My Three Arguments Against Retribution...

[TCMF-2L]

What’s more…

Excusing criminal behaviour on grounds of metal illness can be problematic.

Societies tend to (vaguely) consider “normal” behaviour as sane and often consider unusual behaviour as an indication of insanity. But different societies, and indeed societies as they change, have differing standards of “normality”.

In some societies having God speak to you would give you elevated status and your opinions, being the word of God, would be the basis of justice e.g. “That man’s a devil in disguise. God orders his death.”

In a typical Westernised society today, claiming to hear God talking to you can be seen as a sign of madness. Although historically Western Society had different standards and would execute people for suggesting the Earth flew around the sun.

There are situational factors. A soldier, in a war zone, who risks his (or her life) fighting a seemingly overwhelming enemy could be lauded, revered and given a medal. In society an individual who puts their life at risk could be declared mentally ill and sectioned to a secure hospital facility.

But to use the already raised example of “A paedophile is mentally ill” raises concerns. When does a specific sexual preference become an unusual fetish become a sign of mental illness? I have no complaint - on moral grounds - with prohibiting and making it a crime to sexually exploit the very young but how and when does it specifically become mental illness?

Is it mentally ill to have a young looking, slim 25 year old wife with a boyish figure who (of her own desire) depilates her genitals? Is it mentally ill to have a curvaceous 35 year old wife (with natural pubic hair) who dresses in a fetishised “Naughty Schoolgirl” costume?

Why is it “insane” to be a paedophile and have sex with a 12 year old girl whose body has reached sufficient sexual maturity while it is not “insane” to desire and have sex with an obviously pregnant woman or an obviously post menopausal woman - neither of whom can offer any hope of propagation?

I think paedophiles are clearly and rightfully considered criminal but I am less convinced they are insane. The concern being, declaring them “insane” allows them to excuse their own behaviour and relieves them of any responsibility for their actions.

TCMF-2L

[eschereal]

@foolsguinea

Retribution is useful in a consequentialist analysis, because it deters future bad behavior.

No, it does not, you fail to understand behavioral dynamics. Negative reinforcement (punishment/retribution) works on the shortest response path. It is not the transgression that results in the punishment, it is the getting caught. This is why prospective criminals often put a great deal of effort into planning their misdeeds, in order to avoid getting caught. Retribution only satisfies those harmed, and not really, IMHO, in a constructive way.

Meanwhile, you must deal with the effects of the consequences. When a convict leaves prison, they are treated like dirt, which is a surefire way to encourage recidivism. After years in the U of Thuggery, they have learned from/taught other criminals about the ways of crime and so are more likely to survive outside the mainstream rather than struggling vainly to reintegrate.

Then, of course, the ex-con who has experienced state-retribution might well have his own thoughts of getting even. And it was not the victim or victim’s family that meted punishment upon him, it was society, so his target for revenge is large. He might get a decent job and do ok but still engage in bad activity just to punish society for punishing him.

“Criminal Justice” is a sort of redundant oxymoron.

[Odesio]

@Jim_B

Retribution is just revenge, plain and simple. It appeals to our baser emotions. And as I said, mankind can strive for better things, I think.

Retribution is a core element of any system of justice. It might make people more comfortable to frame the idea with words like rehabilitation or recompense but at the end of the day when you lock someone up against their will or fine then you’re exacting retribution. i.e. Vengeance.

As societies (Western ones, at least) become more and more advanced technologically and politically, we become more merciful anyways. When someone puts out your eye, we don’t put out their eye as we once did. Think about it.

As someone else has pointed out, a eye for an eye was progressive for the era. It establishes the basic tenant that the punishment must be in proportion to the crime committed. Certainly we can quibble over what constitutes a proportional response though.

Lastly, some people are just ill. (I want to make a clear distinction at this point from actual mental illness.

I don’t see how this is an argument against retribution. Some people are ill even to the point where they are truly incapable of being responsible for their actions. I personally have no desire to punish these folks. But being mentally ill doesn’t necessarily absolve someone of the responsibility of their actions.

Also, I am not saying some people shouldn’t be locked away–possibly even for life. Some people can simply never be rehabilitated, at least now. And locking them up HUMANELY, is probably the better alternative, I agree.

I agree. But that’s retribution.

