A leader in the new Taliban government is promising a return to barbaric punishments.
The Taliban will resume executions and the amputation of hands for criminals they convict, in a return to their harsh version of Islamic justice.
According to a senior official – a veteran leader of the hardline Islamist group who was in charge of justice during its previous period in power – executions would not necessarily take place in public as they did before.
The Taliban’s first period ruling Afghanistan during the 1990s, before they were toppled by a US-led invasion in 2001 following the 9/11 attacks, was marked by the grisly excesses of its perfunctory justice system, which included public executions in the football stadium in Kabul.
What was interesting was the reasoning that was given.
“Everyone criticised us for the punishments in the stadium, but we have never said anything about their laws and their punishments,” Turabi said in Kabul. “No one will tell us what our laws should be. We will follow Islam and we will make our laws on the Qur’an.”
“Cutting off of hands is very necessary for security,” Turabi added, saying it had a deterrent effect. He said the cabinet was studying whether to carry out punishments in public and would “develop a policy”.
Saying that these punishments had a ‘deterrent effect’ is the same rationale as that given by supporters of the death penalty in the US, which is also a barbaric punishment.
But do not expect supporters of the death penalty to see how similar their mindset is to that of the Taliban.
“Excessive punishments have a deterring effect” runs into at least two problems:
First, it only has a deterring effect on people who believe there’s a chance they will be caught and held accountable. You don’t have to go very far to find stories of criminals who all but turned themselves in and are still surprised at being caught, or of high ranking criminals whose response to being caught is to simply rely on their connections to get out of any punishment.
And second, excessive punishments can actually lead to increases in certain forms of crime. Some of this is from criminals who think that if they’re being punished the same anyway, they might as well do the worse crime that would actually warrant the punishment. And some of it is because, especially in highly religious governments like this, committing crimes of fraudulent reporting that get your enemies framed and punished for crimes they didn’t actually commit becomes very tempting to folks…
First, it only has a deterring effect on people who believe there’s a chance they will be caught and held accountable.
That would be most people, then.
“But do not expect supporters of the death penalty to see how similar their mindset is to that of the Taliban.”
Thank you for stating this clearly. I agree.
“Most people”… perhaps, but the question is to barbaric punishments like this deter more people than lesser punishments. And as long as the lesser punishments are still bad enough to be seen as punishments, I’m not so sure the tougher punishments are actually any better at deterrence. Deterrence levels plateau out.
This is especially true when people are actually desperate. Past a certain point, even if people did a rational risk-reward analysis (which, frankly, most people aren’t very good at), desperate enough people won’t be deterred by what the punishment is going to be, no matter what it is.
jenorafeuer @4, sure.
But you originally suggested it wasn’t likely to be a deterrent, whereas now you’re arguing that it need not be as extreme to remain a likely deterrent.
Capital punishment does not have any deterring effect over and above what life imprisonment alone already has. With that in mind, a person looking at life imprisonment is not going to be additionally deterred if the penalty is changed to execution. Hence, the execution per se provides no deterrence.
All scientific research I am aware of concludes that not the harshness deters people but the probability to get caught. That’s why in small towns criminality tends to be much less: much more social control.
@mnb0
Don’t overlook the different historical rates of lead poisoning in cities vs rural areas from leaded gasoline. Lead poisoning was and is a major driver of violent crime, and this might account for most of the historical difference in crime rates between cities and rural areas.
mnb0:
Sure; if the penalty for murder were a $1 fine though the likelyhood of being caught was 100%, it would have a total deterrent effect.
—
Anyway, at least Bruce @3 got the point of this post.
@ 2 John Morales
First, it only has a deterring effect on people who believe there’s a chance they will be caught and held accountable.
That would be most people, then.
Ah, no. Most “real” criminals really do not expect to be caught. It seems to be a case of “Hope springs eternal”.
I have known one or two thieves who factored in prison time as a cost of doing business but most never expect to end up in jail. If we look at crime clearance stats in various countries property crime clearance rates seem to agree.
More egregious crimes, I don’t know. I suspect outside of the pro’s, something like murder is an impulse crime and the possibility of apprehension is not in the person’s mind.
jrkrideau, sure, cost of doing business.
Of course, that snippet you quoted was in reference to executions and the amputation of hands, not prison time.
(Pretty sure after the second hand is amputated, it will become quite difficult to do business; and after being executed, well…)
The point you miss is that capital punishment has been found not to have any deterring effect over and above what is already seen with
a one dollar finelife imprisonment.Holms, why do you imagine I missed that point?
(cf. #5, where I clearly apprehend it)
—
Put it this way: do you or do you not think that life imprisonment is a greater deterrent than, say, a week’s incarceration?
The fact that you are harping on a point that is rendered obsolete by what has been pointed out. Reminder: the point is not about whether life imprisonment provides additional deterrence above that caused by a $1 fine or a week’s incarceration, it’s about whether capital punishment provides additional deterrence over life imprisonment. As jenorafeuer mentions, the deterrence has plateaued by then.
Ain’t me harping on, Holms.
Of course not, John.
It’s like watching Siri arguing with Alexa.