Prison might not be the solution. If he can't re-commit the crime, no amount of correction will be effective, since there's nothing to correct..! But! But.. you cannot leave a criminal untouched.
Well you see, we need strong deterrence in these cases, or everyone would reach for their katana after being bludgeoned by a home invader!
People are obviously capable of inflicting violence on criminals if it becomes normalised, that's basically what we did for most of human history. The main advantages of prison seem to be that it's a more abstract harm and so less likely to offend our modern sensibilities, but there are definitely people who think prison is a good punishment precisely because of how horrible it is to be imprisoned. I don't think that's the majority, but "hard on crime" does attract voters, and not all of them are just blissfully unaware of how unpleasant incarceration is. You might think we'd have a hard time finding people to beat people with an iron bar, but you could say the same about prison guards, in this economy it wouldn't be too difficult to find people with few other employment options.
I think my main objection to prison (and beating people with an iron bar for that matter) is that it doesn't really seem to work at reforming people, there are exceptions but there's a reasonable argument to be made that being imprisoned makes people more likely to re-offend. Unfortunately, the kind of things to do make people less likely to reoffend, like counselling and skills training, don't really appeal to the "hanging's too good for them" crowd.
You write: "Well you see, we need strong deterrence in these cases, or everyone would reach for their katana after being bludgeoned by a home invader!"
Suppose that McKee knocked out Davis and Quinn both, and then started walking off. Davis then chased after him alone, and killed him with a samurai sword, that would be like the type of situation you describe, and I agree that, under those circumstances, it would probably be necessary to imprison Davis, because it would be like the type of case you describe. I would (reluctantly) beat him with an iron bar if the alternative were him walking off scott free.
But what distinguishes this case first and foremost is that there is some defensive element. The jury found that defensive element was not sufficient for a legal defense of self-defense, but it still distinguishes it from the type of case you talk about.
I was joking based on the improbability of the scenario occurring again, it's such an unusual situation that I don't think it has real relevance to deterrence.
My real point was that even if we do convince people that prison is as bad as being savagely beaten, that doesn't mean that everyone will suddenly turn against the system, because focusing on reform rather than retribution is difficult.
Ah I see, apologies I didn't spot the joke (because unfortunately I've seen other people make the same comment quite seriously), it is a difficult problem, I agree.
Less eloquent, slightly more technocratic argument I made a few weeks ago: https://aaronbergman.substack.com/p/prison-sentences-are-too-long
Great thought experiment
Could you call the legal veil a kind of – to coin a term – "veil of ignorance"?
Prison might not be the solution. If he can't re-commit the crime, no amount of correction will be effective, since there's nothing to correct..! But! But.. you cannot leave a criminal untouched.
Well you see, we need strong deterrence in these cases, or everyone would reach for their katana after being bludgeoned by a home invader!
People are obviously capable of inflicting violence on criminals if it becomes normalised, that's basically what we did for most of human history. The main advantages of prison seem to be that it's a more abstract harm and so less likely to offend our modern sensibilities, but there are definitely people who think prison is a good punishment precisely because of how horrible it is to be imprisoned. I don't think that's the majority, but "hard on crime" does attract voters, and not all of them are just blissfully unaware of how unpleasant incarceration is. You might think we'd have a hard time finding people to beat people with an iron bar, but you could say the same about prison guards, in this economy it wouldn't be too difficult to find people with few other employment options.
I think my main objection to prison (and beating people with an iron bar for that matter) is that it doesn't really seem to work at reforming people, there are exceptions but there's a reasonable argument to be made that being imprisoned makes people more likely to re-offend. Unfortunately, the kind of things to do make people less likely to reoffend, like counselling and skills training, don't really appeal to the "hanging's too good for them" crowd.
You write: "Well you see, we need strong deterrence in these cases, or everyone would reach for their katana after being bludgeoned by a home invader!"
Suppose that McKee knocked out Davis and Quinn both, and then started walking off. Davis then chased after him alone, and killed him with a samurai sword, that would be like the type of situation you describe, and I agree that, under those circumstances, it would probably be necessary to imprison Davis, because it would be like the type of case you describe. I would (reluctantly) beat him with an iron bar if the alternative were him walking off scott free.
But what distinguishes this case first and foremost is that there is some defensive element. The jury found that defensive element was not sufficient for a legal defense of self-defense, but it still distinguishes it from the type of case you talk about.
So it's not just:
-Provocation
It's
-Provocation+
-Head injury confusion+
-History of PTSD+
-Perception of imminent danger to girlfriend
I was joking based on the improbability of the scenario occurring again, it's such an unusual situation that I don't think it has real relevance to deterrence.
My real point was that even if we do convince people that prison is as bad as being savagely beaten, that doesn't mean that everyone will suddenly turn against the system, because focusing on reform rather than retribution is difficult.
Ah I see, apologies I didn't spot the joke (because unfortunately I've seen other people make the same comment quite seriously), it is a difficult problem, I agree.