we cannot compute expected utility in the real world because we can never know the probabilities or payoffs of outcomes. in the absence of a reliable objective method we're left to use the traditional tactics of bargaining to determine what norms and legal principles we should adopt.

to keep this short, ''the threat of torture is never okay'' is qualitatively distinguishable from ''the threat of torture is sometimes okay''. if we allow 'sometimes' we're left with the equivalent of a continuum and the question (Sorites paradox) of, 'when is it ok?' without an easy or Obviously Obvious way of deciding how to answer that question (intractable value-coordination problem owing to the absence of a Schelling point along the continuum) there is room for the principle to be selectively exploited by specialists [professional rationalizers].

in other words, doubt really is different. not mathematically -- there's nothing special about a probability in the abstract -- but practically.

/\ good post. This is an extremely important question and one which needs to be thought about carefully in society - this piece pretty much hits the nail on the head.

Long term isolation, which is very common for high risk violent offenders. Some that came to prison on simple drug charges and then acted out (usually an attack on staff or inmate). Is a very special kind of torture. Being nearly isolated for sometimes many years (the constitutional minimum) is most definitely a form of torture. I would even go as far as to say, that if given the choice many would take some type of short term physical torture in a heartbeat if given the choice.

Not trying to derail, but I think it is worth noting that we do in fact already torture our inmates. Many who are not first degree murderers. It's frightening to know that we actually release these individuals when their time is up from this form of isolation. I do not have the statistics but most will repeat offend, many times more violently than their original charges.

"Distrust those in whom the instinct to punish is strong." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Providing the money comes from a verifiable source (e.g., it was theirs when they were convicted, they earned it working in prison, or a third party gave it to them), and assuming a pizza place will deliver to a penal institution, why shouldn't they have these things ?

The death penalty never lowered murder rates. This being the case, I doubt seriously whether the availability of pizza, hi-speed internet, and sex would cause rates to rise. I can't picture anyone being so fearful of having to endure the the bleak life of prison that he opts not to commit a murder suddenly changing his mind due to the knowledge that if convicted he can still get pizza, pussy and 2+2."

As such, the only reason to deny him these items is to inflict punishment, and while it may be fashionable to use prison in this manner, no civilized nation of enlightened men would ever do so (In other words, the U.S. does not apply). Prison serves the function of segregating those who cannot live in civilized society from those who can and do, Rehabilitation, though an admirable goal, isn't why we send them there - nor should it be (nor should it be forced upon unwilling inmates).

Killers are in prison because the jurisdiction in which they committed their crime has decided that their behavior was so far from reasonable that segregation from other members of society is required, not to be rehabilitated and not to serve as a lesson to the next guy out there contemplating similar action.

Note: I'm fine with the idea of withholding his luxuries if his behavior falls below some agreed upon level, though knowing he'd lose his toys might be enough to keep his behavior in check. It might also reduce violence in prisons.

Every time I see some imbecile voice his support for one or another atrocity to be used against prisoners I cringe – not due to a weak stomach, but because of my awareness that there's one more person who can't see past the nose on his face. I can, as in, not really, understand the urge for a little vengeance, but isn't a huge slice of his life spent in a cage vengeance enough ? (Note: I am NOT calling you an imbecile; you are someone with whom I disagree – and for all I know, on no other topic in the world besides this one)

By the way, while most murderers will only leave prison in a box, most other inmates will be getting out, at which point one could easily end up living next door to me. (Yeah, my neighborhood IS that bad) As such, I'd like him to be as close to a human being as possible.

You might consider saving your blood lust for the poker table where it'll serve you well, as opposed to areas in which it can easily cause trouble. Or just get a couple of cats. There's nothing in the world more satisfying or relaxing than placing tabby into orbit.


Be well,

Chris


P.S. I'd hit it. If she ever delivers a pizza to me ahma let her keep the whole buck.

Torture is entirely against any meaningful philosophy of life. Forget it.

x = 100

Assuming the above assumptions, you make an estimate of the aggregate pain inflicted by murderers upon their victims, their victim's family members, friends, etc. Then do the same for the pain inflicted by the state upon the murder via torture, the pain that would inflict upon the tortureie's family, friends, etc. Then do maths to find how much the torture would have to reduce the likelihood of murder. imo

The more you increase the cruelty of a punishment, the more violence an offender comitting that crime will utilize if they are pursued by 'justice' afterwards to not be taken. Right now, offenders surrender more often than not because they can count on having some kind of life in jail, maybe parole, maybe a retrial. If they know a fate worse than death awaits them, then they will resist capture with maximum lethality to innocent people and to law enforcement. They will have no regard for the life of others or their own life even, in resisting apprehension for their torture chamber awaiting them.

I believe any deterrence benefits would be dramatically offset by the carnage that would ensue by the desperate hands of offenders trying to avoid a living hell.