4 ms·

> Retribution (not vengeance) is a legitimate component of justice. ... > if there is a singular summary of the last decade’s failed attempts at criminal-justi

by mmooss 2y ago

> Retribution (not vengeance) is a legitimate component of justice. ... > if there is a singular summary of the last decade’s failed attempts at criminal-justice reform, it’s in ignoring the very human need for retribution in resolving injustice Many people would agree with you, imho, but it's not a truth universally acknowledged. I don't see what good it does: is it more than some good feeling for the injured party? That seems not worth the costs and risks, including promotion of violence (in some form) as a solution to problems, rationalization of personal retribution and vengence (probably few distinguish between those terms), and possible harm to an innocent person (if the wrong person is convicted). If retribution only benefits the injured party and not the state, and if I'm the injured one and don't want it, can I opt out of it? I do value deterrence and being made whole, and sometimes those overlap with retribution. And I'll say this about retribution: it could make it possible for the criminal and victim to move forward, including if they know each other. The criminal has paid their debt to the victim and guilt is absolved. Insufficient payment might undermine that.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> it's not a truth universally acknowledged. I don't see what good it does It keeps people from taking the law into their own hands. We can debate the merits of retribution, but not that it’s a seemingly-innate part of human nature. (It’s an open question if we can condition it out of ourselves. But that’s pretty serious social engineering that, to my knowledge, no society has achieved. We aren’t bonobos.) > If retribution only benefits the injured party and not the state, and if I'm the injured one and don't want it, can I opt out of it? Our sense of retribution is more than transactional. There is a perception of collective harm that’s explicit in our system of public prosection—it’s the people versus a criminal, not the victim.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > It keeps people from taking the law into their own hands. Definitely an upside, though the punishment of trial (and the victim being heard), conviction, repayment, etc. may be sufficient for that. > We can debate the merits of retribution, but not that it’s a seemingly-innate part of human nature. (It’s an open question if we can condition it out of ourselves. But that’s pretty serious social engineering that, to my knowledge, no society has achieved. Here I think you overstate it. I believe a large number of people, maybe the majority, do not choose retribution. 'Innate' has become a loaded word, and one used (not necessarily in this case) politically to make the speaker's argument into something inevitable. Stepping back from that: Lots of things are 'innate'; people focus on the more harsh ones, but so are goodness, a desire for justice, fairness, love, hunger, laziness, sleepiness, etc. And innate drives are not all-powerful or determinative; some are barely noticeable and some powerful, often the same one varying greatly (consider sex drive, for example). And of course our actions depend, very much, on our will and reason and choice.

by mmooss 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> it's not a truth universally acknowledged. I don't see what good it does It keeps people from taking the law into their own hands. We can debate the merits of retribution, but not that it’s a seemingly-innate part of human nature. (It’s an open question if we can condition it out of ourselves. But that’s pretty serious social engineering that, to my knowledge, no society has achieved. We aren’t bonobos.) > If retribution only benefits the injured party and not the state, and if I'm the injured one and don't want it, can I opt out of it? Our sense of retribution is more than transactional. There is a perception of collective harm that’s explicit in our system of public prosection—it’s the people versus a criminal, not the victim.

mmooss 2y ago
> It keeps people from taking the law into their own hands. Definitely an upside, though the punishment of trial (and the victim being heard), conviction, repayment, etc. may be sufficient for that. > We can debate the merits of retribution, but not that it’s a seemingly-innate part of human nature. (It’s an open question if we can condition it out of ourselves. But that’s pretty serious social engineering that, to my knowledge, no society has achieved. Here I think you overstate it. I believe a large number of people, maybe the majority, do not choose retribution. 'Innate' has become a loaded word, and one used (not necessarily in this case) politically to make the speaker's argument into something inevitable. Stepping back from that: Lots of things are 'innate'; people focus on the more harsh ones, but so are goodness, a desire for justice, fairness, love, hunger, laziness, sleepiness, etc. And innate drives are not all-powerful or determinative; some are barely noticeable and some powerful, often the same one varying greatly (consider sex drive, for example). And of course our actions depend, very much, on our will and reason and choice.