29 ms·

Do you know how much people suffer if their house is broken into, if they are robbed at gunpoint, if they are raped, etc? Not just the direct harm, but the ongo

by IsaacL 10y ago

Do you know how much people suffer if their house is broken into, if they are robbed at gunpoint, if they are raped, etc? Not just the direct harm, but the ongoing psychological harm?

jamescostian 10y ago
That harm is truly awful. But I believe Gandhi said something like "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." If you don't care about the people in solitary, why not at least care about their psychological state once they get out? Imagine someone who was in solitary being freed, and then deciding to harm some people. Don't you think the person from solitary, who has had a bunch of psychological issues from solitary, would be even worse than someone who hasn't been in solitary? P.S. your original Iron Man framing makes me want to respond in kind with a strawman: imagine a person hooked on cigarettes goes to prison for a crime they didn't even commit, and then they are caught with cigarettes and put in solitary. I'd say that's also truly awful
mfringel 10y ago
Will the perpetrator's suffering make the victim un-robbed?
- p1esk 10y ago
  It might make some victims feel better, which can be considered a form of a moral compensation.
  - mfringel 10y ago
    It might.... under what circumstances? some victims.... which ones? can be considered.... by who?
    - p1esk 10y ago
      Well, I would've certainly felt better knowing that the guy who robbed me got punished.
      - mfringel 10y ago
        Note that we're talking about a justice system that rehabilitates vs. one that punishes. Do you care which one happens to the perp, with the knowledge that they will be back in society at some point?
        p1esk 10y ago
        Why do we have to choose between rehabilitation and punishment? The goal should be "If you did the crime, you will be punished, but while you're being punished, we can help you become a better person".
  - yeahsurebut888 10y ago
    So would therapy. It's a lot cheaper financially and morally. There is no benefit to society as a whole burden itself with such things in order to make "some victims" feel better. Perhaps we could do better at caring for criminals who became criminals from mental disease (quite a few actually), and those who felt they had no other choice (even more). We'd make fewer victims in the first place.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
But why does the magnitude of that harm justify harming the perpetrator an equal amount? What is the logic of retribution? It seems inherently fair to our animal instincts that a victim of violence should received "satisfaction" for their unjust suffering. But do the victims gain anything from this supposed satisfaction? Maybe some of them do experience a reduction in their ongoing suffering; I doubt it makes the pain of loss go away entirely for most. But more importantly, how does the system of retributive justice impact society beyond the perpetrators and victims? I would argue that its impact is almost entirely negative. The perpetrators are themselves repeatedly victimized, often disproportionately to their original crimes - by the general dehumanization of jailing, violence at the hands of other prisoners and guards, social humiliation and pariahdom, economic and political disenfranchisement. But their victimizations are largely considered just and legal, and thus they cannot redress their grievances through the law. So what do they do? Leave jail wounded, aggrieved and with further criminal training, even more likely to commit crimes (and worse ones at that) than when they went in. Thus they create more victims, and the cycle of suffering is perpetuated and amplified.
- IsaacL 10y ago
  The logic is based on the needs of any society. Every society needs a set of rules which everyone agrees to follow. History shows that the smaller the set of rules, the better, but you need to at least prevent people from infringing the life and liberty of others. The simple reason for retribution is deterrence: there should be a negative incentive to committing crimes. The deeper reason is to make the kind of world people can live in. When everyone sees that criminals are punished, it tells would-be criminals to think twice, and it tells law-abiding citizens that someone is looking out for them. I don't think punishment should be excessively cruel, prison is probably sufficient, and excessive solitary confinement is probably unjustified. But many people on this thread seem to think punishment in general is always unjust. I think the underlying this is the modern belief that no-one is responsible for their actions, and that criminals are the product of social forces who need compassion and understanding. The argument against that is the standard argument against any form of determinism - if people are determined by outside forces, so are judges and prison guards, who similarly cannot help themselves from punishing criminals, and so should not face moral judgement. It's contradictory to judge judges but forgive criminals.
digler999 10y ago
paradoxically, there would be less total suffering (including inmate suffering) if prisons were more humane. That reduces your statement to "Should the victims be the only ones suffering?" after a violent crime. The part you miss is that there's no PSA video warning the perpetrators about the misery of solitary they face before they choose to commit the acts. They are either mentally ill or high when most of those crimes were committed. The only way you'd have a valid argument is if the criminal had a huge ctrl-z button, and once solitary "broke" them , and caused them to hit CTRL-Z, undo the victims' suffering, and everyone goes home. Then solitary would be an amazing, 99.99% effective punishment. This is not even touching on the fact that a lot of these solitary inmates never commmitted heinous offenses. They just misbehaved in prison or were mentally ill and ran afoul of prison regs.

