It quells vigilantism.
Particularly, America has a culture that puts relatively high value in individualism, and I think that would make vigilantism, individuals meting out their own brand of justice, common if not for the perspective that the government will dole out harsh punishments without the victims needing to do it themselves. We aren't Norway, and the delta between the present status quo in both countries is itself evidence of this cultural difference.
I also find this American exceptionalism unconvincing. No, you are not uniquely barbaric brutes unable to reason about the morality of your actions.
Nor is this about the US vs. Norway. There are plenty of places with more lenient prison systems without any such huge waves of vigilantism. There's no evidence to suggest more lenient sentencing would cause vigilantism of a level that can't be stopped just like other violent crime.
Who said that? What is that even meant to mean?
Here is what I said: Americans demand that criminals be harshly punished and if the government isn't willing to saite that desire then Americans, having individualist mentalities, will take justice into their own hands more often than the people in countries like Norway. The government does try to prevent this vigilantism, because vigilantism is harmful to society as a whole, but there's not a whole lot the government can actually do to stop me from murdering my neighbor with a baseball bat because he did something to my son. What the government can do to stop me from doing that is give me a credible promise of punishing the man for me.
The American public demands harsh treatment of criminals, which is why the American government provides this. If the American public were a bunch of Norwegians then American laws would reflect Norwegian values. Both systems are a product of their respective culture. The difference between the two systems of justice reflect cultural differences in attitudes towards justice.
> I also find this American exceptionalism unconvincing. No, you are not uniquely
If anything, its the Scandinavians who are unique. Go to Africa, Asia or South America and you'll find that criminals are given harsh punishments and people generally like this. In fact this is more or less true in most of Europe as well, which is why people always talk about Norway/Sweden/etc as the go-to counter examples. They are the ones who stand out as exceptions to the norm of inflicting punishment on criminals. What I'm saying is that system is designed for that culture and would not satisfy most Americans. Most Americans are satisfied with seeing criminals get what they deserve.
You used the risk of vigilantism as a reason for the brutal treatment of prisoners.
> What the government can do to stop me from doing that is give me a credible promise of punishing the man for me.
They can also give a credible promise of punishing would-be murderers like you for that kind of vigilantism. There is no evidence to suggest that shorter sentences leads to more vigilantism. Zero. It's something you've made up to justify a barbaric, immoral treatment of prisoners.
> If anything, its the Scandinavians who are unique.
Strawman. The argument was not about everyone going as far as Scandinavia, but about not going to the other far extreme like the US.
> Go to Africa, Asia or South America and you'll find that criminals are given harsh punishments
And yet no single other country worldwide imprisons a large proportion of its population than the US. The US is worse at this than the most brutal authoritarian dictatorships.
> In fact this is more or less true in most of Europe as well
Nowhere near the US extreme.
Someone with a personality to commit violence with a sense of righteousness is bound to unlawfully hurt people sooner or later.
The sooner we can rehabilitate violent criminals like that, the better.
Retribution needs to have value in an of itself, and it doesn't have any. you can't pay rent with it, you can't eat it. No-one's life was ever saved by it, no-one's lot in life was improved, there is no societal benefit. You just favour a brutish set of values
> I find the notion of supporting this level of harm to others to be no more moral if you vote for it than if you commit a violent crime.
I likewise find it pretty ridiculous to equate voting for retributive punishment for murder and actual murder.
Personally, I find it ridiculous to differentiate between murdering a person for e.g. money, and murdering a person for vengeance, and absent an imminent threat for which deadly force is generally authorized, I don't support the use of it.
But if you take steps to conspire with people to cause violence to be caused to others, such as by voting for the perpetuation of a violent, brutal prison system, then I would see you as morally no better than someone actually engaged in a violent attack. You're in that case seeking to cause an untold amount of harm to others.
To me, seeking to cause that to happen to others is at least as wildly immoral as a rape and murder.
Personally I'd find it more moral to subject people supporting these kinds of conditions to them than to subject anyone else to them, because I find the notion of supporting this level of harm to others to be no more moral if you vote for it than if you commit a violent crime.