"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"....?

I think the problem lies with the word "punish." The recent trend in penology is to go back to a concept that was tried at an early point in the 20th Century, then went out of style in the late 1950s -- rehabilitation rather than punishment. If people commit a wrongful act, they should be made aware of the fact that it is wrongful and taught to behave in a different manner. Socrates (as reported by Plato) said that no man errs willingly. His point was that all wrongful acts are the result of ignorance rather than willful malice. I think there is something in that. Seen in this light, even the death penalty should not be thought of in terms of "capital punishment." There are some people who are so useless to even themselves and such a danger to the rest of society that they should be taken out of circulation permanently as an act of mercy.I'd bet there would be far less opposition to the death penalty if it were seen in this light -- as a kind of euthanasia, rather than "punishment." It would go a long way toward appeasing the religious folk who insist that only God has the right to extract vengeance.

The second part of your question is really too broad. "Should people be punished for certain crimes that they are ignorant of?" What sorts of crimes did you have in mind? A person can be ignorant of certain social mores if he/she comes from a different culture where there is no taboo against a similiar action which we, in this culture, consider a crime. Take polygamy. In most states of the USA this is illegal. In Islamic countries which subscribe to Sharia law, there is nothing illegal about a man having up to four wives. Do we punish the Muslim for having broken a secular law, a product of our Western culture, or do we take the wider view that he is only following the dictates of his religion? Is this the type of "crime" you are talking about or do you mean crimes against a person or property? What is a crime in one culture could well be quite legal in another. Any answer to your second question hinges on a definition of "crime."

Andrew

Punishment has been justified by three different reasons:
A) The criminal must suffer in the exact proportion of the suffering he caused to his victim.
B) Punishment will dissuade other potential criminals.
C) If the criminal is killed or locked in a prison, he cannot repeat his criminal actions.

To me, the first argument is irracional and is related to societies that still use the concept of "debt of blood" - the 3rd part of the Orestea shows, very well, the transition from such a society to one where punishment must be adequate to crime in all it's circumstances.
The second argument has been proved wrong, as we see in the US, with death penalty. But in certain cases, the punishment is so terrible that it can dissuade other people: see the case of Saudi Arabia.
The third is more credible, but envolves larges expenses to the state.

What is your opinion about those arguments?

val, I agree with your arguments against the first two propositions. Statement A is simply barbaric and unworthy of any society which tries to understand the actions of all of its members. Statement B, as you say, has been shown to be ineffective everywhere. For example, murder rates never go down in states which practice capital punishment. As to Statement C, it is undeniable that neither a dead person nor an incarcerated one can do much harm to others. But there is more aganst it than just the expense. For one thing -- except for the death penalty -- it's a short-term solution. Unless every crime carries a life sentence, the perpetrator will be released at some point. If the only goal of his imprisonment was to punish him, there is little hope that he won't commit a similar crime again. Recidivism is awfully high in this country. In my view, rehabilitation, not punishment, should be the goal.

Punishment? When a person does something wrong we immediately take away his "humanity" in giving our judgement. This judgement is never just. When a person commits a crime he should not be excluded from society, he should be even more included. He should be made aware of his own humanity again instead of having it diminished, because his concience is a far better judge and a far more severe punisher than our judges can ever be. All we must do is to remind him of it, and that we can hardly do when he is required to defend himself from external attacks.

This is what "an eye for an eye, and the whole world is blind" means.


Val wrote that if a person is put in prison or killed he cannot repeat his crime. That is true. But he also cannot repent, because the qualities that sent him to prison will be neccesary for him to survive in there.

How utopian of you. sounds all nice and dandy and I wish it were true but it is wrong. Have you ever gone to a prison? Have you ever been in crime-related situations, around major criminals and/or murderers. there are far fewer that want to repent than you think. I grew up in an area that was infested with crime and drugs. These people werent sorry. You send there asses to jail because that's the only thing they understood. The second they were released on parole they came back and started sellin drugs and joining gangs again. Guess what Cyracuz they do repeat crimes. And if you don't catch them and send them to jail why would they stop? Most are not like you Cyracuz they don't have a heavy conscience. Why would they feel sorry for killing a man when they made the decision to kill already? The answer is they really won't. You get a few who say they do, but they usually do so hoping to get some parole.

I like your ideas however I would like you to step back into reality. Conscience plays very little part in crimes. Their conscience is not a judge its a small little voice that isn't really heard and under your ideas why should it be heard? Commit a crime get better treatment? Wtf is that?

The laws are there as a deterrant, not a revenge system. Now, I'm not saying that they should have really good treatment in jails or anything, but that as they are in jail there must also be an attempt at rehabilitation.
Expense would be the problem though.

They don't deter anyone. The only thing that deters them is if you put them in jail for long periods periods of time after 3 crimes (minor or not). We have enough fine citizens; we don't need to spend money on a futile cause so we can have one more okay person to add to the millions. Yeah that's worth taxpayer's dollars

It's not about numbers, and I don't see it as futile. We could even learn more about human psychology and methods of improvement even from a failed attempt of rehab.

Keep in mind we are approaching an ethical field now.


It reallly depends on who you talk to.

Now, if there are other more imminent things to spend the money on then I'd say spend it on those things.

El diablo

It is sad, but I think you are right. I am very familiar with crime and criminals. They don't want to repent - with exceptions of course.They always give themselves a good excuse - even a moral one - to what they do. Major criminals,like murders, like the kind of life that, sooner or later, implies another crime. They have no real respect for human life.
Their problem is their terrible selfishness.
It is true that prison takes away their humanity. But, what humanity?
I think that, in a matter like this, it is imperative to know the reality, how those men or women are.

