threat is, in degree, a lesser violation of a person's rights, i.e. it is not the same as actually killing a person. There should be a distinction made under the law between acts, attempted acts, and threats. Threatening to murder a person leaves open the possibility that the person will say to himself afterwards "Wait, that would be wrong, I can't kill him", whereas an attempt (which means you've taken physical steps to bring about the act) makes that possibility much more remote.

The punishment should be in part related to the credibility of the threat. Within the realm of non-joke, non-idle threats, some threats are better-supported than others. If the facts more strongly indicate that the person really does intend to make good on the threat, the punishment should be more severe, basically in proportion to the level of fear that would be created in the target that the deed will be carried out.

The problem is that we (i.e. Americans) do not have a sufficiently well articulated notion of justice that a proper formula can be offered. What is the balance between the simple statement "I'm gonna kill you" and a declaration which you must believe true that "I'm gonna burn your house down"? Or "I'm gonna blow up your car". The Hamurabbinical approach is to prescribe execution for most crimes. That's fairly simple, but not exactly just.

Here's a proposed number: minimum 1 month for making a threat. It can go up to multiple years, for a serious threat against life.

[D'kian]

Let's begin by making one thing clear: a threat is an action.

Now, what is a threat expected to accomlpish? It depends on the threat, of course. A threat to kill someone is not the same action as actually killing that eprson. Obviously then the punishment should not be the same. But I think we can agree that the action of making a threat does violate the threatened person's rights, as has been illustrated in this thread already.

I concurr with David, there should be some time served for making credible threats. I would add that multiple threats should be punished with more time.

[Qwertz]

I think we've glossed over the more interesting question of how to decide whether a threat is in fact not an idle one. When are the threatened person's rights violated? When he feels threatened? That seems subjective. When a "reasonable person under the circumstances" would be justified in feeling threatened? Is that better? Or does it pertain instead to what the threatener does or thinks? Must we analyze intent, and if so, how do we do it objectively? I admit I do not have quick answers for any of these questions...

-Q

[MisterSwig]

How would an Objectivist view threats? If I threaten to kill you what should my punishment be. This is assuming that to kill you is clearly within my power and is not an idle threat or a joke. How should/would the punishment of a threat be related to the threat it’s self?

I think a threat qualifies as approximately 50% of the actual crime. You conceptually conveyed your intention of initiating lethal force, yet you did not physically carry out your threat. So, you only went 50% of the way. Thus, you should get 50% of the punishment of murder.

So, if murder carries a sentence of life in prison, then a serious and real threat of murder should carry a sentence of approximately half the typical life sentence, with the possibility of early parole for a positive psychological examination.

A serious and real threat of murder would have to be clearly defined of course. And you could play with the percentage of the punishment for murder. Maybe it should only be a third of the time, because you could make the argument that there is also attempted murder. So a threat would get 33% of the time, an attempt would get 66%, and murder would get the full time.