For this debate let’s assume that we are using punishment as a deterrence. Let’s also assume that we are trying to reduce the overall harm by the use of punishment and we also see punishment as a harm.
How do we deal with the marginal utility of the punishment? For example, we see parking on Main Street as a harm. So we have 24 hour patrols and give tickets for illegal parking on Main Street (ignore cost of patrols and ticketing). Since we are so vigilant on giving tickets we get a very good amount of deterrence. However, if we do not give a ticket to any particular singular car it will not hurt our level of deterrence enough to be greater than the harm of the ticket. How do we justify giving this particular ticket? Can we make an argument that even though this ticket increases the overall harm it is necessary to give this ticket? If we decide that it is not justifiable to give a ticket that increases in the total harm in a particular case, how do we determine who we give the “no ticket break” to?
The question is do we give this car a ticket even though we know in this particular isolated case it will increase the overall harm. We are not just missing the car. Obviously, it creates a slippery slope problem of who we give a ticket to. I really can’t see an answer. I guess a big part of the question might be is “total” enforcement justifiable?
In this case, I would think that the process of determining who gets the break would probably cause more harm (in the form of economic waste) than the harm caused by giving the extra ticket, so give the ticket anyway.
I didn’t think that even posted. Mods could you kill the other thread. I was having problems with my wireless when I wrote that. I thought it had been lost when I tried to post it. So I decided to re-write it and that GD would be better. Sorry.
Actually, if the deterrance theory were used, the best thing we could do was to arbitrarily stop people, check whether they were parking illegally, and torture them on the stop if found in violation.
I think a very valid argument might be that the harm inflicted in the punishment of torture is worse than the harm of the illegal parking. Thus destroying our goal of using the harm of punishment to lower the overall harm.