5 ms·

There's some deterrent in punishment, and there's also the deterring factor of preventing self-justice. But the most important feature is healing for the victi

There's some deterrent in punishment, and there's also the deterring factor of preventing self-justice. But the most important feature is healing for the victims, the partial return of justice. When someone is murdered or raped (let's not cloud the discussion with morally ambiguous crimes like drugs), the victims and their families have the fabric of their lives completely torn up; they experience immense pain and suffering. Yes, I'm going for pathos, and that's on purpose, pathos is central to the argument. The knowledge that the perpetrator has pain inflicted on him is an important factor in stitching their lives back together. I'd love for a proponent of the "rational" argument to sit down across from a mother whose daughter has been raped and explain that her feelings are irrational. Yes, this is an irrational argument, but humans are irrational (the rape itself was probably a rather irrational act) - like it or not, that's a fact of how humans work. An order of society that ignores this fact is bound to fail. There should be strong preventive measures in place, the best policy is the one where the crime isn't committed in the first place. Education and solid ways out of poverty are important factors here. Avoiding recidivism is also important. But once the crime is committed (which is the theme here), a narrow focus on rehabilitation is blind to the "red meat" of the issue.

hrkristian 13y ago
You're writing with emotions, not facts. What you got right is education and social mobility are key factors to less crime, Norway achieves this. What you didn't get right is the role of the justice system. It's not the role of the justice system to pander to emotions. A judge does not sit down with the mother of a murder-rape victim and explain to her how she ought to feel, at least that is not the case in Norway. One could argue this is in fact the case in the US, in the sense that the laws the judges rule by pander to emotions. Humans=\=Society. That is the gist of what I am saying. Society is a construct, and it is not just a reflection of human nature, it is also a product of our ability to coexist. Anyone who has been in a relationship knows coexisting means sacrifice, both emotionally and otherwise.
- nikatwork 13y ago
  > It's not the role of the justice system to pander to emotions. In Oz courts, there is often a "victim impact" statement read to the court, eg a rape victim will tell the court about the negative effects the assault has had on their life (eg can no longer have sex with partner, so is now divorced; can't leave house at night so has lost job). This impact statement will be taken into consideration when sentencing, and is often directly referenced in the judge's closing statement. Eg, "the victim has experienced years of mental anguish and you show no remorse; I am therefore pronouncing the maximum allowable sentence". So yes, the court very much does "pander" to emotions. I'd love to hear an actual lawyer chime in, the ones I've talked to have a very strong code of professional ethics surrounding this (believe it or not.)
  - hrkristian 13y ago
    I ought to have been clearer on what I meant. When an action degrades the quality of life (just to use a general term) of course it should matter in a court of law. My point was merely that when deciding on the sentence, the law should consider the need of the society while leaving the emotions of individuals out of it to the extent this can be done without causing further harm.
  - kazagistar 13y ago
    Sure it does. But not everywhere, and it shouldn't here either.
- mseebach 13y ago
  I couldn't disagree harder with your assertion that society exists independently of the humans in it. Remove the human element from society and you're left with an inhumane society. A system that comes before the people in it. That then leads to perverse conclusions such as the idea that a gross violation against an individual member of society is not a violation against society, and conversely, that there can exist crimes against society that doesn't actually hurt any members of it (such as non-violent possession of drugs).
  - hrkristian 13y ago
    You completely misread everything in my comment. That is actually quite impressive seeing as I explicitly stated in summation what I meant, I feel I shouldn't have to explain myself because of a lack of reading comprehension but here goes. > not just a reflection of human nature I acknowledge the human element, I should think no-one believes a construct doesn't reflect the maker, but society like any invention is also more than that.
nikatwork 13y ago
> Yes, this is an irrational argument When this topic comes up I'm always surprised by the flood of comments stating "well golly gee, I'm sure he's real sorry he raped and stabbed those girls, we just need to put him through some advanced reading courses then send him back on his way!" Followed by, "now if you think he should be punished for his actions well you're just barbaric and primitive and irrational". Punishment is not irrational. It's a fundamental ethical standpoint. Mitigating factors should be weighed (mental health, IQ), but at the end of the day people need to face the consequences of their actions.
- npsimons 13y ago
  "Consequences" are what you get in nature; the consequences of rape is that the perpetrator got his jollies. Do you think that an imprisoned rapist feels bad because he's being punished? If anything he's going to be angry at those meting out the punishment. If he felt bad about rape, he wouldn't have done it, or he would have turned himself in, or killed himself. And part of the point of rehabilitation is not "golly gee, we just need to put him through some advanced reading courses then send him back on his way!" as you so childishly put it, but that the offender wouldn't be released until it was fairly certain he wouldn't offend again (because he'd been rehabilitated). I'm fairly certain that kind of rehabilitation would take years at a minimum.
  - nikatwork 13y ago
    > as you so childishly put it Ad-homs do not improve the conversation. > the consequences of rape is that the perpetrator got his jollies. With the further consequence that the rapist has emotionally traumatized an innocent victim, and the still further consequence that the victim may demand justice. The point of punishment is not primarily to make the offender feel guilty. The point of punishment is to make the victim feel better. Think of it transactionally. If I stole $50,000 from your grandma and got caught, you'd expect me to pay back the money, yes? Now say I beat your grandma with a stick because I thought it would be funny. As we're too civilized for the courts to have me beaten with a stick, instead I repay her emotional trauma with my own - through incarceration. While your ethics might be different - you may think people should not bear the responsibility for their own actions - my ethics firmly hold that we are all accountable for our own decisions.