[MorphinePoet]

Albert Pike said:

“It does not become the frail and sinful to be vindictive toward even the worst criminals. We owe much to the good Providence of God, ordaining for us a lot more favorable to virtue. We all had that within us, that might have been pushed to the same excess: Perhaps we should have fallen as he did, with less temptation. Perhaps we have done acts, that, in proportion to the temptation or provocation, were less excusable than his great crime. Silent pity and sorrow for the victim should mingle with our detestation of the guilt. Even the pirate who murders in cold blood on the high seas, is such a man as you or I might have been. Orphanage in childhood, or base and dissolute and abandoned parents; an unfriended youth; evil companions; ignorance and want of moral cultivation; the temptations of sinful pleasure or grinding poverty; familiarity with vice; a scorned and blighted name; seared and crushed affections; desperate fortunes; these are steps that might have led any one among us to unfurl upon the high seas the bloody flag of universal defiance; to wage war with our kind; to live the life and die the death of the reckless and remorseless free-booter. Many affecting relationships of humanity plead with us to pity him. His head once rested on a mother’s bosom. He was once the object of sisterly love and domestic endearment. Perhaps his hand, since often red with blood, once clasped another little loving hand at the altar. Pity him then; his blighted hopes and his crushed heart! It is proper that frail and erring creatures like us should do so; should feel the crime, but feel it as weak, tempted, and rescued creatures should. It may be that when God weighs men’s crimes, He will take into consideration the temptations and the adverse circumstances that led to them, and the opportunities for moral culture of the offender; and it may be that our own offences will weigh heavier than we think, and the murderer’s lighter than according to man’s judgment.”

[Blake]

@MorphinePoet

Albert Pike said:

“It does not become the frail and sinful to be vindictive toward even the worst criminals. We owe much to the good Providence of God, ordaining for us a lot more favorable to virtue. We all had that within us, that might have been pushed to the same excess: Perhaps we should have fallen as he did, with less temptation. Perhaps we have done acts, that, in proportion to the temptation or provocation, were less excusable than his great crime. Silent pity and sorrow for the victim should mingle with our detestation of the guilt. Even the pirate who murders in cold blood on the high seas, is such a man as you or I might have been. Orphanage in childhood, or base and dissolute and abandoned parents; an unfriended youth; evil companions; ignorance and want of moral cultivation; the temptations of sinful pleasure or grinding poverty; familiarity with vice; a scorned and blighted name; seared and crushed affections; desperate fortunes; these are steps that might have led any one among us to unfurl upon the high seas the bloody flag of universal defiance; to wage war with our kind; to live the life and die the death of the reckless and remorseless free-booter. Many affecting relationships of humanity plead with us to pity him. His head once rested on a mother’s bosom. He was once the object of sisterly love and domestic endearment. Perhaps his hand, since often red with blood, once clasped another little loving hand at the altar. Pity him then; his blighted hopes and his crushed heart! It is proper that frail and erring creatures like us should do so; should feel the crime, but feel it as weak, tempted, and rescued creatures should. It may be that when God weighs men’s crimes, He will take into consideration the temptations and the adverse circumstances that led to them, and the opportunities for moral culture of the offender; and it may be that our own offences will weigh heavier than we think, and the murderer’s lighter than according to man’s judgment.”

What a load of crap.

[Contemporary_Logic]

@foolsguinea

You’re wrong. You’re just wrong.

Retribution is useful in a consequentialist analysis, because it deters future bad behavior. I think you overrate mercy. In a given case, it matters whether being merciful does more good for the guilty (or even merely believed guilty) than encouraging future crimes does harm.

Only it doesn’t.

Putting aside your first argument from tautology; Deterrence theory assumes:

1. a potential criminal knows the potential punishments for breaking the law they’re considering
2. have a mindful and methodical degree of control over their criminal actions
3. think things through and make choices about their behavior based on logic, not passion
   Most studies show that deterrence doesn’t work.

“A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country from found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder.”

Deterrence | Death Penalty Information Center

This is only referring to the death penalty, but you can infer that if the worst punishment doesn’t deter crime, then neither will lesser punishments.
The justice system should only be about rehabilitation, not revenge.

[SimonMoon5]

@Contemporary_Logic

This is only referring to the death penalty, but you can infer that if the worst punishment doesn’t deter crime, then neither will lesser punishments.

I don’t think that’s a correct inference though.

From personal experience, I have been so enraged with certain people in my life that I have thought (mostly in a merely fanciful way) about enacting violent revenge upon them. And while that’s mostly merely wishful daydreaming, the knowledge that there would be terrible consequences if I were to act upon such desires is most certainly a deterrent.

