Judge Rejects Sale of Infowars to The Onion

[zippy2006]

Deterrence requires felt negative consequence. Monetarily, the same felt consequence requires a bigger penalty for a wealthier person, typically. Jail time is different of course, as on average time spent in liberty is equally precious to everyone.

I agree with that, but my question stands, "Are you saying that the goal of deterrence justifies an increased penalty?"

If we give the wealthy person an extra big fine he will be more deterred. Should we do that? And if so, on what basis? Presumably we need a bit more than, "Because we want to deter him."

Yes, the suffering (retribution enacted) should be proportional to the severity of the offense. (I'm stipulating that retribution is a valid goal of a justice system - I'm not sure myself).

Okay, and I will come back to this.

 

[durangodawood]

I agree with that, but my question stands, "Are you saying that the goal of deterrence justifies an increased penalty?"

If we give the wealthy person an extra big fine he will be more deterred. Should we do that? And if so, on what basis? Presumably we need a bit more than, "Because we want to deter him."

Deterrence is a good standalone reason for means based penalties. But.... it might prove more a burden on society or on innocent individuals to administer than can be justified. Or not. Could well depend on the details.

I'm just arguing that theres principled reasons for it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

"Are you saying that the goal of deterrence justifies an increased penalty?"

If there's no other "deterrence levers" available to pull, then my answer to that question would be "Yes".

Like I mentioned before, if you want to make defamation a criminal matter instead of a civil matter, then I'm willing to have that conversation.

For instance, make it a law where if you're proven to have made defamatory statements against someone that harmed them (whether it be reputationally, financially, or in the form of getting them harassed or threatened), then it's 180 days of jail time per offense.

Then it's fair and it won't matter if a poor person or rich person does it. Is that an arrangement you'd be comfortable with?


I hope you're not trying to make a case for "a person should be able to lie about another person in a way that harms them, and there should be no consequences on free speech grounds"

 

[zippy2006]

Deterrence is a good standalone reason for means based penalties. But.... it might prove more a burden on society or on innocent individuals to administer than can be justified. Or not. Could well depend on the details.

I'm just arguing that theres principled reasons for it.

I see the reasons, but I don't think we've shown them to be principled. "I want my dog to stop peeing in the house, so I shock him to deter. The bigger the dog, the stronger the shock." That's fine as far as it goes (and also not very interesting). The trick is getting from dogs to humans.

___

If there's no other "deterrence levers" available to pull, then my answer to that question would be "Yes".

So what is your argument here? "We've got to properly deter him no matter what, so whatever is available must be used"? Are any of these arguments good? If not, why are you still clinging to the conclusion?

Like I mentioned before, if you want to make defamation a criminal matter instead of a civil matter, then I'm willing to have that conversation.

It seems to me that that's the only reasonable way to construe your position.

For instance, make it a law where if you're proven to have made defamatory statements against someone that harmed them (whether it be reputationally, financially, or in the form of getting them harassed or threatened), then it's 180 days of jail time per offense.

Then it's fair and it won't matter if a poor person or rich person does it. Is that an arrangement you'd be comfortable with?

Sure, if the lurking question about torts vs. crimes can be settled. At a deeper level is the question of punishment, which must be "contraria voluntati." Aquinas describes just vengeance:

Now vengeance is wrought by the infliction of a punishment: and the nature of punishment consists in being contrary to the will, painful, and inflicted for some fault. Consequently an angry man desires this, that the person whom he is hurting, may feel it and be in pain, and know that this has befallen him on account of the harm he has done the other. The hater, on the other hand... (ST I-II, q. 46, a. 6, ad2).​

​

So here is your argument:

1. A deterrent must be contrary to the will
2. A small fine is not sufficiently contrary to a wealthy person's will for the sake of deterrence
3. Therefore, a larger fine must be leveraged

And the deeper level runs thus:

• A deterrent must be contrary to the will
• 180 days of jail time is not sufficiently contrary to many criminals' wills, for the sake of deterrence
• Therefore, a larger period of incarceration must be leveraged

Whenever you want to deter everyone equally with a finite penalty you run into the same "problem" of unequal repugnance to the quality or quantity of penalty.

Lewis' argument in a nutshell is that humans are not dogs.