Dave Smith wrote:

>> > You are certainly right to claim that fear of punishment *sometimes*
>> > does not act as a deterrent, but to claim it *never* does is just plain
>> > silly.
>>
>> I never said it *never* does. I said it general *does not* work as a
>> deterrent.
>
> I have to admit that you never said it in exactly those words and with
> that emphasis. Never the less, that has been your frequently repeated
> claim. I have looked through you comments on this thread and cut and
> pasted the following comments on jail and deterrence.
>
> - The problem you're having is thinking that punishment *is* a deterrent.
>
> - Prison is *not* a deterrent, even though you and others are arguing that
> is is.
>
> - These two factors *alone* show prison to *not* be a deterrent in
> any real sense of the word since it does *not* deter the criminals.
>
> - Jail was never meant to be a deterrent
>
> - It's not a deterrent, since people commit crimes thinking
> they will not get *caught*.
>
> You have constantly and repeatedly stressed that jail is not a deterrent.

That's right. It's not a deterrent.

> You never failed to acknowledge that it can be or that it often is.

It can be a specific deterrent, but it is not a *general* deterrent. I
acknowledge that *some* people decide not to commit crimes because of the
fear of getting caught. The difference here is that those who argue that it
is a deterrent think that *most* people operate under this mindset; i.e.,
that most people would commit crimes but they don't for fear of going to
prison.

> Instead, you constantly denied that it is a deterrent and never allowed
> for the possibility that it is. In effect, you were indeed saying that it
> is never a deterrent.

Show me where I said "never". There are four kinds of deterrence:

1. general deterrence: the individual will not commit crimes so as not to
experience the consequences
2. specific deterrence: the individual commits no *further* crimes are
committed after having experienced the consequences of a past crime
3. absolute deterrence: the individual never commits a crime after seeing
someone *else* experience the consequences
4. restrictive deterrence: the individual commits *fewer* crimes after seen
someone *else* experience the consequences

In this thread, those in favor have argued in favor of prison being a
general deterrence. It is *not* such. People *in general* (i.e., the
majority) are *not* deterred from commiting crimes for fear of prison.
There are cases of specific and restrictive deterrence, but those are by
their nature specific cases.

The problem here seems to be one of communication. Those who are arguing
that prison is a deterrent seem not to understand what makes something a
deterrent and when someone is actually deterred by something and when
someone simply doesn't do something.

>> You're talking on a small scale where yes, you *can* find people
>> who were deterred. But, what is the percentage of the population that
>> *is* deterred? It's nowhere near large enough for one to claim that the
>> fear of prison is a general deterrent. And, point out one person who was
>> deterred does not make it generally a deterrent.
>
> Let me guess..... this "paper" that you are working on is high school
> level?

Wow, you've the give of fallacy the same as Peter. Because my paper argues
against your position, it's obviously nothing more than a high schooler's
report or, as Peter try to claim, it's not objective or impartial. IOW,
because it's not in agreement with you, the paper is obviously not to be
taken seriously? Have I summarized your claim sufficiently?