I might not care what those terrible consequences would be (death penalty, life in prison, etc… heck even 2 years in prison would effectively be the end of any reasonable kind of life), but the knowledge that there are terrible consequences for terrible actions is most certainly a deterrent. (And so, no, I’m not ever going to enact violent revenge on anyone.)

If there were no consequences, then… why not kill that cheating ex-lover? Why not kill that boss that got you fired for frivolous reasons? Why not kill those people who play their music too loudly? Why not kill those people who don’t know the difference between “could have” and “could of”? Why not kill those people who think “.25 cents” is the same thing as a “$.25”?

[eschereal]

That is a pretty ridiculous straw-man argument. We are not bears, nor cats, we are a social animal that consorts for much longer than copulatory moments. Your behavior still has to be inline with what us tolerable to the pack/herd: laws or not, there will be social consequences to your actions. At least with a legal system, those tend to be a bit more reasonable.

[Little_Nemo]

@MorphinePoet

Albert Pike said:

“It does not become the frail and sinful to be vindictive toward even the worst criminals. We owe much to the good Providence of God, ordaining for us a lot more favorable to virtue. We all had that within us, that might have been pushed to the same excess: Perhaps we should have fallen as he did, with less temptation. Perhaps we have done acts, that, in proportion to the temptation or provocation, were less excusable than his great crime. Silent pity and sorrow for the victim should mingle with our detestation of the guilt. Even the pirate who murders in cold blood on the high seas, is such a man as you or I might have been. Orphanage in childhood, or base and dissolute and abandoned parents; an unfriended youth; evil companions; ignorance and want of moral cultivation; the temptations of sinful pleasure or grinding poverty; familiarity with vice; a scorned and blighted name; seared and crushed affections; desperate fortunes; these are steps that might have led any one among us to unfurl upon the high seas the bloody flag of universal defiance; to wage war with our kind; to live the life and die the death of the reckless and remorseless free-booter. Many affecting relationships of humanity plead with us to pity him. His head once rested on a mother’s bosom. He was once the object of sisterly love and domestic endearment. Perhaps his hand, since often red with blood, once clasped another little loving hand at the altar. Pity him then; his blighted hopes and his crushed heart! It is proper that frail and erring creatures like us should do so; should feel the crime, but feel it as weak, tempted, and rescued creatures should. It may be that when God weighs men’s crimes, He will take into consideration the temptations and the adverse circumstances that led to them, and the opportunities for moral culture of the offender; and it may be that our own offences will weigh heavier than we think, and the murderer’s lighter than according to man’s judgment.”

If circumstances made somebody into a person who commits crimes then circumstances made me into a person who puts criminals in prison. If that other guy can’t be expected to rise above his past and stop committing crimes, I don’t see why I can be expected to rise above my past and stop imprisoning criminals. We are both what our past has made us.

[Contemporary_Logic]

@SimonMoon5

I don’t think that’s a correct inference though.

From personal experience, I have been so enraged with certain people in my life that I have thought (mostly in a merely fanciful way) about enacting violent revenge upon them. And while that’s mostly merely wishful daydreaming, the knowledge that there would be terrible consequences if I were to act upon such desires is most certainly a deterrent.

I might not care what those terrible consequences would be (death penalty, life in prison, etc… heck even 2 years in prison would effectively be the end of any reasonable kind of life), but the knowledge that there are terrible consequences for terrible actions is most certainly a deterrent. (And so, no, I’m not ever going to enact violent revenge on anyone.)

An argument from personal experience has limited utility. You may be rationalizing why you didn’t choose to enact your violent revenge fantasies when the reasoning could have been entirely emotional.

If there were no consequences, then… why not kill that cheating ex-lover? Why not kill that boss that got you fired for frivolous reasons? Why not kill those people who play their music too loudly? Why not kill those people who don’t know the difference between “could have” and “could of”? Why not kill those people who think “.25 cents” is the same thing as a “$.25”?

Social conditioning and empathy for one. Also, there will be consequences outside of the law. That person, or their allies, may very well kill you instead. If the thought of some legal repercussion didn’t deter you, then this would be your next line of inquiry.

In addition, the idea of being rehabilitated itself would serve as your minimum deterrent. The rehabilitation still happens without your consent. It’s just that punishment is not the focus.