5 ms·

To what end? The severity of capital punishment barely effects civilian crime numbers. Instead - and i have spent all of 10 seconds thinking this through - wha

To what end? The severity of capital punishment barely effects civilian crime numbers. Instead - and i have spent all of 10 seconds thinking this through - what about we just pay people to snitch on a business/employer if its knowingly doing such things. Perhaps in % of the settlement and/or potential fall out costs. That'd change behavior as well as catch issues soon enough to prevent them.

5w6u56uw 12d ago
> To what end? The satisfaction of revenge and the entertainment value of watching it televised.
- mrexroad 12d ago
  And where does that end? Public stonings, where you can bid on the rocks? Cut a thief’s hand off?
  - deleted 11d ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 11d ago
    Suggesting the death penalty when these crimes kill people is not advocating for a new type of punishment. Treating a burglary as more severe than a multi million dollar pension fraud seems backward by any metric beyond the social status of the criminals involved.
    - wizardforhire 11d ago
      Well we all know now that the greatest crime is owning zines
      - Retric 11d ago
        Murder is bad. This kind of harm is murder.
- trescenzi 11d ago
  I enjoy Camus’ take on this. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/albert-camus-reflections-on-the-guillotine https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/albert-camus-reflect...
amelius 12d ago
You mean like whistleblowers?
elmomle 11d ago
It has been said that a person cannot serve two masters. The incentive system in the West right now is structured such that corporate executives gain a great reward from serving their company, and little punishment from failing to serve humanity. If society is to flourish, humanity must be structurally prioritized. Due to regulatory capture and general corruption, I don't think an approach that merely tries to punish corporations financially will ever work. If you have executive powers and commit or permit a crime against humanity in the name of your company, then you have declared your allegiance. A functioning society would punish this in the most serious way possible. Great power, great responsibility and all that.
- cmrdporcupine 11d ago
  We used to reward people for serving humanity by making them feel good about public service and being a citizen and neighbour. That was a thing people around me had growing up and many of my family dedicated their life to public service professions (teaching, city administration, etc.) on that basis. And this was common among the middle class generally. You could have a reasonable lifelong profession and a good retirement doing this. Cynicism has washed that away. And people openly disparage public servants and get resentful of people who still manage to pull a living in this way.
penguin_booze 11d ago
No punishment can undo the crime. So we might has well end the criminal and save the money that clothe and feed them otherwise. But the larger point is that we should abolish the notion of 'limited liability' about corporations. That'll strike fear into the heart of executives, knowing that the law can come after both them and all their moneys and possessions. Suddenly the thought of 'oh, what if I fuck up?' pop up in their heads. They'll imagine their families begging on the streets for basic sustenance. That, if nothing else, will get them to behave like a normal person.
estearum 11d ago
The vast majority of "civilian crimes" are crimes of passion, desperation, or being actually mentally incapable of reasoning about consequences. That is not what these crimes are nor who commits them. These people actually tend to speak with lawyers prior to committing their crimes, and their lawyers will report something between "not technically illegal" to "probably illegal and the penalty is [something you really don't care about at all]" We can, should, and in fact already do have whistleblowers as well. But all you're doing is (slightly) raising the chances that you get reported. There are still many, many corruptible steps from that to being investigated, then from being investigated to being convicted, then from being convicted to being punished. In fact, as we've already established, the actual "punishment" is frequently not a punishment at all. It's just the cost of doing business. Consider these responses to an executive asking their lawyer for guidance on a legally ambiguous but clearly antisocial decision (where most of these decisions land): Response 1: "Not clearly illegal, we could argue it in court, and if we lose the penalty is a couple million dollars." Response 2: "Not clearly illegal, we could argue it in court, and if we lose the penalty is you going to prison for the rest of your life."
throwaway_7274 11d ago
I’m no proponent of capital punishment, but to take the question seriously: as an extreme measure to disincentivize extreme externalities that would otherwise never be priced in. In the status quo, captains of industry have something close to a call option on the social utility of their products. They capture much of the upside (they get paid when people enjoy their goretex jackets), but are pretty free to socialize tail risks (relative to the harm, they have little to lose from poisoning thousands. Maybe a lawsuit. Maybe they have to sell the third house.) A society could decide that this is not a desirable incentive structure. There’s a pirates-and-emperors aspect to this: such measures are taken in some societies to disincentivize O(1) violent crimes. Why (really, why? It’s worth thinking about!) are they rarely taken for O(n) crimes?
ta988 11d ago
x% of the money distributed to shareholders for how long this was going on taken from current revenue, not benefits. That should also push shareholders to do the right choices in who they support.
- pasc1878 11d ago
  No that does not work the ones who benefited just sell the shares before the fines are imposed and the ones who buy would be the ones you punish then.
  - ta988 11d ago
    the value of the shares would drop anyway for the first group.
    - pasc1878 11d ago
      They would sell before the shares started dropping See who owns Thames Water now and compare with who held it 15-20 years ago
awakeasleep 11d ago
Simply to assuage public indignation
selfmodruntime 11d ago
To the end of hindering people from literally poisoning all of hunanity??

