4 ms·

Even in countries that have maximum prison sentence length, people who are considered dangerous are still not let out into the public. They'll stay until they a

by antris 11y ago

Even in countries that have maximum prison sentence length, people who are considered dangerous are still not let out into the public. They'll stay until they are considered rehabilitated. For dangerous people that have mental health problems, they don't get a prison sentence at all, but they will be forced to stay in a treatment facility until they are no longer dangerous to others. At least that's how it works in Finland. The whole system is designed to get people to become productive and healthy citizens with minimal suffering, not to provide retribution.

briandear 11y ago
However, what's wrong with retribution? If my daughter was raped and murdered, how should that person be 'rehabilitated?' My daughter would still be dead and the criminal would be able to resume his life. That isn't fair by any definition.
- DasIch 11y ago
  What happens to a victim of any crime is never fair and you will never restore that fairness with any punishment. You can accept that, adjust your goals and move forward or deal with the inevitable frustration and anger of being unable to get vengeance for the rest of your life.
  - antillean 11y ago
    On one version of retributive thinking, retribution isn't really about restoring fairness, about balancing out cosmic scales of justice. It's about giving a person what's due to him or her. We call it reward when what's due to her is a result of good she's done, and we call it (retributive) punishment when it's as a result of evil she's done. On that view, it's generally just right to reward people for good and punish them for evil. Consequences -- even grand ones like balancing the cosmic scales of justice -- don't enter it.
  - cm2187 11y ago
    But the primary purpose of justice is to punish criminal behaviors. We may want as a secondary goal to reduce recidivism but it cannot be at the expense of the primary goal. I strongly disagree with the idea that criminality is a form of mental disease and that prisons are just a sort of hospital to cure criminals. For the same reason the severity of the sentence should be driven by the aversion of the society to the crime committed more than considerations on what will happen to the criminal after the sentence has been executed.
    - anon4 11y ago
      the primary purpose of justice is to punish criminal behaviors Americans are a scary people.
      - krapp 11y ago
        Americans didn't invent this principle, and certainly are not unique in having applied it.
        cm2187 11y ago
        ...and I am not even american!
        noir_lord 11y ago
        You are however unique amongst developed countries in how far you applied it. Per capita you incarcerate more people than any other major country (developed or not).
        krapp 11y ago
        That is true.
    - DasIch 11y ago
      Why punish people? That's not a goal, not a moral value or something anyone should have a desire to do. The goal is peace. It has to be peace. You might never reach that goal entirely but you can try and you want people that ensure peace exists and people that restore it once it has been violated. Quite clearly exerting vengeance through the justice system is not the best way to achieve that goal, in fact it's obviously by far the worst.
- Qantourisc 11y ago
  Retribution serves you, it does not serve the community. There is also a quote of Gandhi I cannot find. So I'll paraphrase: If you are angry at someone, and he did not intend to hurt you, you should not be angry. If he did intend to hurt you, he is not as wise/it's in his nature, and you should not be angry.
  - cm2187 11y ago
    Let's take an example, which is actually not that theoretical (this happened several times in Europe). Say a Saudi prince, in one of his depraved cocaine trips to London, rapes a British girl. He is arrested, presented to the court. If he is sentenced to jail, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will react very badly and blacklist the UK from all future contracts, resulting in hundreds of people losing their job in the UK, and hardship for their families. The British govt asks the court to be lenient and to let the prince go. The court obliges. Is this justice? If we follow your logic it is. Retribution would only serve the British girl but not the community. The community has nothing to gain from punishing the prince but everything to loose from loosing all these Saudi contracts. If you think justice is only about serving the community, not about retribution then you will happily approve the decision of the court. My personal position is that it is the very negation of justice, and that behaving this way jeopardize the acceptance of the judicial system by the population. As for Gandhi, it's similar to the Christian "if someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also". But I am not sure that a recipe that worked well against a democratic British parliament will work as well when facing a violent thug.
  - antillean 11y ago
    > There is also a quote of Gandhi I cannot find. So I'll paraphrase: If you are angry at someone, and he did not intend to hurt you, you should not be angry. If he did intend to hurt you, he is not as wise/it's in his nature, and you should not be angry. What? Why shouldn't I be angry if a fool intentionally hurts me?
    - WolfeReader 11y ago
      Anger interferes with your intelligence and leads you to make rash decisions. Anger should always be avoided.
- vectorjohn 11y ago
  That isn't fair by any biblical definition, but luckily not everybody cares about that. The way people are treated shouldn't be based on what the most emotionally invested people want. What makes the person rehabilitated is that they don't do the crime again, and nothing else. You can't cause wrongdoing to someone who is dead, so the only downside to releasing the person is you might feel sad. Only if you dwell on it for the rest of your life. But you won't, people move on.
  - antillean 11y ago
    Wait. So, on your view, it's fair -- "Treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination" or "Just or appropriate in the circumstances", according to oxforddictionaries.com's top two definitions -- for a rapist-murderer to be able to get on with his life (maybe after 20 extremely frustrating but possibly also fruitful years for him) while an innocent young lady's is tragically cut short? And you think it's an indictment on Biblical (and, apparently, also Oxonion) definitions of "fair" that they'd disagree with you on that?
    - vectorjohn 11y ago
      Neither of those definitions disagree with me. I mean, if you read it with your apparently biblical bent, then "treating people equally" probably means the rapist should be raped and killed. But no sane society thinks that's a good idea. "Just or appropriate" doesn't actually say anything about what should be done in a case of rape+murder. Who's to say life in prison is appropriate? I don't think it is. It's a waste. The young lady wasn't put in a hellish environment for a lifetime. And what do we as a society gain by wasting money on prisoners for exactly zero return on investment? We're basically punishing ourselves to spend that money. Better to wait until the problem is solved (i.e. we don't think they'll do it again) and let them out where they can do something useful.

by antris 11y ago

briandear 11y ago

However, what's wrong with retribution? If my daughter was raped and murdered, how should that person be 'rehabilitated?' My daughter would still be dead and the criminal would be able to resume his life. That isn't fair by any definition.

