Punishment

Carlsmisth and Sood 2009 study on interrogation and retribution?

-All participants: Ahmad Farid, 26 year old Afghani detained by US and Coalition forces on suspicion of terrorist activities. -At the time of capture, Farid made a living by tending a small herd of goats. Farid was being held at a US detention center in Afghanistan and was scheduled for a commission hearing in several weeks. -Guilt condition(previous record; set roadside bomvs and was member of insurgency) and likelihood of knowledge (claims he had no direct knowledge of insurgents or their plans -participants informed that interrogations can range from very mild (e.g asking questions) to extremely severe (e.g "aversive degrading, painful, and in some cases cause permanent physical or psychological scars"), and asked to recommend an interrogation severity. -Recommended severity increased not only with likelihood of having useful knowledge but also whether he had a history of bad acts -Additionally, rated as less moral in G condition

What was the Carlsmith, Wilson, and Gilbert 2008, Paradoxical consequences of revenge study?

-Game was staged--on several trials one of the players was a "free rider" (encouraged others to cooperate and then did not cooperate with him/herself). -Manipulation: Punishers could penalize free riders; non punishers could not. Forecasters predicted how they would feel if they penalize the free rider

Utilitarian view of deterrence by Bentham 1843

-General prevention ought to be chief end of punishment, as it is it's real justification". -Punishment should be assessed according to harm and benefits to society and is moral if society benefits -Most of these punishment goals are utilitarian -Intended to accomplish a useful outcome, such as deterring crime, or incapacitation or rehabilitating a defendant.

Findings of Carlsmith 2006 study 3? Does retribution information increase confidence in punishment?

-Participants were presented with the pieces of information but the order was controlled by the experiment not by the participants -Yes, increased confidence ratings after receiving retribution information were greater than increased confidence after receiving incapacitation or deterrence information.

What does Carslmith 2008 say about verbal jusitifactions for retribution?

-People assign punishment consistent with retribution but their verbal justifications don't match -They may end up supporting enactment of laws that they actually find unjust think of 3 strikes law as an example. -People want zero tolerance and to be harsher, and this is under the ideology retribution. But then it gets implemented and someone gets 16 years for stealing a Snickers bar, they think it's too harsh

Results of the Carlsmith, Wilson, and Gilbert 2008, Paradoxical consequences of revenge study?

-People given opportunity to punish did so, but felt worse than people in the no-punishment condition -Did people anticipate the effect? No, forecasters predicted that they would feel better than people who were allowed to punish actually felt. -People believed that revenge would bring closure, but instead punishing increased rumination, which in turn increased negative effect.

Ellsworth and Ross 1938 DP

-People often cite deterrence as justification for punishment, e.g death penalty (Ellsworth and Ross 1983 DP). But when faced with evidence that deterrence is not effective, this does not change their DP attitudes

Retributive approaches

-People often cite deterrence as justification for punishment, e.g, death penalty (Ellsworth and Ross, 1983, DP). But when faced with evidence that deterrence is not effective, this does not change their DP attitude. -People assign more blame to someone for a negative event(e.g car accident) when they find their reason morally reprehensible (e.g, speeding home to hide cocaine vs parents anniversary gift (Alickem 1992) -In addition, moral outrage tends to be a component of punishment -So retribution seems a likely underlying reason for punishment, but not one that is readily apparent in people's stated reasons

Moral philosophy of punishment according to Kant 1790?

-Rooted in retribution. "Punishment can never be administered merely as a means for promoting another good". -Perpetrator deserves to be punished in proportion to "internal wickedness"

Findings of Carlsmith 2006 study 1?

-Study 1 examined retribution vs utility (incapacitation deterrence) as motive for punishment 1: default perspective rating: "in any criminal proceeding, there is a collection of factors or elements to the case. As you can imagine, any given case might have hundreds of elements. An important task for a prosecutor then is to figure out which facts in a jury would be most interested in knowing before they sentenced a defendant. We are interested in your opinion of the following elements. Tell us how important each element would be if you were on a jury and had to assign a sentence to the guilty perpetrator". -2: Personal endorsement of the three punishment justifications -3: Adopted perspective ratings. -Participants adopt each of the 3 perspectives and rate the items for relevance -**Retribution information, without the labels and saying to the people this is retribution , is most influential to sentencing Retribution bar is surprising the median line regardless of what situation they are in

Describe Carol 2006 study?

-Study 1: do people find retribution information more relevant than utility (incapacitation and deterrence) information in assigning punishment (criminal sentencing)? -Study 2: what type of information do people seek in punishing? Do people seek retribution information before incapacitation or deterrence information? -Study 3: does retribution information increase confidence in punishment? -Carlsmith 2006: what are people's motives in punishment? -Used 9 pieces of info evaluated by prior participants as corresponding to 3 types of punishment

Findings of Carlsmith 2006 study 2? what type of information do people seek in punishing?

-Study 2: do people seek retribution information before incapacitation or deterrence information? -Participants are asked to assign prison sentences to hypothetical guilty criminals. To do so they need to put together facts about the case one at a time -They request information on any of the nine information items. The computer presents them with the information on that item as well as the cumulative history of information they have sought. -Example: P requests magnitude of harm info: "The perpetrator managed a chain of dry cleaning plants that used quite toxic cancer-causing chemicals. He is being prosecuted for dumping toxic chemicals into fields on the edge of town over an 8 month period. -Next P requests info on prior record ``''A standard review of court records reveals that the perpetrator has a criminal history and has been involved in numerous activities of this sort". -Asked for retribution the most -Participants preferred to obtain retribution info vs incapacitation or deterrence.

How did Carl Smith et al 2002 asses people's punishment motives?

-Using a technique called policy capturing, using vignettes that described harmful actions, Carl Smith et al 2002. Assessed people punishment motives (deterrence vs retribution) in punishment culture -.g magnitude of harm should matter to retributionists; recidivism should matter to deterrists -Found highly sensitivity factors associated with retribution and relative insensitivity to factors associated with deterrence

What are the purposes of punishment?

Deterrence 1: General deterrence. The punishment of an offender is assumed to discourage other potential lawbreakers 2: Individual deterrence. Punishment of the offender is presumed to keep that person from committing other crimes in the future 3: Incapacitation. If a convicted offender is sent to prison, society can feel safe from that felon while he or she is confined 4: Retribution. Offenders should not benefit from their crimes; rather, they should receive their "just desserts". 5: Moral outrage. Punishment can give society a means of catharsis and relief from the feelings of frustration, hurt, loss, and anger that result from being victims of crime 6: Rehabilitation. The hope that offenders will recognize the error of their ways and develop new skills, values, and lifestyles 7: Restitution. Wrongdoers should compensate victims for their damages and losses.

Case that highlights consequences of revenge?

On april 16th, 2007, Seung Huo Cho massacred 32 people at Virginia Tech University before turning the gun on himself. In the aftermath, some lamented that his death had robbed on the survivors of the emotional satisfaction of exacting their own revenge. As one woman from the Midwest wrote on an Internet blog, "I don't think there would be anything temporary about the satisfaction I would feel in being permitted to execute the person who killed my child"

Hydraulic model

without an outlet, your emotions will build up and explode