5 ms·

Must justice include punishment? If someone hits me, I'd much rather they take responsibility, apologise, and work on themselves to become a better person, than

by n4r9 1y ago

Must justice include punishment? If someone hits me, I'd much rather they take responsibility, apologise, and work on themselves to become a better person, than simply get locked up for a while.

philipallstar 1y ago
Those are not the only two options that they can choose from. And being hit is a very minimal example. Would you say the same for rape? No punishment required; just apologise and work on yourself?
- thih9 1y ago
  You skipped the “take responsibility”. In case of a more serious crime a simple apology is indeed not enough. But it should still be possible to proceed with something more productive for everyone than putting the perpetrator behind bars. As you say, there are many options.
  - philipallstar 1y ago
    Take responsibility is just a euphemism, though. For some people that is someone going behind bars. What do you actually mean?
    - lostlogin 1y ago
      Apply the same thought process to ‘punishment’. Those who spend a lot of time in prison seem to come out worse and reoffend. How is that helpful?
      - rat9988 1y ago
        I don't know, if somebody kills my child, I don't know why you'd expect me to be helpful to him.
        n4r9 1y ago
        Even to prevent them continuing to kill someone else's child later?
        lukan 1y ago
        A death sentence would certainly prevent this person from killing another child. (Whether a death sentence is good for society in general is a different question)
        esafak 1y ago
        It would not be good for a deceased either, especially if they are wrongly convicted.
        lukan 1y ago
        Indeed, but it would also be not good to be wrongly sentenced to life in prison. Once inside, chances to get out with a retrial are pretty slim. Fatal misstakes are bad in any situation.
      - philipallstar 1y ago
        This sort of thinking always misses that part of the reason for punishment is deterrent of others.
        n4r9 1y ago
        I think most people who commit a crime either do it in the heat of the moment, or believe that they're very unlikely to get caught. The distant prospect of punishment doesn't apply in either case. I guess there are some edge cases. Drug smugglers for example are probably aware of the rough probability of detection and weigh it up against the length of jail time. But I reckon Sarkozy thought he'd just get away with it and didn't even consider what the potential punishment would be.
        philipallstar 1y ago
        > But I reckon Sarkozy thought he'd just get away with it and didn't even consider what the potential punishment would be. It's worth considering then that the next person who has the option to do this might behave differently, given Sarkozy has not got away with it.
        n4r9 1y ago
        There's definitely some truth to that. There are situations where someone might restrain themselves because of the consequences of getting caught. I suppose the question is whether the consequence needs to be punishment as opposed to correction or isolation. In the case of a narcissist like Sarkozy, the reputaional tarnish of being publicly labeled as guilty would be an emotional blow.
        esafak 1y ago
        It has to be a deterrent rather than punishment, because crimes can't be undone; it's better to prevent them.
      - lenkite 1y ago
        Prison is nonsense and a waste of human life. Best punishment is caning like Singapore. Do fast and quick. Pain is an excellent memory aid. Most stable lowest recidivism rate.
      - nmeofthestate 1y ago
        > those who spend a lot of time in prison seem to come out worse and reoffend. How is that helpful? You're implying that imprisonment makes people offend more - perhaps the simpler explanation is that most criminals will commit crimes when they get the chance, especially prolific criminals. Prison takes them off the streets and stops them victimising more people - this is helpful.
    - n4r9 1y ago
      It's not a hard and fast definition, but generally involves: * An honest acknowledgement of ones behaviour and its impact on others. * Accepting the consequences of your behaviour, whether legal (such as going to jail), financial, or personal. * Taking the initiative to make amends where possible. * Taking steps to improve oneself and/or prevent the same behaviour in future.
SirMaster 1y ago
If the only repercussion for assault is they need to apologize and "work on themselves", then what's stopping more people from committing assault? There needs to be punishment.
- n4r9 1y ago
  I don't think that people are stopped from committing assault by an abstract risk-benefit calculation that considers the likelihood of jailtime. It's not what stops me, at least. Mostly I just don't want to. And even if I do want to hit someone, I know that that fleeting temptation doesn't accord with my fundamental values; I'll feel bad afterwards. I'm intimately aware that they might retaliate, or that I might accidentally kill them (or vice versa). It just doesn't feel worth it because I've been socialised to weigh up those odds. But the distant prospect of jail time feels abstract and harder to socialise into people in the heat of the moment.
  - amiga386 1y ago
    You're not a remorseless psychopath, though. Some people are. For a nuanced discussion, the Illustrated Guide to the Law is an excellent introduction. Here's the section on Punishment: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=41 https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=41 It ends with the summary "The State punishes those who commit crimes partly in the hope of preventing future offenses (via rehabilitation, deterrence, and removal)... partly to restore a sense of balance and fairness (via retribution)... and partly because fuck you, that’s why (retaliation)"
    - n4r9 1y ago
      But... the section on deterrance pretty much aligns with what I just said above: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=114 https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=114 Namely that it is unlikely to factor into people's decision-making process - and when it does, the extent of the punishment makes little difference. Slightly disappointed to wade through slides of challenging handwriting to find that it wasn't saying much more :/
- 9dev 1y ago
triceratops 1y ago
Depending on how hard they hit you, the extent of your injuries, and the circumstances surrounding the assault (premeditated or not, provoked or unprovoked), why not both lock them up and have them work on themselves?

