I’m ok with punishment if we know (or if it is at least plausible) that it’s a deterrence. I’m not ok with punishment for the sake of punishment. I’m also not ok with drastic increases in punishment for little or questionable gains in deterrence.
To pick an absurd example: If we were to find out that not imprisoning or otherwise punishing murderers would decrease the murder rate I would be all for stopping punishing murderers. If something is an effective way of preventing crimes – even if it’s not punishment – I’m all for it.
OK I think I got that from your previous comment. What I can't see is if there is actually an instance that matches your preference at all.
For example in my country minor criminals might be persuaded to meet the people they've offended against. Some may not define this as punishment but it can be a type of humiliation and so I'd class it as a (very minor) punishment.
I'd guess you'd be thinking of something like giving free drugs to addicts that rob people to stop them robbing and at the same time just leave the victims to sort themselves out and pay for the crime (ie no levy, no fine, etc.)?? FWIW this example seems injust to me.
I do not know whether there are crimes that can actually be prevented by doing something besides punishment. I just wanted to make clear that I’m open to the possibility.
Could you explain this, perhaps with a solid example or a crime, it's deterrence that is not punishment. For example if you fine someone for drink driving that is both a deterrent and punishment. I can't readily see how you deter without introducing punishment.