I was recently disparaged by @coloneljethro for taking the position that sanctioning the evil and stupid for the harm they do should proceed regardless of whether they're evil or stupid. My point was that the reason for sanction is to prevent innocents - or valiant opposition - from being harmed. Trying to make allowances for stupidity only perpetuates harm. If someone is proved to be non compus mentus when prosecuted, then it becomes appropriate to provide them guardianship that will protect them and others from their incapacity.
Nonetheless, society has a duty to protect itself from the harm both evil and stupid people do.
Perhaps I could have explained myself better.
My point is that punishment/sanction simply doesn't work. Its utility as a deterrent is marginal at best and it does little to nothing to actually alleviate the harms done. In that light your insistence upon it seems akin to the old 'the beatings will continue until morale improves.'
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying nothing should be done, but rather that we might be better served by approaching things differently. It seems a bit surreal to protect society from harm by means that require harm to be done before they can be implemented (punishment/sanction follows harm, no?). If the harm is going to occur either way, would it not make more sense to focus on minimizing and/or repairing harm that will inevitably occur?
I have to respectfully disagree with your argument. I'd like to preface my rebuttal with first stating I very much appreciate your consideration of the matter, as you have clearly given it thought. Folks that give this matter thought enable rational consideration of the issue, and you are absolutely correct in your determination that it matters very much to society how government is implemented to prevent harm to people. A lot of what government does is improperly done, and in my estimation dramatically increases the harm people endure.
However, the specifics of sanctions aren't yet part of our considerations here, but merely whether or not mechanisms to prevent harm are undertaken regardless of why harm is being done, or by whom. It is a sad fact of existence in this world that violence is effective in dissuading people from continuing actions that draw violent response. Violence dissuades evil and stupid people alike, as well as good and innocent people.
Government is force. When government intervenes in our lives, it is always bringing the threat of violence. Whether people are deliberately hurting others, or hurting others inadvertantly, they need to be stopped, which is why we all form governments to defend us. There are possibly better ways to do this than government. I certainly think so. But this is clearly something necessary.
Once the harm is stopped, then who and why was committing it can be differentiated, and that is where I reckon we can consider how to handle folks that just aren't mentally capable of constraining their actions themselves, and need to have some kind of guardianship.
But if they're doing the rest of us harm, like poisoning our water or food, they first need to be stopped, and even if it takes violence to do so.
If you can suggest something else, I'm all ears.
Thanks!