by IsaacL 10y ago

Do you know how much people suffer if their house is broken into, if they are robbed at gunpoint, if they are raped, etc? Not just the direct harm, but the ongoing psychological harm?

jamescostian 10y ago

That harm is truly awful. But I believe Gandhi said something like "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." If you don't care about the people in solitary, why not at least care about their psychological state once they get out? Imagine someone who was in solitary being freed, and then deciding to harm some people. Don't you think the person from solitary, who has had a bunch of psychological issues from solitary, would be even worse than someone who hasn't been in solitary? P.S. your original Iron Man framing makes me want to respond in kind with a strawman: imagine a person hooked on cigarettes goes to prison for a crime they didn't even commit, and then they are caught with cigarettes and put in solitary. I'd say that's also truly awful

mfringel 10y ago

Will the perpetrator's suffering make the victim un-robbed?

p1esk 10y ago
It might make some victims feel better, which can be considered a form of a moral compensation.
- mfringel 10y ago
  It might.... under what circumstances? some victims.... which ones? can be considered.... by who?
  - p1esk 10y ago
    Well, I would've certainly felt better knowing that the guy who robbed me got punished.
    - mfringel 10y ago
      Note that we're talking about a justice system that rehabilitates vs. one that punishes. Do you care which one happens to the perp, with the knowledge that they will be back in society at some point?
      - p1esk 10y ago
        Why do we have to choose between rehabilitation and punishment? The goal should be "If you did the crime, you will be punished, but while you're being punished, we can help you become a better person".
- yeahsurebut888 10y ago
  So would therapy. It's a lot cheaper financially and morally. There is no benefit to society as a whole burden itself with such things in order to make "some victims" feel better. Perhaps we could do better at caring for criminals who became criminals from mental disease (quite a few actually), and those who felt they had no other choice (even more). We'd make fewer victims in the first place.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago

But why does the magnitude of that harm justify harming the perpetrator an equal amount? What is the logic of retribution? It seems inherently fair to our animal instincts that a victim of violence should received "satisfaction" for their unjust suffering. But do the victims gain anything from this supposed satisfaction? Maybe some of them do experience a reduction in their ongoing suffering; I doubt it makes the pain of loss go away entirely for most. But more importantly, how does the system of retributive justice impact society beyond the perpetrators and victims? I would argue that its impact is almost entirely negative. The perpetrators are themselves repeatedly victimized, often disproportionately to their original crimes - by the general dehumanization of jailing, violence at the hands of other prisoners and guards, social humiliation and pariahdom, economic and political disenfranchisement. But their victimizations are largely considered just and legal, and thus they cannot redress their grievances through the law. So what do they do? Leave jail wounded, aggrieved and with further criminal training, even more likely to commit crimes (and worse ones at that) than when they went in. Thus they create more victims, and the cycle of suffering is perpetuated and amplified.

IsaacL 10y ago
The logic is based on the needs of any society. Every society needs a set of rules which everyone agrees to follow. History shows that the smaller the set of rules, the better, but you need to at least prevent people from infringing the life and liberty of others. The simple reason for retribution is deterrence: there should be a negative incentive to committing crimes. The deeper reason is to make the kind of world people can live in. When everyone sees that criminals are punished, it tells would-be criminals to think twice, and it tells law-abiding citizens that someone is looking out for them. I don't think punishment should be excessively cruel, prison is probably sufficient, and excessive solitary confinement is probably unjustified. But many people on this thread seem to think punishment in general is always unjust. I think the underlying this is the modern belief that no-one is responsible for their actions, and that criminals are the product of social forces who need compassion and understanding. The argument against that is the standard argument against any form of determinism - if people are determined by outside forces, so are judges and prison guards, who similarly cannot help themselves from punishing criminals, and so should not face moral judgement. It's contradictory to judge judges but forgive criminals.

digler999 10y ago

paradoxically, there would be less total suffering (including inmate suffering) if prisons were more humane. That reduces your statement to "Should the victims be the only ones suffering?" after a violent crime. The part you miss is that there's no PSA video warning the perpetrators about the misery of solitary they face before they choose to commit the acts. They are either mentally ill or high when most of those crimes were committed. The only way you'd have a valid argument is if the criminal had a huge ctrl-z button, and once solitary "broke" them , and caused them to hit CTRL-Z, undo the victims' suffering, and everyone goes home. Then solitary would be an amazing, 99.99% effective punishment. This is not even touching on the fact that a lot of these solitary inmates never commmitted heinous offenses. They just misbehaved in prison or were mentally ill and ran afoul of prison regs.