Knowing, abstractly, that doing X can result in Y punishment, and having internalized it to the point that you think of this fact as a deterrent when you're considering whether to do X, are not the same thing.

It's similar to (but not the same, I think, as) the difference between not doing X because you've been told Y will happen, and not doing X because you have memories of doing X and Y happening - the latter is a lot more deeply ingrained.

Consider newly-minted adults in prosperous environments leaving their parents' home for college for the first time - they have a theoretical knowledge of the various stresses, risks, and concerns that will arise when they live on their own, but until they've actually done it for a while and had various mishaps, it won't be nearly as well-calibrated and digested into their thinking.

Or consider the uptick of music piracy when the internet was just becoming ubiquitous - people knew, abstractly, that it was theft, and could carry consequences, but that didn't enter into most of their considerations.

"Piracy is theft"

Digital piracy is not theft. It's like taking pictures in a museum when it's not allowed. It's taking a picture of public buildings in the wrong country. It's copyright infringement and an issue for the civil court, not the criminal court.

Edit: your other points are good though :)

Regardless of whether piracy is or isn't a theft, it's actually a pretty good example. The fact is, people can and are fined and imprisoned for piracy. And yet this fact is very remote to most people who pirate copyrighted content.

I don't think many people are imprisoned for piracy, if any. I'm not talking about filming in a movie theater, i'm talking downloading content for free.

I should have specified; I did not intend to actually weigh in on whether or not it was analogous to theft of material goods, just that people had a vague notion that it was acquiring something without paying for it and that it was not legally permissible.

>>difference between not doing X because you've been told Y will happen, and not doing X because you have memories of doing X and Y happening

I do not have to have memories about being raped in the jail to know that it is a bad experience. Am I a genius?

Funny fact: I moved out with 14 to a big city for a special school and lived in a dormitory with normal guys. None of us got jailed.

I hear only bad excuses.

The fact that none of you got jailed is actually more relevant than you seem to think.

If, say, a decent portion of your classmates, including people you were friends with, were regularly accused of crimes and occasionally imprisoned for them, what effect do you think it might have on your perception of how "wrong" the acts they committed were?

When cognitive dissonance arises from trying to reconcile actions that are on the opposite end of the spectrum from how you associate a person, the outcome is generally not that one of those two absolutes remains and the other shifts, but that both perceptions shift.

I'm not claiming that any of this justifies poor decisions, only that it's quite feasible to have a heavily warped view ingrained in you, and that, if a split-second comes where a mildly poor decision could get exponentially worse, it's not generally the case that you spend minutes consciously considering all the options and rehearsing them - you make a decision without consciously reviewing why, and a skewed view can make a hell of a difference then.

If saying that "for doing illegal things you can get jailed and raped therefore do not do illegal things under any circumstances, except protecting yourself and your loved ones" is a warped view, than I take your comment as a compliment.

>>if a split-second comes where a mildly poor decision could get exponentially worse

I think you talk abot non existent things. Can you please explain me how can an average illegal act be a "split-second poor decision"? You can not steal a car or start dealng drugs in a split-second. Except you are Flash.

According to some scientists [1], death penalty cases have a 4.1% error rate. There's logical arguments that the error rate for life sentences is higher and for non capital felonies it might be a lot higher. Rape-Murders have a 3.3% floor with an estimated 5% ceiling [2].

I wouldn't be shocked if the rate for the none capital convictions was in the neighborhood of 10%...well actually I am shocked about it. There's probably also discrimination and some demographics get a lot more false convictions than others (I'd guess being poor doesn't help for example).

[1]: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7230

[2]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40042842?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...

And yet this is a fact, because otherwise hardly anyone would be in prison. It seems you're confused about this.

A hint: lot of the "incredibly stupid" things are being done in the heat of the moment. Other times, people don't really imagine something bad could happen to them. Then, sometimes people think they have no other choice - maybe they're "in too deep", or maybe it's the only way they can think of supporting their family, etc. Sometimes people just take a huge risk for potential huge gains (think of it as criminal world equivalent of starting a startup).

Humans are not perfect reasoning machines with infinite computation speed.

The vast majority of prison inmates have a long history of offenses and didn't just do one stupid thing.

They had to have started on this road of offenses somehow, and I'd wager it usually starts with the mildly stupid things.

That doesn't speak very highly of the rehabilitative capacity of prison then, does it? Why are we even sending them?

They can't hurt the rest of us while they rot in prison.

That's really it. Rehabilitation and retribution are only minor factors, for the liberal and conservative voters respectively. The main factor is just stopping crime by warehousing people until they die or get too old to cause trouble.

It's expensive, but you have to admit that it is extremely effective.

LOL, Your comment about stopping crime by locking people up made me laugh hard.

I've done time in the federal system, and on one of my transfers between prisons, I got to sit beside a supermax transfer prisoner. Really, he was a pretty nice fellow. Said he had to kill a guard once in a while to get out and see the sights and have some decent food. He was on his way to court for that murder case trial.

>> yet this is a fact, because otherwise hardly anyone would be in prison.

