[afandian]

Your comment has obviously split opinion here, but I think it mirrors the way that society is split in the justice debate.

Approach 1: "People who hurt other people should be hurt back"

Approach 2: "We should try to understand why people hurt other people"

I used to think these were correlated with political spectrum (approach 1 on the right, appraoch 2 on the left). But these patterns happen across the spectrum.

These two aren't easily reconcilable. Approach-2-type-people, such as myself, think that this is the only real way to reduce harm and that approach 1 only makes everything worse, and continues the cycle of abuse.

I think it's emcumbent on approach 2 to try and understand why people act like approach 1.

[chimprich]

> Approach 1: "People who hurt other people should be hurt back"

This seems to be the approach used by many (most?) people in online forums when discussing controversial topics. "Your opinion hurts me, so I'm going to be as offensive as possible in return". It doesn't seem to work very well. HN is maybe a bit more approach #2.

[afandian]

I certainly find the centre of gravity on HN interesting. As a European I wonder how much is US centric, tech or silicon valley.

Everyone has unknown biases though. I'm sure that most people are a mix, with the result of cognitive dissonance.

[Nasrudith]

Basic game theory element - reciprocity. If there are no consequences there is nothing to lose from being an asshole. Hence the behaviors seen when people they have or believe they have impunity.

[NotATroll]

> I think it's emcumbent on approach 2 to try and understand why people act like approach 1.

Recidivism.

As members of the public, it's highly likely that we've both seen others be burned by trying to take approach 2. And have ourselves been burned by trying to take approach 2. After all, many crimes have very high rates of recidivism.

These experiences tend to model how we approach other people in the future.

And to be honest, it's not really a 'wrong" approach that "only makes everything worse". At some point, the question of approach 3 "removing a person from society" is a valid question when it comes to reducing harm.

[ukj]

I never quite understood the pragmatic purpose of Approach 1.

If punishment has no measurable, positive effect - why do it?

Combine with Hanlon’s razor and indeed - victims become bullies when they default to Approach 1 when harm (rather than misunderstanding) is perceived.

[boomlinde]

> If punishment has no measurable, positive effect - why do it?

Maybe you never understood it because you implicitly assume that punishment can't have measurable, positive effect. What's the basis of that assumption?

[luckylion]

Punishment is a deterrent though, at least for somewhat rational and premeditated acts, so it has an effect (though it's hard to quantify exactly). It's not a linear effect (as in threat of twice punishment = twice as effective as a deterrent), but it's certainly not zero.

Additionally, punishment often goes hand in hand with making it harder/impossible to re-offend. If you're in prison, you're not breaking into anybody's house.

[elliekelly]

I've posted this before but I think it bears repeating: Study after study[1] has shown that an individual's perception of the likely punishment (e.g., prison time) doesn't deter crime. Rather, an individual's perception of the likelihood they'll get caught seems to be the main deterrent.

This is a really interesting & related read.[2]

[1]https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/670398

[2]https://undark.org/article/deterrence-punishments-dont-reduc...

[luckylion]

That was my point regarding it not being a linear relationship and only working on somewhat rational actors (not on somebody that is on drugs and completely out of their mind for example). Getting caught is irrelevant if it has no consequence at all. If there is zero punishment (meaning no negative consequences and you get to keep the loot), but you are 100% sure to get caught, you have incentive to commit e.g. robbery, but zero incentive not to. If the punishment isn't negative (i.e. "you get $1000 for getting caught"), getting caught is also irrelevant. Getting caught only becomes relevant when it has consequences you'd prefer to avoid: punishment.

The point isn't that punishment isn't a deterrent, it's the only external deterrent (and you could argue that a bad conscience is self-punishment). It's that the likelihood of getting caught is a very important factor, not so much the severity of the punishment.

