Corrective vs punitive. Punitive => punishment. The actual justification is when correction fails, all that is left is punitive action to keep the offender, usually at this point someone who can't stop victimising others, away from others. Whether or not this is done properly or fairly is the real issue, and self-control, which comes from developing individualism and self-determination, is a measure here as well.
I remember being told about punitive justice as a kid from a cop. He said that the people in prison would torture us, rape us, beat us up, and possibly kill us if we are ever convicted of a crime. These are the de facto sentences given to people when they are placed in prison. Prisons are designed to cause suffering to the prisoners. I think a few objections to this are (1) just because it's intuitive doesn't mean it's right, I would argue that this isn't so much intuitive as it is primal. We have innate bloodlust for people hurt us. Punitive justice is justice is just vengeance by the state. (2) our judgment of what's right and wrong changes in many cases, and we don't know the harms we cause. Thousands of gay men and women were arrested and imprisoned. We recognize that as wrong now, but the harm was already done. Innocent people are bound to be caught up in any punitive system. And (3) is there a limit to the punishment? We're supposed to limit punishment in the USA to be cruel, unusual, or excessive, but that places a cap on punishments. A man who tortures and murders 50 people vs a man who tortures and murders 2 people both get the same death penalty, but intuitively it seems one person did far worse than the other. If we already cap our punishments, why not bring that cap down to the point where punishment for it's own sake be removed entirely.
I think nobody commits crimes under the knowledgeable assumption that what they're doing is wrong. I think everyone who commits a crime thinks the crime is excusable under their circumstances, even in situations where they would otherwise be in favor of punishing that crime. This can be the result of mental defects such as with psychopathy, or it can be a result of compromising circumstances such as starvation, societal inequity, etc. Also, everyone's going to have differing views of what are excusing circumstances, meaning I don't think that it's possible to measure what is retributively fair, and is likely to result in injustice, especially when power dynamics come into play. Consequently, I don't think this is a constructive way to deal punishment, since it's likely to create the sense in the criminal that they were wronged and must themselves commit more crime to even the cosmic scale as it were. Instead, we should be using methods that achieve the desired results of penitence on the part of the criminal, so that they desire to correct them cosmic injustice on their own. The first step should be to discover their excusing circumstances and eliminate them. Then it should involve instruction in the consequences of their actions, to help those capable of it develop empathy for their victims, ideally leading them to self correction. In cases where they're incapable of empathy, they should receive psychological intervention to restore that capability
This is a comforting fiction. The sad reality is that the world is full of people who will joyfully kill you just for the pleasure of hearing you scream. They have a great deal of empathy. They need a powerful awareness of your feelings, so they can know when they are hurting you the most.
Why do we presuppose that the 'state' should have the sole authority to acertain what should be, and to dispense, punishment? Given that the state has shown, historically, to be gravely unjust and unbalanced when it comes to the dispensation of justice (especially when the crime has been committed by one of their own) and notriously secretive and duplicitous in the issuance of information regarding their own crimes, why should the state have the monopoly on distributing punishment? Maybe that role should be taken on by the governed (or a proven righteous sub-section thereof) and not the government.
In smaller societies it is up to the family/clan of the victim to mete out punishment. This can lead to long lasting and damaging blood feuds that run for generations. We have decided to take the emotion out of the punishment by giving the power and right to the state to do so on our behalf. The state goes against its reason for existing when it does not mete out justice.
What about the notion of "make whole", where the state isn't some wheel of morality, but there to arbitrate between aggrieved parties? Harder to do with violent crimes and has numerous deficiencies, especially when dealing with the mentally ill, but it should be the origin point and guiding principle of state intervention, especially given the state's propensity to levy fines that do not go to the victim or in any way seek to reduce crime in general beyond punishment.
I don't like retributivism. But there was a case recently, when a murderer was released and did something good years afterwards. And was plastered all over TV shows and news. Now that is wrong for the family of the victim. It's certainly good for society, that a man has been returned to the society and is doing some public good. But for the family of the victim, to see the murderer of their son, brother, father, all over news, discussed by everyone. I don't like death penalty or harsh life sentences even one bit. But it certainly resolves this very neatly and the family of the victim don't need to be afraid to meet him by chance somewhere, or to think that he's having a great life that the victim (and they themselves) never will or to see his face on the TV.