5w6u56uw 12d ago

> To what end? The satisfaction of revenge and the entertainment value of watching it televised.

mrexroad 12d ago
And where does that end? Public stonings, where you can bid on the rocks? Cut a thief’s hand off?
- deleted 11d ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 11d ago
  Suggesting the death penalty when these crimes kill people is not advocating for a new type of punishment. Treating a burglary as more severe than a multi million dollar pension fraud seems backward by any metric beyond the social status of the criminals involved.
  - wizardforhire 11d ago
    Well we all know now that the greatest crime is owning zines
    - Retric 11d ago
      Murder is bad. This kind of harm is murder.
trescenzi 11d ago
I enjoy Camus’ take on this. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/albert-camus-reflections-on-the-guillotine https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/albert-camus-reflect...

amelius 12d ago

You mean like whistleblowers?

elmomle 11d ago

It has been said that a person cannot serve two masters. The incentive system in the West right now is structured such that corporate executives gain a great reward from serving their company, and little punishment from failing to serve humanity. If society is to flourish, humanity must be structurally prioritized. Due to regulatory capture and general corruption, I don't think an approach that merely tries to punish corporations financially will ever work. If you have executive powers and commit or permit a crime against humanity in the name of your company, then you have declared your allegiance. A functioning society would punish this in the most serious way possible. Great power, great responsibility and all that.

cmrdporcupine 11d ago
We used to reward people for serving humanity by making them feel good about public service and being a citizen and neighbour. That was a thing people around me had growing up and many of my family dedicated their life to public service professions (teaching, city administration, etc.) on that basis. And this was common among the middle class generally. You could have a reasonable lifelong profession and a good retirement doing this. Cynicism has washed that away. And people openly disparage public servants and get resentful of people who still manage to pull a living in this way.

penguin_booze 11d ago

No punishment can undo the crime. So we might has well end the criminal and save the money that clothe and feed them otherwise. But the larger point is that we should abolish the notion of 'limited liability' about corporations. That'll strike fear into the heart of executives, knowing that the law can come after both them and all their moneys and possessions. Suddenly the thought of 'oh, what if I fuck up?' pop up in their heads. They'll imagine their families begging on the streets for basic sustenance. That, if nothing else, will get them to behave like a normal person.

estearum 11d ago

The vast majority of "civilian crimes" are crimes of passion, desperation, or being actually mentally incapable of reasoning about consequences. That is not what these crimes are nor who commits them. These people actually tend to speak with lawyers prior to committing their crimes, and their lawyers will report something between "not technically illegal" to "probably illegal and the penalty is [something you really don't care about at all]" We can, should, and in fact already do have whistleblowers as well. But all you're doing is (slightly) raising the chances that you get reported. There are still many, many corruptible steps from that to being investigated, then from being investigated to being convicted, then from being convicted to being punished. In fact, as we've already established, the actual "punishment" is frequently not a punishment at all. It's just the cost of doing business. Consider these responses to an executive asking their lawyer for guidance on a legally ambiguous but clearly antisocial decision (where most of these decisions land): Response 1: "Not clearly illegal, we could argue it in court, and if we lose the penalty is a couple million dollars." Response 2: "Not clearly illegal, we could argue it in court, and if we lose the penalty is you going to prison for the rest of your life."

throwaway_7274 11d ago

I’m no proponent of capital punishment, but to take the question seriously: as an extreme measure to disincentivize extreme externalities that would otherwise never be priced in. In the status quo, captains of industry have something close to a call option on the social utility of their products. They capture much of the upside (they get paid when people enjoy their goretex jackets), but are pretty free to socialize tail risks (relative to the harm, they have little to lose from poisoning thousands. Maybe a lawsuit. Maybe they have to sell the third house.) A society could decide that this is not a desirable incentive structure. There’s a pirates-and-emperors aspect to this: such measures are taken in some societies to disincentivize O(1) violent crimes. Why (really, why? It’s worth thinking about!) are they rarely taken for O(n) crimes?

ta988 11d ago

x% of the money distributed to shareholders for how long this was going on taken from current revenue, not benefits. That should also push shareholders to do the right choices in who they support.

pasc1878 11d ago
No that does not work the ones who benefited just sell the shares before the fines are imposed and the ones who buy would be the ones you punish then.
- ta988 11d ago
  the value of the shares would drop anyway for the first group.
  - pasc1878 11d ago
    They would sell before the shares started dropping See who owns Thames Water now and compare with who held it 15-20 years ago

awakeasleep 11d ago

Simply to assuage public indignation

selfmodruntime 11d ago

To the end of hindering people from literally poisoning all of hunanity??