If we use retributivism as justification for punishment of criminals, how do we determine the level of punishment? For murder we could just use eye for an eye, but what about something like theft? Beyond just taking an equal amount of stuff away from the thief, how do when determine how much punishment to give without utilitarianism? If we use prison, how to determine how many years theft deserves?
Kel, your questions assumes that retribution is fitting for punishment. I’d deny that" there are three main justifications for punishment:
(1) To reduce the incidence of crime.
(2) To protect people from criminals.
(3) To compensate victims of crime for their losses.
It may feel good to have retribution, but it doesn’t make society any better.
For the purpose of this debate we will assume that retribution is the “only valid rational” for punishment,
This word is not in my vocabulary: retributivism.
Still, you need to define: retribution.
What the hell is Retributivism? Is it the bastard love child of Retribution and Recidivism?
Why? - it doesn’t seem to make much sense when dissected out of the broader context of criminal justice and treated as if the context simply doesn’t exist.
Romans 12:19 … avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
There are several versions available of the following:
The mills of God grind slowly,
Yet they grind exceedingly fine!
A criminal action was brought against the driver of a large vehicle for revenge. He, through negligence, had cause a major accitend in which an out of state family was killed. Relatives wanted revenge. The drivers action was not criminal and dismissal of the case put him on his own to support himself rather that the local jurisdiction having to pay a lifetime of medical and support bills on his behalf. A worse punishment that had he been convicted and incarcerated.
Romans 12:19 … avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
There are several versions available of the following:
The mills of God grind slowly,
Yet they grind exceedingly fine!
A criminal action was brought against the driver of a large vehicle for revenge. He, through negligence, had cause a major accitend in which an out of state family was killed. Relatives wanted revenge. The drivers action was not criminal and dismissal of the case put him on his own to support himself rather that the local jurisdiction having to pay a lifetime of medical and support bills on his behalf. A worse punishment that had he been convicted and incarcerated. (He had a medical condition.)