In my opinion, all of these concepts ultimately attempt to achieve the same goal of social order and stability. A society without norms/laws leads to chaos and violence, and there is no law where there is no punishment. Human evolution has genetically predisposed us to have certain instinctual desires and attitudes that are automatically triggered under certain circumstances. We see a a tiger, and we either instictively run, hide, freeze or fight depending on the circumstance. But evolution eventually gave humans a brain capable of reason, so that our intellect could override our instinct when appropriate. Evolution gave humans a sense of fairness/justice, which can be seen as retributivism, which I consider to be much the same as 'victim's interest'. However, our intellect came up with rationalizations for punishment that often better achieve the goal of social order, such as deterrence and rehabilitation/education. I can see instances where these different 'perspectives' may contradict, but I believe that generally speaking they complement each other.
Neither execution nor incarceration are punishment, or even justice. Incarceration is about separating a dangerous person from society. Execution is supposed to be recognizing that some people will never get better and need to be removed permanently. Life imprisonment just exists so squeamish people can convince themselves that they are moral, by subjecting someone to a lifetime of suffering rather than giving them the dignity of a quick and painless death.
The state isn't doing anything to them. They did that to themselves when they murdered someone. State is just doing what the murderer knew would happen to them for their wrong actions. This is assuming everyone in the state knows what the crimes are. If the state murders someone they are equally responsible as the citizen who murdered. But implementing a punishment is a completely different scenario. Who said that victim satisfaction isn't an end in itself? If anyone kill my brother, i want them to die as an end. Deterrence, justice and rehabilitation are secondary to me.
Corrective vs punitive.
Punitive => punishment.
The actual justification is when correction fails, all that is left is punitive action to keep the offender, usually at this point someone who can't stop victimising others, away from others. Whether or not this is done properly or fairly is the real issue, and self-control, which comes from developing individualism and self-determination, is a measure here as well.
I remember being told about punitive justice as a kid from a cop. He said that the people in prison would torture us, rape us, beat us up, and possibly kill us if we are ever convicted of a crime. These are the de facto sentences given to people when they are placed in prison. Prisons are designed to cause suffering to the prisoners.
I think a few objections to this are (1) just because it's intuitive doesn't mean it's right, I would argue that this isn't so much intuitive as it is primal. We have innate bloodlust for people hurt us. Punitive justice is justice is just vengeance by the state. (2) our judgment of what's right and wrong changes in many cases, and we don't know the harms we cause. Thousands of gay men and women were arrested and imprisoned. We recognize that as wrong now, but the harm was already done. Innocent people are bound to be caught up in any punitive system. And (3) is there a limit to the punishment? We're supposed to limit punishment in the USA to be cruel, unusual, or excessive, but that places a cap on punishments. A man who tortures and murders 50 people vs a man who tortures and murders 2 people both get the same death penalty, but intuitively it seems one person did far worse than the other. If we already cap our punishments, why not bring that cap down to the point where punishment for it's own sake be removed entirely.
I think nobody commits crimes under the knowledgeable assumption that what they're doing is wrong. I think everyone who commits a crime thinks the crime is excusable under their circumstances, even in situations where they would otherwise be in favor of punishing that crime. This can be the result of mental defects such as with psychopathy, or it can be a result of compromising circumstances such as starvation, societal inequity, etc. Also, everyone's going to have differing views of what are excusing circumstances, meaning I don't think that it's possible to measure what is retributively fair, and is likely to result in injustice, especially when power dynamics come into play. Consequently, I don't think this is a constructive way to deal punishment, since it's likely to create the sense in the criminal that they were wronged and must themselves commit more crime to even the cosmic scale as it were. Instead, we should be using methods that achieve the desired results of penitence on the part of the criminal, so that they desire to correct them cosmic injustice on their own. The first step should be to discover their excusing circumstances and eliminate them. Then it should involve instruction in the consequences of their actions, to help those capable of it develop empathy for their victims, ideally leading them to self correction. In cases where they're incapable of empathy, they should receive psychological intervention to restore that capability
This is a comforting fiction. The sad reality is that the world is full of people who will joyfully kill you just for the pleasure of hearing you scream. They have a great deal of empathy. They need a powerful awareness of your feelings, so they can know when they are hurting you the most.