The explanation that some people just ignore the laws and think they can get away with it is too simple, isn't it?

>> Humans are not perfect reasoning machines

Neider are they "stupid saints". They sometimes just take a huge risk for whatever reason. And sometimes this risk involves getting jailed, because society consider some kind of risks as undesired and make you pay a high price for taking them.

Get tipsy with friends. Get into a disagreement with them. Jokularly push one of them to make a point. They trip, fall backwards, head hits pavement. Dead or coma.

Hello manslaughter.

It's very easy to do something stupid without realizing it in the moment.

I never hat anybody, neider sober nor tipsy, except of self defense. This is not the definition of not being stupid but of being normal. If you want to be treated like a human being behave yourself like one.

Please tell me the situation you described putted 2 M people into jail! You must have the highest "accidental death" rate of the universe.

It was an example of something innocent leading to grave consequences. Obviously it doesn't happen to 2 million people.

Friends often shove and shoulder-punch each other without it being self-defence. It's usually not even considered "hitting". But accidents do happen. Especially when substances affect people's sense of balance and floors are uneven.

Here's a much more common way to go to prison for something silly: You have a baggie of weed in your car. You roll through a stop sign. Get pulled over. Cop smells the weed. You go to jail. Oh, you just bought plenty so you can share with friends (they all pitched in). Bam, charged with intent to sell. Serious jail time.

It's really easy to go to prison for stupid stuff.[1]

In fact, on average everyone commits 3 felonies per day. --> http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487044715045744389...

[1] Hell, as a teenager I got arrested for shoplifting something like 20 euro worth of candy. No jail, but talk about stupid reasons to get arrested.

What percentage of people are incarcerated for something like that?

I don't know. I imagine it depends a lot on factors mostly to do with how much a jury/judge likes you.

Generally we treat killing others, even if you didn't mean to, very harshly. It's very easy to get incarcerated for a crash caused while driving tipsy, for instance, especially if somebody dies.

I imagine manslaughter is one of those things where you only have to fuck up once, completely by accident, to ruin your life (and a few others' obviously) quite terribly.

Human beings are notoriously bad at estimating risk.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/perceived_ris...

People know that they can die a horribly painful death from using a car, but they still drive. They do so not by making an informed risk/benefit analysis, they do by simply assuming that it won't happen to them. Same for crime and getting caught. We are not able to rationally deal with big risks, we only know the extremes of letting them completely dominate our decisions (e.g. people who will never use a bike in traffic, or only with a lucky charm on their head) or pretending that they don't exist.

Knowing of consequences does not imply being aware of them.

Many people who understand the consequences end up in jail. Are you saying they deserve the inhuman treatment because they knew about it?

Am I?

Why the snark? Is this discussion funny to you? If you don't want to contribute civilly, please don't.

Since when is putting words I did not said in my mouth "contributing civilly"? If you make a gunfight out of a conversation do not blame me if you get shot.

you: >>Young kids who have done something incredibly stupid

>>They are then immediately put in a situation to fuck or fight.

IMHO this aspect of prison life is common knowledge. I wonder how incredibly stupid one has to be to risk getting jailed. And looking at the numbers that is not a marginal phenomenon.

I read this as

- it is common knowledge that prison includes fighting and rape

- if you know this (and you should), you accept this as part of your punishment for doing something that sends you to prison

You support this interpretation later on:

you: I still do not get how someone can not understand the consequences.

lolc: Many people who understand the consequences end up in jail. Are you saying they deserve the inhuman treatment because they knew about it?

To me, that's pretty close to how lolc is rephrasing your position, and asking if that's indeed what you mean. And they're not stating that is your position, which would be putting words in your mouth. They're asking you to clarify whether or not that's a fair restatement.

I see two assumptions made in the restatement:

- "fuck or fight" is inhuman[e] treatment. I'd say it is. Do you?

- "knowing the consequences, you act" => "you deserve the consequences" This seems like an acceptable assumption as well. What do you think?

Do you think this is a reasonable interpretation of what you said? That's how I read it, and squares with how I read lolc as interpreting what you said as well, while asking to confirm if that's what you mean. That's not putting words in your mouth.

This may not be what you mean. You're being asked to clarify. If it's not, I'd expect you explain where the interpretation is wrong, not just imply that it is ("Am I?") and leave it up to them to try again. And please clarify if I've mischaracterized what you've said as well.

Given that you find it useful to compare this conversation to a gunfight, it's likely wrong for me to expect you to be civil about it. I'm responding to clarify how I read the situation, and will leave it at that.

[Minor edits for clarity.]

>> To me, that's pretty close to how lolc is rephrasing your position

>> "you deserve the consequences" [...] Do you think this is a reasonable interpretation of what you said? That's how I read it, and squares with how I read lolc as interpreting what you said as well

I did not said that anyone deserves an inhumant treatment like this. If you rephrase what I said and doing so it gets "pretty close to" or "reasonable interpreted as" something really stupid, that is not my fault. Both of us are better off if you just stop rephrasing my sentences, don't you think?