4 ms·
I would say that it doesn't mean that someone is inherently bad, just that there are factors out of their control leading to them doing something that is unwant
by birktj 5y ago
I would say that it doesn't mean that someone is inherently bad, just that there are factors out of their control leading to them doing something that is unwanted by society as a whole. From this it follows that it would be unethical to "punish" people for such acts and the more ethical approach of society should be to try minimize the occurrence of these factors.
- pharke 5y agoI still think the two are equivalent. The only difference is in the baggage attached to the terms "bad" or "evil". The same solutions are applied in both cases. If someone is an immediate threat to others they are removed from society. Rehabilitation is attempted in order to prevent further commission of crimes. Some signal (punishment) is provided to the person who committed the crime in order to deter them and others from repeating the offence (fines, community service, probation, length of incarceration). The problem is in the execution of those strategies, it's a mess because there are a lot of perverse incentives both monetary and based on personal beliefs. There is also a lack of and/or a misdirection of funding. I don't think removing punishment is a cure for this. Excessive, cruel or needless punishments should not be applied but you do need to impose some cost as a consequence. Human beings are capable of learning and both reward and penalty are necessary for that to happen. If we are going to push a lever it should be focused on effective rehabilitation, which would involve a complete overhaul of and a lot of investment in prisons so they can address the needs of every inmate.