I like your thinking. It makes me feel that not all hope is lost.
Why do we presuppose that the 'state' should have the sole authority to acertain what should be, and to dispense, punishment? Given that the state has shown, historically, to be gravely unjust and unbalanced when it comes to the dispensation of justice (especially when the crime has been committed by one of their own) and notriously secretive and duplicitous in the issuance of information regarding their own crimes, why should the state have the monopoly on distributing punishment? Maybe that role should be taken on by the governed (or a proven righteous sub-section thereof) and not the government.
Now you're asking the real questions!
In smaller societies it is up to the family/clan of the victim to mete out punishment. This can lead to long lasting and damaging blood feuds that run for generations. We have decided to take the emotion out of the punishment by giving the power and right to the state to do so on our behalf. The state goes against its reason for existing when it does not mete out justice.
Immensely helpful for a paper I'm writing for my ethics class, thanks so much
Glad it was helpful!
I love philosophy
I have a friend who's working life ended at 27 because a bad lawyer resulted in him having a felony conviction.
What about the notion of "make whole", where the state isn't some wheel of morality, but there to arbitrate between aggrieved parties?
Harder to do with violent crimes and has numerous deficiencies, especially when dealing with the mentally ill, but it should be the origin point and guiding principle of state intervention, especially given the state's propensity to levy fines that do not go to the victim or in any way seek to reduce crime in general beyond punishment.
The animation repeated uses the term "desert", when it should be "dessert".
I don't like retributivism. But there was a case recently, when a murderer was released and did something good years afterwards. And was plastered all over TV shows and news. Now that is wrong for the family of the victim. It's certainly good for society, that a man has been returned to the society and is doing some public good. But for the family of the victim, to see the murderer of their son, brother, father, all over news, discussed by everyone.
I don't like death penalty or harsh life sentences even one bit. But it certainly resolves this very neatly and the family of the victim don't need to be afraid to meet him by chance somewhere, or to think that he's having a great life that the victim (and they themselves) never will or to see his face on the TV.
In my opinion, all of these concepts ultimately attempt to achieve the same goal of social order and stability. A society without norms/laws leads to chaos and violence, and there is no law where there is no punishment. Human evolution has genetically predisposed us to have certain instinctual desires and attitudes that are automatically triggered under certain circumstances. We see a a tiger, and we either instictively run, hide, freeze or fight depending on the circumstance. But evolution eventually gave humans a brain capable of reason, so that our intellect could override our instinct when appropriate. Evolution gave humans a sense of fairness/justice, which can be seen as retributivism, which I consider to be much the same as 'victim's interest'. However, our intellect came up with rationalizations for punishment that often better achieve the goal of social order, such as deterrence and rehabilitation/education. I can see instances where these different 'perspectives' may contradict, but I believe that generally speaking they complement each other.
There is nothing wrong in sentencing criminals to prison for the harm they did to others.
Taxes and building roads is harmful? What the hell? Am I subscribing to a Libertarian channel without realizing it or something?
Punishment is evil, period.
Neither execution nor incarceration are punishment, or even justice. Incarceration is about separating a dangerous person from society. Execution is supposed to be recognizing that some people will never get better and need to be removed permanently. Life imprisonment just exists so squeamish people can convince themselves that they are moral, by subjecting someone to a lifetime of suffering rather than giving them the dignity of a quick and painless death.
The state isn't doing anything to them. They did that to themselves when they murdered someone. State is just doing what the murderer knew would happen to them for their wrong actions. This is assuming everyone in the state knows what the crimes are.
If the state murders someone they are equally responsible as the citizen who murdered. But implementing a punishment is a completely different scenario.
Who said that victim satisfaction isn't an end in itself? If anyone kill my brother, i want them to die as an end. Deterrence, justice and rehabilitation are secondary to me.
Well, that's just malevolent.
Vengeance isn't justice genius
@@MrE073 equal punishment is justice. Thanks for calling me a genius