3 ms·

There's no societal benefit in retribution, and the evidence is entirely against the use of inhumane prison conditions as an effective means of deterrence. Per

• lupusreal 2y ago
  > There's no societal benefit in retribution It quells vigilantism.
  • p_j_w 2y ago
    Vigilantism is no better than the crimes that vigilantes seek to prevent.
  • vidarh 2y ago
    There are no massive waves of vigilantism in places with shorter sentences and less brutal prison systems to suggest that it does.
    • lupusreal 2y ago
      Some cultures are more prone to vigilantism than others. Absence of vigilantism in one country is only very weak evidence that it wouldn't occur in another if their government stopped punishing criminals. Particularly, America has a culture that puts relatively high value in individualism, and I think that would make vigilantism, individuals meting out their own brand of justice, common if not for the perspective that the government will dole out harsh punishments without the victims needing to do it themselves. We aren't Norway, and the delta between the present status quo in both countries is itself evidence of this cultural difference.
      • vidarh 2y ago
        I find this notion that America values individualism bizarre, given how authoritarian American society is - the extent of state control and violence that is tolerated seems entirely foreign to me, and yet the same US government is supposedly scared of shutting down attempts at vigilantist violence? It doesn't pass the smell test for me. I also find this American exceptionalism unconvincing. No, you are not uniquely barbaric brutes unable to reason about the morality of your actions. Nor is this about the US vs. Norway. There are plenty of places with more lenient prison systems without any such huge waves of vigilantism. There's no evidence to suggest more lenient sentencing would cause vigilantism of a level that can't be stopped just like other violent crime.
        • lupusreal 2y ago
          > yet the same US government is supposedly scared of shutting down attempts at vigilantist violence? Who said that? What is that even meant to mean? Here is what I said: Americans demand that criminals be harshly punished and if the government isn't willing to saite that desire then Americans, having individualist mentalities, will take justice into their own hands more often than the people in countries like Norway. The government does try to prevent this vigilantism, because vigilantism is harmful to society as a whole, but there's not a whole lot the government can actually do to stop me from murdering my neighbor with a baseball bat because he did something to my son. What the government can do to stop me from doing that is give me a credible promise of punishing the man for me. The American public demands harsh treatment of criminals, which is why the American government provides this. If the American public were a bunch of Norwegians then American laws would reflect Norwegian values. Both systems are a product of their respective culture. The difference between the two systems of justice reflect cultural differences in attitudes towards justice. > I also find this American exceptionalism unconvincing. No, you are not uniquely If anything, its the Scandinavians who are unique. Go to Africa, Asia or South America and you'll find that criminals are given harsh punishments and people generally like this. In fact this is more or less true in most of Europe as well, which is why people always talk about Norway/Sweden/etc as the go-to counter examples. They are the ones who stand out as exceptions to the norm of inflicting punishment on criminals. What I'm saying is that system is designed for that culture and would not satisfy most Americans. Most Americans are satisfied with seeing criminals get what they deserve.
  • ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    > It quells vigilantism. Someone with a personality to commit violence with a sense of righteousness is bound to unlawfully hurt people sooner or later. The sooner we can rehabilitate violent criminals like that, the better.
  • ClumsyPilot 2y ago
    So does executing a random scapegoat. This is a made up problem and an attempt to make a right out of two wrongs. Retribution needs to have value in an of itself, and it doesn't have any. you can't pay rent with it, you can't eat it. No-one's life was ever saved by it, no-one's lot in life was improved, there is no societal benefit. You just favour a brutish set of values
• Kiro 2y ago
  If my wife was raped and murdered you think it would be more moral to punish me than the murderer because I want vengeance?
  • ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    I don't think anyone was arguing that you should be punished for wanting something.
    • hn_go_brrrrr 2y ago
      I think GP was repsonding to this: > I find the notion of supporting this level of harm to others to be no more moral if you vote for it than if you commit a violent crime. I likewise find it pretty ridiculous to equate voting for retributive punishment for murder and actual murder.
      • ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
        I don't see anything there about punishment. It's simply a moral judgement of people who want others they don't like (for one reason or another), killed. Personally, I find it ridiculous to differentiate between murdering a person for e.g. money, and murdering a person for vengeance, and absent an imminent threat for which deadly force is generally authorized, I don't support the use of it.
      • vidarh 2y ago
        Voting to put in place a system that arranged organised violence and oppression is to me equivalent to conspiracy to engage in what is effective violence against a huge number of people, and morally vastly worse than one, or a few, individual murders.
      • klyrs 2y ago
        I happen to think that extended stays in solitary confinement are worse than simple murder. So yeah, if you're into retribution to the point of preferring or not caring if prisoners receive such treatment, then I think your morality is highly questionable.