Consider Saudi Arabia which even today implements the Sharia policy of cutting offthe hands of those who steal, especially those who steal during prayer times. I have heard anecdotal stories, that even jewelry shops in Dubai are left unlocked during prayer times. The fear of punishment is so high that no one dares steal.
Does this policy work? Yes. Is it right? Debatable. I would argue that asking people to lock their shops is a smaller cost to society than the cost of fear and of the possible loss of limbs from this procedure, and the benefit—being able to keep shops open—is small. Of course, there is another implicit benefit, that of being consistent with other Sharia values which I think outweighs all the other points here.
There are a lot of costs to disproportionate punishments.
There is the cost due to the inherent uncertainty in determining guilt. There is the cost to the power this gives to those who would lie, whether as citizens or as part of the state apparatus. There is the natural friction when segments of the society disagree on whether the action is criminal, or disagree on the severity of the penalty, which escalates grievance, retribution, vendetta, and the desire and need to control the state apparatus.
Disproportionate punishment escalates violence and the fight for domination.
I would argue that asking people to lock their shops is a smaller cost to society than the cost of fear and of the possible loss of limbs from this procedure, and the benefit—being able to keep shops open—is small.
The costs you mentioned are also small. If the deterrent works few hands actually need to be cut off. Furthermore I would argue fear if being punished for theft (which presumably mostly applied to thieves) isn’t a significant cost to society. Furthermore, I think you’re underestimating the benefits of high implicit trust.
My reply is an answer to “Is there a difference between what’s right and what works?” I’m not trying to open the can of worms labelled “Are draconian deterrents justified?”, merely trying to show through example that what works may fall in moral grey areas. To briefly answer your comments--
If the deterrent works few hands actually need to be cut off
The effectiveness of strong deterrents is questionable#Effectiveness). Considering the links mentioned above, some cases do spring up despite the deterrent, in this particular situation. Speculatively, someone who is unable to make enough money to feed his family otherwise may take this risk.
I think you’re underestimating the benefits of high implicit trust.
There are definitely reasons that the system continues to exist. The “trust” induced by harsh laws is one of them.
Consider Saudi Arabia which even today implements the Sharia policy of cutting off the hands of those who steal, especially those who steal during prayer times. I have heard anecdotal stories, that even jewelry shops in Dubai are left unlocked during prayer times. The fear of punishment is so high that no one dares steal.
Does this policy work? Yes. Is it right? Debatable. I would argue that asking people to lock their shops is a smaller cost to society than the cost of fear and of the possible loss of limbs from this procedure, and the benefit—being able to keep shops open—is small. Of course, there is another implicit benefit, that of being consistent with other Sharia values which I think outweighs all the other points here.
There are a lot of costs to disproportionate punishments.
There is the cost due to the inherent uncertainty in determining guilt. There is the cost to the power this gives to those who would lie, whether as citizens or as part of the state apparatus. There is the natural friction when segments of the society disagree on whether the action is criminal, or disagree on the severity of the penalty, which escalates grievance, retribution, vendetta, and the desire and need to control the state apparatus.
Disproportionate punishment escalates violence and the fight for domination.
So, for small vices it’s okay to have disproportionate retribution?
I don’t think that’s what the OP meant.
The costs you mentioned are also small. If the deterrent works few hands actually need to be cut off. Furthermore I would argue fear if being punished for theft (which presumably mostly applied to thieves) isn’t a significant cost to society. Furthermore, I think you’re underestimating the benefits of high implicit trust.
My reply is an answer to “Is there a difference between what’s right and what works?” I’m not trying to open the can of worms labelled “Are draconian deterrents justified?”, merely trying to show through example that what works may fall in moral grey areas. To briefly answer your comments--
The effectiveness of strong deterrents is questionable#Effectiveness). Considering the links mentioned above, some cases do spring up despite the deterrent, in this particular situation. Speculatively, someone who is unable to make enough money to feed his family otherwise may take this risk.
There are definitely reasons that the system continues to exist. The “trust” induced by harsh laws is one of them.