by n4r9 1y ago

Must justice include punishment? If someone hits me, I'd much rather they take responsibility, apologise, and work on themselves to become a better person, than simply get locked up for a while.

philipallstar 1y ago

Those are not the only two options that they can choose from. And being hit is a very minimal example. Would you say the same for rape? No punishment required; just apologise and work on yourself?

thih9 1y ago
You skipped the “take responsibility”. In case of a more serious crime a simple apology is indeed not enough. But it should still be possible to proceed with something more productive for everyone than putting the perpetrator behind bars. As you say, there are many options.
- philipallstar 1y ago
  Take responsibility is just a euphemism, though. For some people that is someone going behind bars. What do you actually mean?
  - lostlogin 1y ago
    Apply the same thought process to ‘punishment’. Those who spend a lot of time in prison seem to come out worse and reoffend. How is that helpful?
    - rat9988 1y ago
      I don't know, if somebody kills my child, I don't know why you'd expect me to be helpful to him.
      - n4r9 1y ago
        Even to prevent them continuing to kill someone else's child later?
        lukan 1y ago
        A death sentence would certainly prevent this person from killing another child. (Whether a death sentence is good for society in general is a different question)
        esafak 1y ago
        It would not be good for a deceased either, especially if they are wrongly convicted.
        lukan 1y ago
        Indeed, but it would also be not good to be wrongly sentenced to life in prison. Once inside, chances to get out with a retrial are pretty slim. Fatal misstakes are bad in any situation.
    - philipallstar 1y ago
      This sort of thinking always misses that part of the reason for punishment is deterrent of others.
      - n4r9 1y ago
        I think most people who commit a crime either do it in the heat of the moment, or believe that they're very unlikely to get caught. The distant prospect of punishment doesn't apply in either case. I guess there are some edge cases. Drug smugglers for example are probably aware of the rough probability of detection and weigh it up against the length of jail time. But I reckon Sarkozy thought he'd just get away with it and didn't even consider what the potential punishment would be.
        philipallstar 1y ago
        > But I reckon Sarkozy thought he'd just get away with it and didn't even consider what the potential punishment would be. It's worth considering then that the next person who has the option to do this might behave differently, given Sarkozy has not got away with it.
        n4r9 1y ago
        There's definitely some truth to that. There are situations where someone might restrain themselves because of the consequences of getting caught. I suppose the question is whether the consequence needs to be punishment as opposed to correction or isolation. In the case of a narcissist like Sarkozy, the reputaional tarnish of being publicly labeled as guilty would be an emotional blow.
        esafak 1y ago
        It has to be a deterrent rather than punishment, because crimes can't be undone; it's better to prevent them.
    - lenkite 1y ago
      Prison is nonsense and a waste of human life. Best punishment is caning like Singapore. Do fast and quick. Pain is an excellent memory aid. Most stable lowest recidivism rate.
    - nmeofthestate 1y ago
      > those who spend a lot of time in prison seem to come out worse and reoffend. How is that helpful? You're implying that imprisonment makes people offend more - perhaps the simpler explanation is that most criminals will commit crimes when they get the chance, especially prolific criminals. Prison takes them off the streets and stops them victimising more people - this is helpful.
  - n4r9 1y ago
    It's not a hard and fast definition, but generally involves: * An honest acknowledgement of ones behaviour and its impact on others. * Accepting the consequences of your behaviour, whether legal (such as going to jail), financial, or personal. * Taking the initiative to make amends where possible. * Taking steps to improve oneself and/or prevent the same behaviour in future.

SirMaster 1y ago

If the only repercussion for assault is they need to apologize and "work on themselves", then what's stopping more people from committing assault? There needs to be punishment.

n4r9 1y ago
I don't think that people are stopped from committing assault by an abstract risk-benefit calculation that considers the likelihood of jailtime. It's not what stops me, at least. Mostly I just don't want to. And even if I do want to hit someone, I know that that fleeting temptation doesn't accord with my fundamental values; I'll feel bad afterwards. I'm intimately aware that they might retaliate, or that I might accidentally kill them (or vice versa). It just doesn't feel worth it because I've been socialised to weigh up those odds. But the distant prospect of jail time feels abstract and harder to socialise into people in the heat of the moment.
- amiga386 1y ago
  You're not a remorseless psychopath, though. Some people are. For a nuanced discussion, the Illustrated Guide to the Law is an excellent introduction. Here's the section on Punishment: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=41 https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=41 It ends with the summary "The State punishes those who commit crimes partly in the hope of preventing future offenses (via rehabilitation, deterrence, and removal)... partly to restore a sense of balance and fairness (via retribution)... and partly because fuck you, that’s why (retaliation)"
  - n4r9 1y ago
    But... the section on deterrance pretty much aligns with what I just said above: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=114 https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=114 Namely that it is unlikely to factor into people's decision-making process - and when it does, the extent of the punishment makes little difference. Slightly disappointed to wade through slides of challenging handwriting to find that it wasn't saying much more :/
9dev 1y ago

triceratops 1y ago

Depending on how hard they hit you, the extent of your injuries, and the circumstances surrounding the assault (premeditated or not, provoked or unprovoked), why not both lock them up and have them work on themselves?