About rehabilititation. It was a very gentle idea, and all western countries tried to apply it. But the results are very poor. Perhaps because states are not willing to spend as much money as it will be needed in those institutions. But for worst criminals, and I talk based on my experience - not as a criminal - rehabilitation is something impossible. They want to be what they are, not what a society they dispize wants them to be.

The sociopaths are the tricky ones. As for the rationalization thing, this just shows that they're either delusional or enslaved by some rotten feelings.

El diablo, when you send their ass to jail because it is the only thing they understand... What do they understand from this? That the law wants nothing of them, that they are in the way? Gee, if someone put that much faith in me I might also consider the fast track to money.

I think that your opinion is one based on fear rather than any sense of morality.

And yes, I have been around heavy criminals, and not always when they were restrained. Drugdealers and violent offenders. I even consider some of them friends, though that may be hard for you to understand.

How do you rehabilitate a criminal? Therapy? Counseling? Education? During rehabilitation (assuming this will not be an overnight process) what is keeping these criminals from commiting the same crimes again?

I think the statement "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" is correct... but only if the whole world is commiting crimes. Law abiding citizens who do not take an eye will not lose an eye.

Some societies (1) teach their populations what is considered right and wrong, (2) punish offenders with cheaply administered corporal punishments or public humiliation, and (3) refrain from punishing non-offenders. This combination has been highly effective wherever tried.

I don't want to get too detailed on this for certain reasons.



Nah it's not on fear, it's on experience. I grew up and most of the people around were involved in crime. The only thing they feared was being caught and sentenced to long sentences. A month or two didn't bother them or even a year. They were worried about being sent for life. That's what they fear; that's what they understand.

I really really wish it were the way you want it to be Cyracuz please understand that. But I have been in huge crime areas (East L.A. it was bad trust me) and that's not the way it is. Maybe in other areas the criminals are like that but it's not that way there or in many areas i fear.



Works fine in some countries not in others. Before any bastards take this the wrong way; certain cultures accept laws better than others. I'm sure you've noticed this. Theres a reason why South America (I'm Venezuelan btw) have high crime. And it's not the government's fault. It just seems to be a part of the culture (on a global scale NOT an individual). It just doesn't work in places. Maybe it all cool in Holland or w/e but not in others. Please trust me. It's like socialism. It would work in some areas but sure as hell not in others. Great ideas that don't fly in certain situations.

Cyracuz

Great criminals are not some sort of "avis rara", or exotic alliens. They are men like you and me. Most had poor instruction, but they are not stupid. They are not "poor fellows" who just hadn't luck. They know what they want. And what they want is not very different from what most of people want. But they want it now, no matter how.
Let me give an example: years ago, a killer escaped from jail. He killed the guard, killed an accomplice that had been shot by the police, and killed a man to steal his car.
Later, on trial, he said that if the guard was not in his way, he would be allive. That his accomplice needed an hospital, and if he took him there, both would be arrested. About the car: if the man didn't resist and let him steal the car with no resistance, he would be alive.
That killer was not a beast. He was calm, explained his point of view, he believed that his actions were due to the action of the victims. I remember him saying: it was the circumstances.
But he never questioned the killing itself. It was a mean, nothing else.

Cyracuz, you know I respect very much your opinions: what do you say to this? (it's real).

We are rarely as stupid as when we argue the pros and cons of penal punishment. There is so much sadism, fear, resentment and, perhaps, unfounded or exaggerated pity that blocks any attempts to examine the issue in terms of well founded research. My sentiments lead me to the perhaps stupid notion that white collar criminals--who injure so many more people than do the desperate and often intellectually retarded blue collar burglar and robber--should be more severely prosecuted. I would protect society from such quasi-sociopaths and the likes of the Aryan Brotherhood. But I would not empower our government to provide such protection by means of legal murder. Don't ask me why unless you want a purely subjective response.

Thank you val. Right now I am toying with the idea that if nobody is able to stop this criminal, then he is able to do what he wants. The dictator of a country is never called a criminal by his people, especially when he is one. The winner writes history. If the killer you mentioned somehow took over the world his law would be The law.

I for one will never accept confinement or punishment of any kind from any man or woman and consider it just. No matter what the crime is. That is not to say I wouldn't bow to the will of my community. (not that I would have much choise).

My point with this is that when you face accusations from the state you are witnessing a process in wich your responsibility of your actions is momentarily lifted from you and wielded by others to pass judgement. These people assume the consequenses of your actions and decide what will come of them. It is my belief that a human being, provided he remembers that he is human, is far better suited for this than any other person. He merely has to be reminded of his conscience. A jail is hardly a place where a person has either time nor oportunity for conscientious thought. It's a stowaway for those considered unsafe.

I agree that a person of such limited restriction should not be allowed to develop unchecked in the free world, but then again, he is hardly unchecked. He may carve a path of bloodshed, but sooner or later he will meet his bane.

And one more thing: What is a crime? As I see it there are two kinds of crime. Against humanity, and against property, and I am not sure that the consept of property is not a crime against evolution... It can be argued that all laws to protect property are injust.

I am, by the way, opposed to death penalty, though perhaps for a more selfish reason than most: I simply refuse to bloody my hands. If you think about it, after the execution, the executioner should be executed, then the guy who executed him.... you see where I am going.

I thought about one more thing: Can it not be said that to produce the illution that the state can protect us was the first crime, simply because it can't? To provide for individuals is one thing, but to create a dependence when you're not going to see it through is nothing but breeding victims.

That proves the illogicality of an eye for an eye argument.