> We have an impulse to punish evil, and severely punish very evil things, but it’s more of a primitive drive than anything productive. (Of course the exception is the extent to which punishment can deter crime.)
That "exception" is the productive social instinct of what you call "a primitive drive".
And it's not just deterrence to negate other people's existing criminal intentions. It also prevents the specific individual in question from reoffending, and it also prevents other people who worked with the criminal from effectively spreading their antisocial culture/habits to unrelated individuals who otherwise have no existing proclivities for crime. It's almost about killing the idea, even more than punishing the person.
Having a standard where you're going to say "This is not okay and we absolutely won't put up with it" is vital to keeping a healthy culture where you can walk down the streets safe at night, or keep your money in a bank knowing it won't just disappear. The penalty for crimes has to be at least several times whatever the criminal gained, in order to be a viable deterrent considering the odds of getting caught, plus at least proportional to the harm inflicted, to center your societal structures on empathising and identifying with the victim. There has to be a heavy artificial cost for criminals, because otherwise game theory of the self-interested says that we'll all end up being constantly victimized.
Rule of the law isn't "primitive". I also feel the desire to forgive and quarantine, but with finite empathy, it's backwards to feel for the perpetrators rather than the victims. Look at Russia for an example to see what happens when predatorily selfish behaviors are allowed to go unpunished, and inevitably end up normalized. [1]
> If we could identify a treatable disease (a tumor for example) and know with 100% certainty that treating that disease could prevent further crimes, I personally wouldn’t have an issue with it.
I would consider this potentially much, much worse and more "barbaric" than imprisonment or even execution, as it would almost definitely be done unconsensually and coercibly.
That "exception" is the productive social instinct of what you call "a primitive drive".
And it's not just deterrence to negate other people's existing criminal intentions. It also prevents the specific individual in question from reoffending, and it also prevents other people who worked with the criminal from effectively spreading their antisocial culture/habits to unrelated individuals who otherwise have no existing proclivities for crime. It's almost about killing the idea, even more than punishing the person.
Having a standard where you're going to say "This is not okay and we absolutely won't put up with it" is vital to keeping a healthy culture where you can walk down the streets safe at night, or keep your money in a bank knowing it won't just disappear. The penalty for crimes has to be at least several times whatever the criminal gained, in order to be a viable deterrent considering the odds of getting caught, plus at least proportional to the harm inflicted, to center your societal structures on empathising and identifying with the victim. There has to be a heavy artificial cost for criminals, because otherwise game theory of the self-interested says that we'll all end up being constantly victimized.
Rule of the law isn't "primitive". I also feel the desire to forgive and quarantine, but with finite empathy, it's backwards to feel for the perpetrators rather than the victims. Look at Russia for an example to see what happens when predatorily selfish behaviors are allowed to go unpunished, and inevitably end up normalized. [1]
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Russia
---
> If we could identify a treatable disease (a tumor for example) and know with 100% certainty that treating that disease could prevent further crimes, I personally wouldn’t have an issue with it.
I would consider this potentially much, much worse and more "barbaric" than imprisonment or even execution, as it would almost definitely be done unconsensually and coercibly.