Punishment is important. Humans have evolved a tendency to punish free loaders, and other norm violators, because those norms are important for survival. Animals also have this inborn impulse.
Of course, it helps if everyone involved agrees on the norms.
In humans this is by no means a given. Societies can differ on what they consider acceptable. Punish someone from a different culture for a behaviour his culture supports, and you are likely to get members of that culture punishing the punishers – such as, for example, so-called super villains who attack the police. The super villains (from one perspective) will be heroes in the opposing perspective.
Most people in the US believe the death sentence is a fitting price to pay for murder and that its harshness makes it an effective deterrent. Econometric studies show that it does have a deterrent effect that saves innocent lives. That may however be an artifact of believing there is a high probability the police will catch you, rather than that the punishment will be severe. It also depends on the perception that the odds of capture are not capricious but even across all groups.
Let us look at some specific examples.
Those opposed to the death sentence say it is barbaric, brutalises the population, may increase violence by making it seem acceptable and is irreversible if in error.
Reviews of capital cases since the advent of DNA evidence have revealed high legal error rates (65%) and 1 in 20 of those sent to death row are innocent for the crime. There is a ratio of innocent lives that people are willing to sacrifice to the innocent lives saved. It is about 1 to 5 in modern developed societies, but the revealed error rate in capital cases is about double that.
Most of the world has moved to abolishing capital punishment in spite of majority support everywhere – including among the most intelligent.
Nevertheless, it is also true that as intelligence increases so does opposition. That remains the case even after controlling for a number of alternative explanations such as education, class, gender, race and ideology. This suggests that the anti-capital punishment arguments have the greater merit.
An overwhelming majority of the US (71-92%) want courts to impose harsher sentences on criminals in general than they already do. Only 7-10% have ever expressed a wish for sentences to be less harsh.
As intelligence increases
However, as intelligence increases so does support for keeping the harshness of sentencing where it is – neither increasing nor reducing it. There was never a tendency to favour heavier sentences, but intelligent opinion is that it is a mistake to lighten sentences during crime waves.
Intelligent opinion does lean toward lightening sentences when crime is low but still favours keeping things where they are. This pattern holds even after controlling for the same factors as for capital punishment, above, suggesting that the average harshness of criminal punishment is about right in the US.
There is however inconsistency across judges. Many are way too severe and others too lenient. Judges insist that they need discretion in order to consider particular circumstances that are relevant in order to maximise justice. It turns out this is not what they do. Statistics and experimental court cases tell a story of judges imposing their prior values rather than considering circumstances.
What about corporal punishment?
It used to be universal not too long ago, but sixty-five countries (mostly Europe and Latin America) and parts of the US have banned it. Corporal punishment is still fairly routine in homes and schools – including in places, such as South Africa, which have banned it.
We have all heard the phrase “spare the rod and spoil the child.” Most parents and teachers think spanking is the only conceivable way to discipline children because they lack self-control in the absence of strong incentives. Even those that do not think spanking is the only way to discipline children concede that it is an efficient way.
It will come as no surprise that the overwhelming majority of the US is in favour of spanking children.
Intelligent opinion however opposes it, and strongly so. My usual controls say this is not due to a bias introduced by an outside factor. In short, spanking kids is not the best way to discipline them.
Need structure
Animal trainers have shown that you do not even need to strike animals to make them obedient or perform tricks, so why should it be necessary for children? None of this says it is wise to abandon child discipline. We must teach children what behaviours are unacceptable, and they need structure for their mental health and safety.
I have no information on intelligent opinion on corporal punishment as an alternative to, say, imprisonment for some crimes. I do however think there are arguments in favour. For example, caning for theft could well be more humane than imprisonment (and perhaps getting raped in jail) and just as good a deterrent. If so, it would save resources, too.
In conclusion, we can move toward greater humanity in dealing with those who violate social norms without compromising efforts to prevent or reduce crime, and we should.
In multicultural societies like ours, where norms can clash, greater humanity toward norm violators could save a great deal of social strife down the line. It would be a promising idea to apply this thinking to our treatment of other creatures, too.
[Image: Caleb Woods on Unsplash]
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend