Punishing the Innocent

[rabbit]

*cough*hitler*cough*

[Chavo]

That's a good point, but I think that, the way it's worded, we have to apply it to everything.  Start with murder, and work your way down to parking tickets. 

Correct.

I think any system that trys to use fear (excepting fear of reprisal) is flawed.

We had to read 1984 in our English class. We had to do a project where we decided what ten aspects of life we would control if we took over a government. I said (rather, my group) the first choice would be the armed forces, because ruling through violence will keep the masses in line, and a violent reign of power generates fear in the masses. You don't rule them through this fear, you rule them through punishment and keep them in line. Fear implies you won't do anything bad to them, they just run their lives on fear.

The 1984 world also represents a world without culture, without thought, without freedom.  I don't think I have to point out the obvious flaws in rule-by-violence considering its a system that has been used for as long as recorded history.  What happens when they stop fearing you? the system fails.  What happens if they don't? the system succeeds....at the cost of everything else.

[Newby]

What happens when they stop fearing you? the system fails.  What happens if they don't? the system succeeds....at the cost of everything else.

If they stop fearing you, nothing changes. They may start breaking laws some more, but since you're a government run on violence you just punish them (execution squad, anyone?) and if they don't start obeying the laws you continue to kill them until they do.

You run on violence. Not fear. If there is no fear, there is still violence and order is still kept.

If they don't start obeying laws, well, it's better you have no people to rule over and still be in power, versus being overthrown because you were too scared to act on the masses that lack fear.

[rabbit]

*cough*hitler*cough*

[Sidoh]

*cough*hitler*cough*

OMG!  Stop bumping your own posts!

[Chavo]

What happens when they stop fearing you? the system fails.  What happens if they don't? the system succeeds....at the cost of everything else.

If they stop fearing you, nothing changes. They may start breaking laws some more, but since you're a government run on violence you just punish them (execution squad, anyone?) and if they don't start obeying the laws you continue to kill them until they do.

You run on violence. Not fear. If there is no fear, there is still violence and order is still kept.

If they don't start obeying laws, well, it's better you have no people to rule over and still be in power, versus being overthrown because you were too scared to act on the masses that lack fear.

I think that point of view is rather naive.  History should make this abundantly obvious if thinking about it doesn't.  Rabbit's hitler example is only one of many.  Violence runs on fear, without fear of violence it means nothing.  What are you going to do, kill everyone?

[Newby]

What are you going to do, kill everyone?

Yes.

[Chavo]

What are you going to do, kill everyone?

Yes.

If you think people will just let you kill them rather than revolt, you deserve to go the way of the do-do
Even if they did, One person = system fails.

Basically you are saying you'd rather kill everyone than let one guilty person go unpunished 

[AntiVirus]

If they stop fearing you, nothing changes.

More chances for revolts then.  If people don't like how they have been treated, then chances are they are going to do something about it.

[iago]

I think any system that trys to use fear (excepting fear of reprisal) is flawed.

What does the current system use?

There are two main camps that exist in the western world, as far as I can understand:
A. Guilt (used by religions to control people)
B. Fear (of going to prison, getting caught)

Sure, it's not fear for your life, but, as far as I can tell, people are still controlled by either guilt or fear.  Can you think of another way to prevent people from committing crimes?

If not, I think we should explore whether guilt or fear is better as a means to prevent crime. 

[Newby]

Basically you are saying you'd rather kill everyone than let one guilty person go unpunished 

Hence why I voted B.

Fear is less effective than guilt. The feeling of guilt I really don't feel whatsoever. I find myself in fear of getting caught when breaking the law moreso than I do the guilty of pirating music or whatnot.

[Chavo]

I think any system that trys to use fear (excepting fear of reprisal) is flawed.

What does the current system use?

There are two main camps that exist in the western world, as far as I can understand:
A. Guilt (used by religions to control people)
B. Fear (of going to prison, getting caught)

Sure, it's not fear for your life, but, as far as I can tell, people are still controlled by either guilt or fear.  Can you think of another way to prevent people from committing crimes?

If not, I think we should explore whether guilt or fear is better as a means to prevent crime. 

   
I think the current system is flawed too!  I don't know what a perfect system is, but I was referring more to the difference between fear of just reprisal (consequences for ones actions) vs fear of unjust vindictiveness/violence.

[leet_muffin]

I think any system that trys to use fear (excepting fear of reprisal) is flawed.

What does the current system use?

There are two main camps that exist in the western world, as far as I can understand:
A. Guilt (used by religions to control people)
B. Fear (of going to prison, getting caught)

Sure, it's not fear for your life, but, as far as I can tell, people are still controlled by either guilt or fear.  Can you think of another way to prevent people from committing crimes?

If not, I think we should explore whether guilt or fear is better as a means to prevent crime. 

Well... giving them no reason to commit crime would stop crimes, but that is near impossible to achive. Especially with the new society of "hey lets break a law to be cool!".

Another way to stop people from breaking laws: kill them all. Hitler did a sub-decent job keeping Jews from committing crime, but then again... we all know how that system is viewed.

I think we should stick to guilt and fear.

[iago]

Well... giving them no reason to commit crime would stop crimes, but that is near impossible to achive. Especially with the new society of "hey lets break a law to be cool!".

Yeah, I used to use a similar philosophy in Diablo II -- let my friends have full access to my characters/equipment under the assumption that they wouldn't abuse it.  That prevented anybody from trying to steal my stuff, because they knew I'd just give it to them.  But you're right, there's no way that would work on a large-scale. 

I think we should stick to guilt and fear.

Garrett Hardin's essay, "Tragedy of the Commons" explores the idea of using guilt as a means of preventing crime, and why it wouldn't (well, doesn't) work.  Whether or not you care about exploring the idea, that's still an essay that everybody should read. 

[GameSnake]

SO, it's like, 9 people are innocent and 1 is guilty - so punish NINE innocent people? NO way.