Hacker News Reader

Comment by gpm | Hacker News Reader

I have a similar theory but with torture. For minor offenses instead of imprisoning people just subject them to extreme pain for a short period of time and send them on their way. It has all the benefits you listed and it will interfere less with any job they may hold which should substantially reduce social harm (self explanatory) and recidivism rates (which have been shown to strongly correlate with employment).

For anyone who likes parents theory and dislikes mine, I'd be very interested in knowing why.

(I don't really think this theory is correct - but it does seem plausible)

View on HN

I'm on the fence when it comes to corporal punishment.

Is it less ethical to cane someone for theft than it is to fine them, thus depriving them of money they probably can't afford to lose, or incarcerating them, thus stopping them from being productive members of society and allowing them to hang out with bad influences?

They do this in some countries like Singapore or the Middle East, where they whip or cane criminals for minor offenses.

I don't like the idea, because it's violent and we can't claim the upper moral hand. The beauty of solitary confinement is that it's completely non-violent but it's very harsh mentally. You can make the case that it's mental torture but it's just an edge case of regular prisons, where the number of prisoners N = 1, and the prison is the size of a cell.

>The beauty of solitary confinement is that it's completely non-violent

it is violent. Violence does not have to be a stimulus that you present to the subject (hitting, etc...). It can be a collection of stimuli that you withhold from the subject as in this case.

Someone even coined a term for it: structural violence.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence

I understand what you're saying, but I reject this usage of the word "violence". I'm using the term violence in the traditional sense, meaning causing actual physical harm, vs "preventing a basic need". Punishment is inherently restricting basic needs of some sort. If that were the case, you could argue that my disallowing my children access to Youtube Kids is "violent." I don't want to confuse the terms for the purpose of my point, which is actual physical harm.

If that were the case, you could argue that my disallowing my children access to Youtube Kids is "violent."

How is YouTube Kids a "basic need"?

If you restricted your children access to food, or water, I'd certainly say you were exerting violence on them.

Long-term solitary confinement inherently does harm to the person being subjected to it. That's violence.

That's why I advocate drastically reduced sentencing across the board but enough for the punishment to fit the crime. For example, it's not "violent" to put a first time offender in solitary for 1-2 days. For first time offenders of non-violent crimes, I would argue that would be more than enough to scare them straight and it wouldn't not be violent or enough to do any harm.

Words mean things.

violence (n)

a : the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy

b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure

Just because someone made up his own redefinition doesn't mean much. Edit: In fact, making up a definition of "violence" that is explicitly not "violence" not only doesn't mean much, it's Orwellian and indicative of subterfuge.

--Note Most these questions here are rhetorical, but answer if you want.--

I agree words do mean things. Although, I would say putting someone in solitary confinement is an enactment of force. If that force destroys or damages their sanity would it meet the first definition?

Also let's not forget about the connotation to words. If someone put someone in solitary confinement and basically left them for years on end. May I ask is that cruel? I would say it is cruel.

The definition of cruelty is generally to inflict pain or suffering. So how different is cruelty from violence?

I can go further. Inflict also means to impose. Impose can also mean to force. One can see that these words are related.

So now I shall state what I feel is the most important question people should ask. What power do "you" think the state should have? I would clearly do not want the state to have the power to be cruel. What about the power to enact violence? I would say no again. (Power as in legal authority).

However, one might ask what about war or defending the people with a potentially violent means? Just think about that? I can guess you would probably not want your government to be violent just because it can. However, I also guess that if your country is under attack you would not feel the government is acting wrongly or illegitimately for defending you and the rest of it's citizens. Where do you draw the line though?

Lastly, I say it is wise to ensure a government does not have power that is either immoral or violates the rights of it's citizens.

--edit--

I would agree that from a quick overview of that structural violence page. That seems a bit of a stretch for the word violence.

A man with a gun and a baton beating you (if you resist) and physically forcing you into a tiny windowless cage and locking you in for an extended period of time is... not violence, you suggest?

And you claim words mean things? Who is being Orwellian here? The only difference between your argument and literally 1984 is you've introduced a new ministry of non-violence, the organization that enacts non-violence on citizens by physically forcing them into torture chambers.

Is grabbing someone in an alley and kidnapping them violent? No?

Meh, words change and words mean what we want them to mean.

Many people believe solitary confinement does as much harm or more than physical violence.

By coining terms such as structural violence, we can attempt to disable the tactic of those who support supposedly "non violent" or "lawful" actions that are nonetheless immoral.

Why is violence as punishment morally wrong but very harsh mental conditions not?

For that matter why is violence as punishment morally worse than involuntary confinement as punishment. If Joe does either to you we all agree it's morally wrong, but for some reason we consider justice system sanctioned confinement fine, but not violence. Why?

(I'm assuming you understand violence to include "strapped to a chair and waterboarded" and "fed drugs that trigger pain receptors" - I'm not sure everyone considers the word violence to include those things)

Edit: I know it's against guidelines here to say this - but can we consider not downvoting pfarnsworth to hell - whatever you think of his opinions he is providing good discussion.

Honestly, for a lot of infractions, I'd take the early-modern dozen lashes with a cat-o-nines over the laborious, expensive and perilous processes that the modern legal system can put one through.

I think as a society, physical violence is now considered "medieval" or primitive. Even things like spanking a misbehaving child is considered primitive. Whether that's justified, that's the current direction society is going. So non-violent methods of punishment will just be easier to sell than more violent methods.

You're right, it's all stimulus. If we carry this further, would it be okay to one day feed a VR of some very disturbing experience as "prison"? Or for that matter, administer some drug that frightens you enough to induce negative feedback?

Drugs are already used for the death penalty. It's not that far off.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com