In RTS games, there's the idea of overkill: a unit (or set of units) does so much damage that it would kill the attacked unit multiple times. That's a problem, because you waste a lot of the damage, it's generally more efficient to do less damage more often for the same DPS (damage per second). I believe that you can think about punishment in a similar way. With the likelihood of punishment staying the same (for example: 10%), a hike of "somebody stares angrily at you" to "you spend 10 years in prison" very much acts as a deterrent. You get barely any more value out of that being 20 years though, because of "over-deterrence". Here as well, the same punishment with more frequency (=likelihood of punishment) would be more efficient.

[zepto]

The likelyhood is being caught may be the metric that determines the effectiveness of a deterrent over the severity of the punishment, but being caught implies that there is at least some negative consequence.

So in order to be a deterrent there must be punishment. Increasing the severity will do little to increase the effectiveness, but increasing the likelyhood of getting caught will.

[s_kilk]

> If punishment has no measurable, positive effect - why do it?

But it does, the positive effect is in the mind state of the punisher, or the Type-1 people being discussed here.

Now you're right of course, the punishment does not improve the situation, but it sure gives these folks that little squirt of feel-good chemicals and that's what really matters to them.

[thatcat]

If the original problem was a lifetime of low self-esteem of the victim after being bullied, then it seems they have improved their outlook over the long term - rather than the ephemeral boost you imply.

[lr4444lr]

Because the wronged demand justice, and to see your bully now cut down to size, is to be given back a sense that there is justice.

[afandian]

That's what I mean about it being incumbent to try to understand. It may not be "logical" but it still happens, so we should try to work out why.

Perhaps there is some evolutionary reason. Perhaps it is, itself, part of the cycle of abuse. Perhaps it's just easier to be nasty than nice.

[luckylion]

I'm not sure those are actually opposing positions. I believe that a stronger split is how important it is to stop the behavior. Imprisoning somebody will immediately stop their behavior and will provide safety for their victims, but we don't want to use an extreme tool like prison to solve a minor infraction (like, say, shoplifting). It seems to me that the debate is often about what is appropriate, where what you describe as "Approach 1" people prefer to err in too strong a measure that makes sure the behavior is stopped, while others prefer to err on the other side, i.e. is it more important to allow a bully to go to school (or live in freedom within society for larger issues), or is it more important to protect other students from them, and how much bad behavior do we accept, how many chances do they get to alter their behavior etc?

[boomlinde]

Approach 1 seems quite natural. If I do something—in general—and find that it results in my suffering, I will normally take that into account when I consider doing the same thing again, and possibly avoid it because of it. In this sense I don't think that getting slapped or putting your hand on the stove for the first time are significantly different. You learn the consequences and adapt.

In the case of a bully, though, there may be so much at stake for the bully that it outweighs the suffering associated with getting beaten up or otherwise punished for it. Wishing to e.g. maintain his social status, he may double down instead of reacting in a way that seems appropriate given the obvious consequences. This is where I think approach 2 becomes useful. What is it that the bully thinks is at stake? etc.

Before that, who cares? Kids will be kids and will fight and bicker. That's how they learn what their boundaries and what the consequences of their actions are so that they can grow up to be healthy adults. I think that inflicting pain and suffering as a direct response to injustice may be an excellent way to keep misbehaving adults in check as well, but it seems more likely in adult age that there is an underlying psychological problem that needs to be addressed, perhaps one that could have been addressed during adolescence.

[danarmak]

> I think it's emcumbent on approach 2 to try and understand why people act like approach 1.

For many (most?) people, it's just a matter of values. Punishment of evildoers, justice, revenge, enforcement of the law, are not judged on the merits of preventing future offences, they're desirable in their own right.

These values are widespread and are part of the 'natural' or 'default' repertoire of human social behavior. Different cultures encourage them to different extents, and channel them differently, and of course differ a lot on what is offensive and deserving of punishment and how much. But I don't think it's difficult to understand why people desire these things.

Even if everyone agrees that rehabilitative justice is better for reducing crime, it's a separate moral decision to value reducing crime over other things like justice (fairness) or punishment (negative consequences for infringing on rights).