|
|
Post by Yahweh on May 9, 2009 15:33:09 GMT -5
"Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life" already seems implicit in the way most people view prison -- after all, people take comfort in the fact that many child molestors will endure many days of nights getting raped in prison.
The basic philosophy behind "eye for an eye" states that if Joe the Criminal accepts that its ok for them to maim and kill others, then Joe should logically accept that its acceptable others to treat Joe in the same way. In other words, its a kind of categorical imperative: Joe's behavior serves as an example to others for how they should treat him. The fate of Joe's life is determined by exactly the moral principles that Joe holds regarding the treatment of others; so if Joe wants to kill a person for money, then Joe is as good as dead.
Granted, some crimes aren't really punishable under the "eye for an eye" philosophy (i.e. do you punish a crack dealer by selling him crack?). However, lets ignore some of those edge cases and focus on violent criminal offenders: is "eye for a eye" and retributive justice an acceptable response to criminal behavior? Or is retributive justice, in contrast to restorative and rehabilitative justice, simply bad in principle?
|
|
libertyprime
Junior Member
Hey, it was acceptable in the '80s.
Posts: 58 
|
Post by libertyprime on May 9, 2009 15:42:19 GMT -5
"eye for an eye" is how things happen. It's people's justice, not the rulers justice: like you said most sick individuals recieve their punishment in prison. But it was never designed to be a perfect system. If religion did a good thing it was keeping people, millenia ago when there was no way to manage countries and empires efficiently, from devolving into anarchy and chaos. With the community unified, the road began for our modern chaotic civilisation, but by god it worked at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on May 9, 2009 15:47:23 GMT -5
Gandhi said it best: "An eye for an eye leaves the world blind."
I can understand the reason people support retributive justice, and I can support it to a certain degree in that life terms are, by definition, retributive. However, for the vast majority of criminals, they were either forced into their crimes by circumstance (gang members shooting to defend themselves) or had a weak moment where they simply snapped (crimes of passion). While I do think that crimes should be punished, I think we should shift our justice system's focus from retribution more toward rehabilitation; it's gotten better about that over the years, but there still exists a strong undercurrent of "giving them what they deserve", with little or no thought to the fact that a purely retributive environment is only likely to make violent offenders MORE dangerous once their sentences are up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on May 9, 2009 15:54:16 GMT -5
Of course it is a bad idea, "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind".
Proverbial answers aside, the purpose of punishment should be to stop re-offending, not to hurt people to make ourselves feel better or something. Whilst there is an argument that "eye-for an eye" punishment acts as a deterrent, I think fear of the law is not a good situation to be in. We should take away the motive to commit crime, not make people scared of the consequences.
Sometimes, punishment won't work (Fritz, for example) and in that case containment is probably the best option. Using punishment is a delicate balancing act however, too much punishment and they feel antagonised by society, and are more likely to re-offend, too little and it is seen as a negligible consequence. The aim is in trying to convince them that they have done wrong, not in giving them an excuse to feel oppressed.
Personally I think the whole concept of prison may have some key flaws, but until a more effective solution turns up it may be the best we have.
|
|
|
|
Post by shiftyeyes on May 9, 2009 16:04:34 GMT -5
The purpose of punishment is threefold. It must be sufficiently unpleasant to generally act as a deterrent to people committing the crime. It must protect society from people who would harm it. This includes isolating the criminal and rehabilitating him. And it must correct the damage done to the individual affected and society. Presumably, the first two, along with fines and community service should do this. However, revenge motivation on the part of the individual or society should not factor into this. You being assaulted doesn't fix the fact that you assaulted me. You helping me recover and working to prevent similar assaults does. Thus, eye for an eye is fundamentally flawed. It should be a seeing eye dog for an eye.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on May 9, 2009 16:14:57 GMT -5
I see a lot of people here seem to be neglecting a large part of the equation. Yes, many crimes are committed by people who just snapped, or people who had little choice. Those people need and should receive help as part of their punishment.
But for many, the threat of punishment is a calculated risk they accept as part of a criminal career, not because it's their only option, but simply because it's the most profitable. These people will never be helped because they don't want help. They will immediately return to their previous lifestyle as soon as they're freed, and likely be more dangerous due to harsh prison conditions and via connections made with other inmates.
There's no system that's perfect. If we lock multiple repeat offenders up for good, they become a massive drain on taxpayer dollars. If we keep the revolving prison door spinning, they're more often a danger to the public. And we can't execute even the most provably dedicated career criminals because we'll always have bleeding hearts who say it's wrong to kill when the person isn't posing an immediate threat--nevermind the fact that he's an active threat to other inmates and a future threat to the public upon release or escape.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on May 9, 2009 16:26:21 GMT -5
Some say a truly just and merciful authority would -- even for the slightest offense -- impose a punishment that is indescribably painful and lasts for eternity.
|
|
libertyprime
Junior Member
Hey, it was acceptable in the '80s.
