6 ms·

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 anim

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.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  I'm actually not arguing for an absence of punishment, but rather against punishments whose only end is retribution. Things like solitary confinement, mandatory minimums, inhumane conditions, forced prison labor and more, all very normalized within the US criminal justice system, are all suspect practices whose only definite result is an increase in suffering. Punishment could be educational and rehabilitative (and still austere and undesirable, without being purposelessly cruel). Deterrence is commonly cited as a justification for retributive justice, but does it actually work that way? We obviously don't have a great control since we've had this system of justice for centuries so it's hard to imagine a radically different system. But the data we do have suggests that increasing the severity of punishments does little to increase the deterrence factor [1]. So we could likely make our criminal system significantly less cruel without reducing the degree of effective deterrence. Also I wasn't arguing for moral judgements of judges and prison guards for working within the current retributive justice regime (though those who wantonly exacerbate the cruelty of the system should certainly be judged for doing so). It's a systemic issue that retribution and cruelty are the implicit end goals of the US criminal justice system. [1]http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7363&context=jclc http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent...
  - IsaacL 10y ago
    People do respond to incentives. Deterrence isn't just about the severity of punishments but also the probability of being caught. The US justice system (I'm not an American) seems to have the worst of both worlds were many people evade justice and others are hit with overly harsh sentences. Countries with effective police forces (e.g. Japan, Singapore) have very low crime rates. Rehabilitation makes sense for petty criminals and economic criminals, and possibly "crimes of passion". Some individuals are simply beyond redemption, though. I'd say attempting to "rehabilitate" anyone at category 11 or above on the following scale [1] is an injustice to their victims. People like Charles Manson [2] are capable of retreating into a delusional fantasy world and never acknowledge what they've done. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Evil#Scale_and_criminals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Evil#Scale_and_criminals (warning: no graphics, but extremely unpleasant content) [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-qWLlER1N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-qWLlER1N0 (Manson starts one of his monologues at about 8:20)

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.

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
I'm actually not arguing for an absence of punishment, but rather against punishments whose only end is retribution. Things like solitary confinement, mandatory minimums, inhumane conditions, forced prison labor and more, all very normalized within the US criminal justice system, are all suspect practices whose only definite result is an increase in suffering. Punishment could be educational and rehabilitative (and still austere and undesirable, without being purposelessly cruel). Deterrence is commonly cited as a justification for retributive justice, but does it actually work that way? We obviously don't have a great control since we've had this system of justice for centuries so it's hard to imagine a radically different system. But the data we do have suggests that increasing the severity of punishments does little to increase the deterrence factor [1]. So we could likely make our criminal system significantly less cruel without reducing the degree of effective deterrence. Also I wasn't arguing for moral judgements of judges and prison guards for working within the current retributive justice regime (though those who wantonly exacerbate the cruelty of the system should certainly be judged for doing so). It's a systemic issue that retribution and cruelty are the implicit end goals of the US criminal justice system. [1]http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7363&context=jclc http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent...
- IsaacL 10y ago
  People do respond to incentives. Deterrence isn't just about the severity of punishments but also the probability of being caught. The US justice system (I'm not an American) seems to have the worst of both worlds were many people evade justice and others are hit with overly harsh sentences. Countries with effective police forces (e.g. Japan, Singapore) have very low crime rates. Rehabilitation makes sense for petty criminals and economic criminals, and possibly "crimes of passion". Some individuals are simply beyond redemption, though. I'd say attempting to "rehabilitate" anyone at category 11 or above on the following scale [1] is an injustice to their victims. People like Charles Manson [2] are capable of retreating into a delusional fantasy world and never acknowledge what they've done. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Evil#Scale_and_criminals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Evil#Scale_and_criminals (warning: no graphics, but extremely unpleasant content) [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-qWLlER1N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-qWLlER1N0 (Manson starts one of his monologues at about 8:20)