> How many aggrieved ex-spouses, neighbors, and coworkers would turn to violence to solve their problems?

This isn't the real problem, most people aren't murderous, they're kind. The problem isn't retaliation against mundane grievance, which is taken up by people with no sense of proportion and consequence anyway, but the response to crime.

If a hit-and-run drunk driver runs over my child, and the legal system refuses to punish them, I (and most people) are going to take on that punishment as my responsibility. I may not carry it out, but if I don't I'll take the guilt for not punishing that drunk driver to my grave. There's a ton of pressure on me to hurt that person. After I do, their loved ones may retaliate against me in the same way. If I fail and I'm killed myself, that raises the level of grievance among my family and friends. Even people on the sidelines have to become involved.

You’re gonna have to back up that “though experiment” with some data. Or at least a logical explanation, as to why you think the majority of the population are homicidal maniacs, held in check by the threat of prison time.

Otherwise your comment is little more that a dark speculative fantasy.

> Or at least a logical explanation, as to why you think the majority of the population are homicidal maniacs, held in check by the threat of prison time.

You don't need the MAJORITY of the population to be homicidal maniacs, only held in check by the thread of punishment to see a marked rise in homicides.

I'd guess that even with a low rate of one out of every thousand people being homicidal maniacs only kept in check by the threat of force, you'd get 200x or more homicides than you have now.

After all, a homicidal maniac will, almost by definition, kill repeatedly, and since (in this hypothetical situation) they are not punished for it, there's simply no reason for them to stop doing it.

Again, you’re gonna need some data. I would consider 1 in every thousand people being a homicidal maniac held in check by the the threat of force to be an extraordinary high incidence rate. Such a rate doesn’t even vaguely match up with my experiences of people.

One in a million I could believe, but numbers lower than I have difficulty believing.

Even if the state doesn’t punish anyone, and even if there was no physical retaliation. I imagine that murdering people would quickly result in your social ostracisation. Who the hell wants to spent time with a nutter who’s gonna kill you for rubbing them up the wrong way? I think most people would find better friends and colleagues.

> Again, you’re gonna need some data. I would consider 1 in every thousand people being a homicidal maniac held in check by the the threat of force to be an extraordinary high incidence rate.

I wasn't making a claim about the actual rate, I was contending your claim that

>>>> Or at least a logical explanation, as to why you think the majority of the population are homicidal maniacs, held in check by the threat of prison time.

The GGP only claimed that the homicide rate will rise if there was no punishment for it. You decided that he meant that the majority of the population are homicidal maniacs.

I was merely pointing out that even with a small percentage (0.001%) being homicidal maniacs, the rise in homicides will still increase by two orders of magnitudes or more.

> Such a rate doesn’t even vaguely match up with my experiences of people.

Well, of course - people are punished for being homicidal maniacs so I don't expect them to go around advertising the fact. Your experience of not knowing very many matches the reality that those that do get found out are removed from society.

One in a few hundred will murder someone in USA with todays rules. Don't you think those people would murder a bit more liberally if they weren't punished for it?

This is a straw man. Obviously people who are inclined to murder need to be removed from situations where they might do more murders. I didn't say there should be no consequences.

The question is whether harshness and cruelty themselves are deterrents, or if a humane rehabilitation scheme would do better at reforming murderers into non-murderers. The evidence suggests the latter.

Much of crime is a matter of impulse control. Most people don't do a cost benefit analysis, weighing the odds and severity of punishment. They get angry or greedy or whatever and they act.

I wish I could find a video where a specialist in criminal rehabilitation says that most of the guys he works with ruined their lives in 10 seconds, with just one bad impulsive decision.

> This is a straw man.

No, it isn't. Your claim is "punishment as a deterrence is dead".

I am claiming that:

If the punishment for murder is 20 years in prison, there will be X murders per capita. If the punishment for murder is nothing, there will MUCH more than X murders per capita. How much exactly? I don't know. But I know damn sure there will be a lot more.

You can have a real debate about where the point of diminishing returns and how it models. Is it linear or does it decay exponentially? Is one year sufficient or does it take five or ten?

You come here with a bold claim like "punishment as a deterrence is dead". It absolutely, unequivocally is not. If you want to have a more nuanced conversation, you need to make a more nuanced claim. Because the one you made is ignorant and obviously false.