Posts: 58
|
Post by libertyprime on May 9, 2009 16:29:45 GMT -5
Some say a truly just and merciful authority would -- even for the slightest offense -- impose a punishment that is indescribably painful and lasts for eternity. QFT. True, there are those who will say how unjust it is. There are those who wil complain about the morality of it all. But a country does not run on order, it runs on stability and tough choices. If those bleeding heart types actually had any balls it might be a moot decision because it would only result in them becoming rioutous, but otherwise we can't let semantics cloud outr objectivity. |
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on May 9, 2009 16:30:28 GMT -5
Some say a truly just and merciful authority would -- even for the slightest offense -- impose a punishment that is indescribably painful and lasts for eternity. Have one well-earned exalt good sir. |
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase on May 9, 2009 17:53:46 GMT -5
"Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life" already seems implicit in the way most people view prison -- after all, people take comfort in the fact that many child molestors will endure many days of nights getting raped in prison. “An eye for an eye” was a good way to limit retribution and ensure justice was at least something like proportional to the original crime. It limited the amount of retribution the wronged party could demand. And the wronged party could always show mercy and demand less than their due. It doesn’t follow, however, that vigilantes – e.g., inmates who use rape as a way to punish child sex offenders – should be in any way lauded for their actions. Such men are not agents of the state, operating within lawful bounds: they’re criminals, and those illegal “punishments” are simply more crimes. I think the primary aim of justice should be to restore a crime victim, however much as possible, to his former state. If a thief steals money, and is caught, he should repay the money with interest. That aim – the restoration of the victim – is in no way served by, say, having a drunk driver subjected to the same injuries as his hit-and-run victim. Again, the primary goal of punishing such an offender is to restore the victim, however much is possible, to his former condition; and then, beyond that, to ensure, through a mixture of punitive (e.g., imprisonment) and restorative (e.g., education) techniques that the criminal is less likely to reoffend by the time he has completed his obligations. If a victim dies, his lot can be made no better by killing the perpetrator. The best that can be hoped for, in such a situation, is that the victim’s family receives some kind of restitution and that the offender is locked up for an amount of time that reflects his potential future danger to society. Secondary to that, but also important, is an effort to rehabilitate the offender. Nothing is gained by wasting him. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 9, 2009 18:00:11 GMT -5
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."
Gandhi was great and all, but this isn't one of his better sayings. It's catchy, sure, but taken as a literal analogy, each person still has an eye left. And taken by the actual meaning, I fail to see the problem in meeting an offense with an equivalent punishment.
If someone murders someone, do we say, "Give them something less than what they deserve!"? No, we don't. That wouldn't make sense.
I also saw "we should shift our focus to rehabilitation." This is great, and all, but the simple fact is that rehabilitation cases are the minority, especially when it comes to violent crimes. It almost seems like some people just CAN'T become good.
Then there was the "crime of passion" and "self-defense" angle. Well, obviously, we should dish out punishments on a somewhat case-by-case basis. That's why we have multiple degrees of murder.
So, basically, these are nice sentiments and all, but they just aren't compatible with reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on May 9, 2009 18:29:30 GMT -5
Speaking purely in ideals, now. The objective of justice should be to reduce crime as much as possible, and help the victim recover, again as much as possible. Rehabilitation, deterring, and containment should be the priorities, in that order. Revenge shouldn't factor into it. Teach them how to live without crime, if that's not possible make it so crime isn't worth it, if that is not possible keep them in prison forever or kill them. Punishment, therefore, shouldn't be measured according to damage done to the victim, but according to how much is necessary to rehabilitate, and how much would be necessary to make sure it's better not to do the crime. That may be more, or less, than what eye for an eye demands.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 9, 2009 18:49:33 GMT -5
Personally, I think that calling it "revenge" is just sort of a dick way of putting "making sure they get what they deserve."
Justice, revenge, whatever, it's all the same shit.
And how much effort do we really put into helping the victim recover, anyway? To the best of my knowledge, the most they get out of it IS the feeling that the person who did them wrong got what they deserved.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase on May 9, 2009 19:34:24 GMT -5
And taken by the actual meaning, I fail to see the problem in meeting an offense with an equivalent punishment. That depends: does an "equivalent punishment" lead to a net good for the victim, society, or even the offender? Because without that caution in our minds, the pursuit of justice can quickly degenerate into pointless barbarism. The People - society as a whole - should be at least slightly more uncomfortable with inflicting harm than a common criminal. Not every criminal - and this includes offenders of all types - is going to commit another crime. There's a baseline recidivism rate that isn't affected very much, if at all, by punitive justice, but that is lowered by about 10% through rehabilitation. In other words, yes, rehabilitation does work. In fact, it works better than surveillance and enforcement. There is always going to be a group of hard-core criminals that don't respond to rehab. These are the same people that don't respond to imprisonment or to other state-sanctioned deterrents. If given the chance, they'll re-offend, no matter what. For the rest, however, something can be done beyond demanding a pound of flesh. The problem is, these people can't be picked out of a crowd. Every offender, then, should be given a chance to improve his lot. For those that don't, long-term imprisonment is an appropriate option. The idea that 'most criminals cannot be rehabilitated' is incompatible with reality. |
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase on May 9, 2009 19:58:16 GMT -5
Personally, I think that calling it "revenge" is just sort of a dick way of putting "making sure they get what they deserve." Justice, revenge, whatever, it's all the same shit. I think revenge is often undertaken without concern for desert. They should be more concerned with helping a victim than with harming a perpetrator. There's the key, I think. |
|
