Some people are into (so-called) retribution, very much so in fact. But I contend that NO ONE in this world “deserves” to suffer. There’s already so much suffering in this world. Why would it be better to cause more?
Congratulations on your firmly held opinion! I would point out that retribution does not necessarily mean suffering.
Sounds like the makings of a Great Debate. Before it heads over there whereat I never go …
IMO you have a good point.
But a certain amount of retribution is aimed at deterrence of future bad acts, both of that specific bad guy and of the other would-be bad guys watching. To the degree that deterrence-via-retribution actually works, it would in fact reduce total suffering in the world over time.
In practical terms, all retribution is aimed at deterrence. One might suggest that it is partly directed toward giving the victim a sense of satisfaction/closure, but that is of little practical value. If satisfying the victim were a concern, there would be programs for recompense in place.
But it has not actually been shown to work. The behavioral dynamic strongly suggests that it will never work. The suffering caused by retribution will always exceed any positive deterrent effect it has, probably to a large degree.
Retribution / Justice: Vengeance. Says more about the people calling for it than they’d ever willingly tell you themselves.
Dig two holes before your trip, boy. Two holes.
Suppose someone assaults an innocent person and leaves him bedridden. I think it would be unfair to simply let him go off to enjoy the air and sunlight of a spring day when, because of his actions, his innocent victim is, in effect, in prison. It’s not fair that the good suffer while the wicked do just fine. In fact, that that does happen is a popular argument against the existence of God: If God is good and all powerful, why do good people suffer and bad ones prosper?
And also, I just wanted to point out, I am not saying I’m perfect or better than the rest of you because I feel this way. I am just as flawed as the rest of the people in this sad, sad world. And I too sometimes feel the need for revenge when someone hurts me or someone else. But when I feel this way, I know my feelings aren’t valid, and should be put aside, before I make a judgement call on what to do.
Yes, it is not fair to let someone get away scot-free with ruining another person’s life. Or even just fucking it up a bit. But the sensible approach is not punishment, because that approach is ineffective (as far as deterrence is concerned) and counterproductive (as far as convincing the offender to not re-offend).
To start with, the offender ought to be required to take real responsibility for recompense. Whether or not that is doable, the offender then needs to have the emotional and/or mental issues that drove them to be a prick addressed. They need to be treated and repaired, an ongoing process which, unlike incarceration, continues until the offender is determined to be not a concern to society.
For some, segregation from others will be indicated. This needs to be done for the safety of everyone, but that is the only reason it should be done. Segregation should never be used as a punishment, because it has not been shown to generate positive results, other than sporadically. A strategy that does not work most of the time is a strategy that needs to be abandoned.
Like most people who have lived long enough, I have had many moments where I was wronged - sometimes by people who are very dear to me. At the end of the day, I don’t want the people who have wronged me to suffer; I want them to stop doing it in the future and for me to be made as whole as I possibly can.
But in the heat of the moment, I want that fucker to pay.
Offenders should be disciplined. There should be some degree of punishment, to have a deterrent effect. It has to be unpleasant, almost by definition.
The word “suffering” is hard to define – but, then, so is the term “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Punishment can be tough, even harsh, but it should stop short of cruelty.
Explain how that is supposed to work.
Better yet, explain how that is supposed to work. How does society “fix” someone against their will? Or are you assuming that everyone who commits a crime is really just crying out for help and would willingly submit to the “repair”? How will the “repair” process work if the “repairee” is not segregated in some form?
I agree that prison does very little to deter future crime (note an overall 5 year recidivism rate of over 76%), but you make it sound like fixing a spare tire on a car…
Incarceration/corrections is supposed to repair (rehabilitate) offenders. It appears to be failing. We probably ought to examine why that is, in order to figure out how we can make it stop failing. As I see it, they are taking an approach akin to breaking a horse – except, with horses, TBMK, it is not standard practice to re-break them if they start misbehaving, so why would we think that sort of practice would work with humans? Decades of trying that have not demonstrated that it does.
(It might be worth noting that some of the most destructive and detestable behavior – ugly schemes that often affect millions of people’s lives in negative ways – go completely unpunished. If criminals see that sort of thing as being lauded, or at best going unpunished, why should they think it fair that their comparatively minor acts are subject to a harsh response. Which is to say, justice tends to be ineffective, even harmful, if its application may be seen as unjust.)
Fine citizens you are; too good for the likes of me.
I couldn’t pass the test to become a judge-juror… but you’ve made it all the way to judge-juror-executioners? Wow. Just… wow.
Well, my hats off to you boys. I suppose next you’ll want a nice discount on rope. I almost wish we could rename this thread “The Ox-Bow Incident”, but I forgot how that book ends.
The disciplining of wrongdoers? Start with fines. If they do wrong, they have to pay for it.
Toss in jail time for worse crimes. If they do wrong, no one wants to play with them. Go sit in the corner a while.
How is this difficult to understand?
In other words, you are designing the system with the expectation that the mechanism will fail. Sounds like a plan to me.
So we’re back to incarceration…
One issue is that many people who go to prison have no desire to be “fixed”. In fact, going back to before WWII and continuing today, some gang members see prison as a rite of passageand a way to move up in the gang hierarchy. Another large portion see incarceration as a cost of doing business, and fully intend to continue the business once released.
Here’s an analogy: If I drop a fine china cup onto a hard floor it will likely break - not every the time, but a significant portion of the time. I can “fix” the cup by gluing it back together and it may look and function perfectly fine. If, however, I continue to drop it on a hard floor it will, in most cases, break again. “Fixing” an incarcerated individual and then releasing them to the same circumstances that they came from is probably not the answer. The real fix goes far beyond that. We would have to repair the circumstances as well as the person. I’m not sure that can be done.
Why are your feelings not valid? How do you know this?
Sounds more like your feelings are conflicted.
No it’s not. It’s primary purpose is to punish offenders. Rehabilitation is a secondary objective.
Don’t get me wrong, we as a society need to revisit the prison terms and punishments for many crimes which are exceedingly harsh in comparison to each other. The supposed war on drugs has resulted in the too lengthy incarceration of many people. The sentencing for victimless crimes got way out of control and there are many people that should be given clemency or suspend their sentences.
But in no means is it time to swing open the gates.