5 ms·

I had to look these up, so I'll do folks like me some favors: Consequentialism is an ethical theory that judges whether or not something is right by what its c

by oooyay 3y ago

I had to look these up, so I'll do folks like me some favors: Consequentialism is an ethical theory that judges whether or not something is right by what its consequences are. Retributive justice is a theory of punishment that maintains that wrongdoers deserve to be punished, in proportion to their crimes, as a matter of justice or right. All of these seem to abandon the wider outlook that punishment in lieu of rehabilitation has had on society at least in the United States. A single punishment without rehabilitation is already generational. This also postures crime as some kind of primordial evil; there are certainly some crimes and specific natures of crime that I could see most people agreeing are "evil" but when we're talking the vast majority of crime worthy of punishment do people really believe that evil is what's at the center of it?

thghtihadanacct 3y ago
I see where youre coming from but I think first there needs to be an agreement on victimless crime and what constitutes such. Did Madoff have victims? Does a county worker failing to follow procedure in fixing a bridge (or doing what they were told) have victims? Some fault lies down the road and, of course, caveat emptor for all those going over poorly maintained bridges.
- tfourb 3y ago
  There is no victimless crime, you can practically always find someone directly or indirectly harmed by it. The idea of rehabilitation is that victims may have the right to restitution or reparation (to be made whole, or at least approach that state) but not to retribution. The punishment of a criminal is supposed to provide the basis for his eventual rehabilitation, not be driven by the victim's or society's desire to make him suffer for his "evil" deeds. I think the historical evidence is that this is the preferable approach to building a society and that OPs idea that social peace requires punishment is wrong.
threatofrain 3y ago
Appealing for rehabilitation because you think it'll lead to better global outcomes is an example of consequentialism.
- oooyay 3y ago
  I can see that, from the light reading I did on consequentialism it seemed to focus more on degrees of punishment, or even a binary of punishment, rather than a methodology.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
goatlover 3y ago
What is evil and why does it differ from other wrongdoing? If it's supernatural in origin, then are humans the ones responsible? If it's natural, then we can come up with an explanation for why people acted badly. Cause and effect means there are always reasons for why people act the way they do. You can't just draw the line at consequences.
winter_blue 3y ago
Thanks for sharing those definitions. I think you've nailed it in your last paragraph, especially: > A single punishment without rehabilitation is already generational. Many states and localities in the US is indeed a stark example of what sort of consequences a retributive system of justice has on society (for example, California 3-strikes, extraordinary sentences for minor crimes in the many states, etc). The damage it's had has been inordinate. Most crime, indeed, doesn't have evil at the center of it. For example, drug and intellectual property law violations should really be civil offenses.
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  intellectual property law violations could obviously be civil offenses, because there is another party to bring suit, but who is going to bring suit if someone does drugs?
  - winter_blue 3y ago
    > but who is going to bring suit if someone does drugs? The public prosecutor (i.e. the state / "the people"). This is already the case for small traffic offenses.

by oooyay 3y ago

thghtihadanacct 3y ago

I see where youre coming from but I think first there needs to be an agreement on victimless crime and what constitutes such. Did Madoff have victims? Does a county worker failing to follow procedure in fixing a bridge (or doing what they were told) have victims? Some fault lies down the road and, of course, caveat emptor for all those going over poorly maintained bridges.

tfourb 3y ago
There is no victimless crime, you can practically always find someone directly or indirectly harmed by it. The idea of rehabilitation is that victims may have the right to restitution or reparation (to be made whole, or at least approach that state) but not to retribution. The punishment of a criminal is supposed to provide the basis for his eventual rehabilitation, not be driven by the victim's or society's desire to make him suffer for his "evil" deeds. I think the historical evidence is that this is the preferable approach to building a society and that OPs idea that social peace requires punishment is wrong.

threatofrain 3y ago

Appealing for rehabilitation because you think it'll lead to better global outcomes is an example of consequentialism.

oooyay 3y ago
I can see that, from the light reading I did on consequentialism it seemed to focus more on degrees of punishment, or even a binary of punishment, rather than a methodology.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

goatlover 3y ago

What is evil and why does it differ from other wrongdoing? If it's supernatural in origin, then are humans the ones responsible? If it's natural, then we can come up with an explanation for why people acted badly. Cause and effect means there are always reasons for why people act the way they do. You can't just draw the line at consequences.

winter_blue 3y ago

Thanks for sharing those definitions. I think you've nailed it in your last paragraph, especially: > A single punishment without rehabilitation is already generational. Many states and localities in the US is indeed a stark example of what sort of consequences a retributive system of justice has on society (for example, California 3-strikes, extraordinary sentences for minor crimes in the many states, etc). The damage it's had has been inordinate. Most crime, indeed, doesn't have evil at the center of it. For example, drug and intellectual property law violations should really be civil offenses.

bryanrasmussen 3y ago
intellectual property law violations could obviously be civil offenses, because there is another party to bring suit, but who is going to bring suit if someone does drugs?
- winter_blue 3y ago
  > but who is going to bring suit if someone does drugs? The public prosecutor (i.e. the state / "the people"). This is already the case for small traffic offenses.