DasIch 11y ago
What happens to a victim of any crime is never fair and you will never restore that fairness with any punishment. You can accept that, adjust your goals and move forward or deal with the inevitable frustration and anger of being unable to get vengeance for the rest of your life.
- antillean 11y ago
  On one version of retributive thinking, retribution isn't really about restoring fairness, about balancing out cosmic scales of justice. It's about giving a person what's due to him or her. We call it reward when what's due to her is a result of good she's done, and we call it (retributive) punishment when it's as a result of evil she's done. On that view, it's generally just right to reward people for good and punish them for evil. Consequences -- even grand ones like balancing the cosmic scales of justice -- don't enter it.
- cm2187 11y ago
  But the primary purpose of justice is to punish criminal behaviors. We may want as a secondary goal to reduce recidivism but it cannot be at the expense of the primary goal. I strongly disagree with the idea that criminality is a form of mental disease and that prisons are just a sort of hospital to cure criminals. For the same reason the severity of the sentence should be driven by the aversion of the society to the crime committed more than considerations on what will happen to the criminal after the sentence has been executed.
  - anon4 11y ago
    the primary purpose of justice is to punish criminal behaviors Americans are a scary people.
    - krapp 11y ago
      Americans didn't invent this principle, and certainly are not unique in having applied it.
      - cm2187 11y ago
        ...and I am not even american!
      - noir_lord 11y ago
        You are however unique amongst developed countries in how far you applied it. Per capita you incarcerate more people than any other major country (developed or not).
        krapp 11y ago
        That is true.
  - DasIch 11y ago
    Why punish people? That's not a goal, not a moral value or something anyone should have a desire to do. The goal is peace. It has to be peace. You might never reach that goal entirely but you can try and you want people that ensure peace exists and people that restore it once it has been violated. Quite clearly exerting vengeance through the justice system is not the best way to achieve that goal, in fact it's obviously by far the worst.
Qantourisc 11y ago
Retribution serves you, it does not serve the community. There is also a quote of Gandhi I cannot find. So I'll paraphrase: If you are angry at someone, and he did not intend to hurt you, you should not be angry. If he did intend to hurt you, he is not as wise/it's in his nature, and you should not be angry.
- cm2187 11y ago
  Let's take an example, which is actually not that theoretical (this happened several times in Europe). Say a Saudi prince, in one of his depraved cocaine trips to London, rapes a British girl. He is arrested, presented to the court. If he is sentenced to jail, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will react very badly and blacklist the UK from all future contracts, resulting in hundreds of people losing their job in the UK, and hardship for their families. The British govt asks the court to be lenient and to let the prince go. The court obliges. Is this justice? If we follow your logic it is. Retribution would only serve the British girl but not the community. The community has nothing to gain from punishing the prince but everything to loose from loosing all these Saudi contracts. If you think justice is only about serving the community, not about retribution then you will happily approve the decision of the court. My personal position is that it is the very negation of justice, and that behaving this way jeopardize the acceptance of the judicial system by the population. As for Gandhi, it's similar to the Christian "if someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also". But I am not sure that a recipe that worked well against a democratic British parliament will work as well when facing a violent thug.
- antillean 11y ago
  > There is also a quote of Gandhi I cannot find. So I'll paraphrase: If you are angry at someone, and he did not intend to hurt you, you should not be angry. If he did intend to hurt you, he is not as wise/it's in his nature, and you should not be angry. What? Why shouldn't I be angry if a fool intentionally hurts me?
  - WolfeReader 11y ago
    Anger interferes with your intelligence and leads you to make rash decisions. Anger should always be avoided.
vectorjohn 11y ago
That isn't fair by any biblical definition, but luckily not everybody cares about that. The way people are treated shouldn't be based on what the most emotionally invested people want. What makes the person rehabilitated is that they don't do the crime again, and nothing else. You can't cause wrongdoing to someone who is dead, so the only downside to releasing the person is you might feel sad. Only if you dwell on it for the rest of your life. But you won't, people move on.
- antillean 11y ago
  Wait. So, on your view, it's fair -- "Treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination" or "Just or appropriate in the circumstances", according to oxforddictionaries.com's top two definitions -- for a rapist-murderer to be able to get on with his life (maybe after 20 extremely frustrating but possibly also fruitful years for him) while an innocent young lady's is tragically cut short? And you think it's an indictment on Biblical (and, apparently, also Oxonion) definitions of "fair" that they'd disagree with you on that?
  - vectorjohn 11y ago
    Neither of those definitions disagree with me. I mean, if you read it with your apparently biblical bent, then "treating people equally" probably means the rapist should be raped and killed. But no sane society thinks that's a good idea. "Just or appropriate" doesn't actually say anything about what should be done in a case of rape+murder. Who's to say life in prison is appropriate? I don't think it is. It's a waste. The young lady wasn't put in a hellish environment for a lifetime. And what do we as a society gain by wasting money on prisoners for exactly zero return on investment? We're basically punishing ourselves to spend that money. Better to wait until the problem is solved (i.e. we don't think they'll do it again) and let them out where they can do something useful.