hrkristian 13y ago

You're writing with emotions, not facts. What you got right is education and social mobility are key factors to less crime, Norway achieves this. What you didn't get right is the role of the justice system. It's not the role of the justice system to pander to emotions. A judge does not sit down with the mother of a murder-rape victim and explain to her how she ought to feel, at least that is not the case in Norway. One could argue this is in fact the case in the US, in the sense that the laws the judges rule by pander to emotions. Humans=\=Society. That is the gist of what I am saying. Society is a construct, and it is not just a reflection of human nature, it is also a product of our ability to coexist. Anyone who has been in a relationship knows coexisting means sacrifice, both emotionally and otherwise.

nikatwork 13y ago
> It's not the role of the justice system to pander to emotions. In Oz courts, there is often a "victim impact" statement read to the court, eg a rape victim will tell the court about the negative effects the assault has had on their life (eg can no longer have sex with partner, so is now divorced; can't leave house at night so has lost job). This impact statement will be taken into consideration when sentencing, and is often directly referenced in the judge's closing statement. Eg, "the victim has experienced years of mental anguish and you show no remorse; I am therefore pronouncing the maximum allowable sentence". So yes, the court very much does "pander" to emotions. I'd love to hear an actual lawyer chime in, the ones I've talked to have a very strong code of professional ethics surrounding this (believe it or not.)
- hrkristian 13y ago
  I ought to have been clearer on what I meant. When an action degrades the quality of life (just to use a general term) of course it should matter in a court of law. My point was merely that when deciding on the sentence, the law should consider the need of the society while leaving the emotions of individuals out of it to the extent this can be done without causing further harm.
- kazagistar 13y ago
  Sure it does. But not everywhere, and it shouldn't here either.
mseebach 13y ago
I couldn't disagree harder with your assertion that society exists independently of the humans in it. Remove the human element from society and you're left with an inhumane society. A system that comes before the people in it. That then leads to perverse conclusions such as the idea that a gross violation against an individual member of society is not a violation against society, and conversely, that there can exist crimes against society that doesn't actually hurt any members of it (such as non-violent possession of drugs).
- hrkristian 13y ago
  You completely misread everything in my comment. That is actually quite impressive seeing as I explicitly stated in summation what I meant, I feel I shouldn't have to explain myself because of a lack of reading comprehension but here goes. > not just a reflection of human nature I acknowledge the human element, I should think no-one believes a construct doesn't reflect the maker, but society like any invention is also more than that.

nikatwork 13y ago

> Yes, this is an irrational argument When this topic comes up I'm always surprised by the flood of comments stating "well golly gee, I'm sure he's real sorry he raped and stabbed those girls, we just need to put him through some advanced reading courses then send him back on his way!" Followed by, "now if you think he should be punished for his actions well you're just barbaric and primitive and irrational". Punishment is not irrational. It's a fundamental ethical standpoint. Mitigating factors should be weighed (mental health, IQ), but at the end of the day people need to face the consequences of their actions.

npsimons 13y ago
"Consequences" are what you get in nature; the consequences of rape is that the perpetrator got his jollies. Do you think that an imprisoned rapist feels bad because he's being punished? If anything he's going to be angry at those meting out the punishment. If he felt bad about rape, he wouldn't have done it, or he would have turned himself in, or killed himself. And part of the point of rehabilitation is not "golly gee, we just need to put him through some advanced reading courses then send him back on his way!" as you so childishly put it, but that the offender wouldn't be released until it was fairly certain he wouldn't offend again (because he'd been rehabilitated). I'm fairly certain that kind of rehabilitation would take years at a minimum.
- nikatwork 13y ago
  > as you so childishly put it Ad-homs do not improve the conversation. > the consequences of rape is that the perpetrator got his jollies. With the further consequence that the rapist has emotionally traumatized an innocent victim, and the still further consequence that the victim may demand justice. The point of punishment is not primarily to make the offender feel guilty. The point of punishment is to make the victim feel better. Think of it transactionally. If I stole $50,000 from your grandma and got caught, you'd expect me to pay back the money, yes? Now say I beat your grandma with a stick because I thought it would be funny. As we're too civilized for the courts to have me beaten with a stick, instead I repay her emotional trauma with my own - through incarceration. While your ethics might be different - you may think people should not bear the responsibility for their own actions - my ethics firmly hold that we are all accountable for our own decisions.