The Ring of Gyges and Deterrence
The Ring of Gyges is an ancient Greek thought experiment. In simple terms:
The Ring of Gyges... is a mythicalmagical artifact mentioned by the philosopher Plato in Book 2 of his Republic (2:359a–2:360d).[1] It grants its owner the power to become invisible at will. Through the story of the ring, Republic considers whether an intelligent person would be just if they did not have to fear any bad reputation if they committed injustices.
Basically, the ring entitles its bearer to invisibility, and with this newfound skill, the conceptual bearer wonders what they would do.
Recently, I did this with a bunch of kids. And, the fascinating things was, they all decided they would do something along the lines of stealing - money from banks, credit cards from parents (they loved), trips to Disneyland, breaking into strangers homes and selling their valuable things in Ebay, so on and so forth. I was initially surprised because children are generally more idealistic and morally benign. I was surprised at the general level of potential criminality.
The thought experiment, though seemingly facile, actually has some interesting nuance. Essentially, it asks whether, if no one knew what you were doing, this would give you free rein to be self-serving and morally dubious. Socrates argued, on the other hand, that you should be virtuous, and by doing good, you would end up being happier. This is, perhaps, equally as self-serving. Be naughty to be happy or be nice to be happy.
After questioning them and delving into their justifications, they were all quite honest about the idea that, if there was no chance of being caught, then there would be no veto to doing bad things.
Or, in other words, they weren't prepared to be good for being good's sake. They were good because it was too much of a risk being bad!
This was even more interesting because of what I have read and researched on punishment and deterrence (see synopsis below).
I remember getting into an argument with a friend who was extolling the virtues of making punishments for crimes much harsher because, like chopping hands off for stealing, this would bring down crime rates.
Except, evidence.
So, data suggests that making punshiments harsher does not particularly affect crime rates, or a criminal's propensity to commit a given crime. No, what does affect the desire to commit a crime is the chance of being caught.
Here we have a bunch of children giving answers that chime with existing crime and punishment data. The Ring of Gyges can tell us something more than mere abstract mental meandering. Nice. NOTES This is from the National Institute of Justice:
1. The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment.
Research shows clearly that the chance of being caught is a vastly more effective deterrent than even draconian punishment.
2. Sending an individual convicted of a crime to prison isn’t a very effective way to deter crime.
Prisons are good for punishing criminals and keeping them off the street, but prison sentences (particularly long sentences) are unlikely to deter future crime. Prisons actually may have the opposite effect: Inmates learn more effective crime strategies from each other, and time spent in prison may desensitize many to the threat of future imprisonment. See Understanding the Relationship Between Sentencing and Deterrencefor additional discussion on prison as an ineffective deterrent.
3. Police deter crime by increasing the perception that criminals will be caught and punished.
The police deter crime when they do things that strengthen a criminal’s perception of the certainty of being caught. Strategies that use the police as “sentinels,” such as hot spots policing, are particularly effective. A criminal’s behavior is more likely to be influenced by seeing a police officer with handcuffs and a radio than by a new law increasing penalties.
4. Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime.
Laws and policies designed to deter crime by focusing mainly on increasing the severity of punishment are ineffective partly because criminals know little about the sanctions for specific crimes. More severe punishments do not “chasten” individuals convicted of crimes, and prisons may exacerbate recidivism. See Understanding the Relationship Between Sentencing and Deterrencefor additional discussion on prison as an ineffective deterrent.
5. There is no proof that the death penalty deters criminals.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, "Research on the deterrent effect of capital punishment is uninformative about whether capital punishment increases, decreases, or has no effect on homicide rates."