Punishment and Justice

Ray,

Without getting involved in the "Free Will Debate", I think that what you state is just a simple logical proposition. Personal agreement is irrelevent.

Responsibilty = Duty
Failure to carry out duties evokes penalties.
Punishment = penalty of "suffering" inflicted by "self" or "others".

Obviously "suffering" could physical, mental, financial or social censure.

All religions depend heavily on the reification of these concepts and different religions manipulate them in different ways. Secular judicial systems also depend on them to set boundary conditions for a governable "state".

In order to maintain a civilized society, people need to be held responsible for their actions. Although I do not believe that free will is absolute, IMO people have a huge range of choices available to them.

As a child, one of the most important things that can be taught by a parent is that one's actions have consequences. The way that a parent teaches this is by punishing a child for infractions of societal norms. Hopefully, by the time that a person reaches adulthood, these norms have been internalized, and the young adult emerges as a law abiding citizen, cognizant of appropriate boundries of behavior.

In some cases, this internalization does not occur, to one extent or another, and the individual flauts the law. In such cases, punishment is one means by which society attempts to bring an offender into line.

I do not think that the punishment necessarily needs to be the equivalent of the offense, in order for it to accomplish its aim of making the offender understand that he is liable for his misdeeds. Cutting off a person's hand for stealing is cruelly archaic. I think that very few civilized people would suggest the sorts of punishments that in the olden days, satisfied the concept of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".

I am a big believer in not necessarily having the punishment "fit" the crime, but have a relationship to it. For instance, a person charged with spraying graffiti on walls could be ordered to clean marked walls. Someone who has been convicted with D.U.I. might be ordered to serve in a hospital where he can see the results of that sort of behavior. Those who have stolen, would need to recompense their victims.

Obviously, this sort of system would not work in the case of more serious crimes, like premeditated murder, or rape. In those cases, I believe that the most important thing is for society to remove those individuals, so that more innocent people would not be affected by his misdeeds.

IMO, an effective punishment is one that helps the person to understand the magnitude of his infraction, and the effect that his misdeeds have had both to his victims and society as a whole. Hopefully, for many offenders. except for those tainted by hard core sociopathy, the lesson learned by the punishment will enable him to emerge from the punishment a better citizen.

In our society, I perceive two schools of thought. On one hand, there are some who believe that if a person offends, he needs to be punished, for the sake of punishment. There are others who are more focused on the rehabilitation of the individual. I take a middle ground. I think that the punishment needs to illustrate to the person that certain behaviors are not acceptable to society. In addition, the punishment needs to have some relationship to the crime committed, so that the criminal may be allowed to internalize the effect of his actions, and hopefully, learn more productive ways of dealing with his fellow human beings.

Phoenix,

Once we get into the details of tariff systems and their relationship to retribution and recidivism we enter the murky waters of social relativism. Choices have to be made regarding the price of individual "freedom".... between relatively "crime free" societies with harsh regimes, and "crime-frequent" ones with tariffs open to financial manipulation by those with such means. We also need to consider whether victims should have a say in the punishment (as in Arab countries) or whether the state should have absolute control over procedures.

Re: Punishment and Justice


Exactly what concept of punishment doe you mean?

In the philosophy of law, punishment generally is thought to be a penalty imposed by a legal system along with/because of a stigma of wrongdoing or lawbreaking.

In German law, we have one exection, namely junebile criminal, which main purpose isn't to punish but to educate ("criminal law as educational law").

Why only punishment? If you don't support punishment you cannot support rewards either.

If you believe in rewarding deeds, good deeds should be rewarded with good, and bad with bad. Thus there is no punishment, only rewards. (This is just another way to justify a problematic situation).

Walter asks a good question: What concept of punishment exactly...

Sometimes the worst punishment is the absence of retalliation.

That's a good question. I meant punishment in general. I guess my question should be rephrased as do you believe that a greater emphasis should be put on punishment or rehab? What if a person who committed a crime, suddenly realizes that his or her action is a mistake, and regrets it dearly?

I think that punishment's purpose is to deter, but I think that even then it should not violate the right of the person to live and to be free from cruelty. Many people seem to think that justice is an eye for an eye concept. I believe that it is not. Justice means to treat people with equal respect.



I agree with many of the things that you have said in this thread. Anyways, how can we tell when a person is fulyl rehabilitated or is just pretending?

Ray, justice is for the common good - best possible outcome for all concerned. And punishment takes more the form of revenge. That is why I'd say in the case of Capital Punishment, that since courts are there to do justice and not avenge, capital punishment should not be there or there would be no difference left in the criminal's act and the court's act. No matter how responsible one is for any act good or bad, justice must be the guiding light.

That's intereseting Bienna. It does seem to be the general definition that punishment is revenge, but in terms of the legal system, punishment is to act as a deterrant, and not revenge.

Riey,
There is no punishment that will ever act as a deterrant!

I'd have to disagree a bit with you Beena.

Punishment won't deter completely, but it does deter some people from committing crimes. That is why people get speeding tickets. At least, I think that's why...

You know what? You're right! And I wanted to put this in my long epic first but hey, what the heck! Here it is - When no eye and no tooth is involved, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" will perfectly work. For example, when the change is reversible or not permanent, like using words to punish, the above quote comes in handy! And then the world will insist, no, do not use bad words, when the truth is that when they are justified, they are very effective. It's just that bad words and abuse by words must be kept limited, like they say, 'Anger is good but should be kept in control.'