For instance, while sitting in a court case, I once heard a judge sentence a man to jail for 60 days, and this judge called it her "sad duty". The idea here isn't that the man didn't deserve to go to jail, but that the whole thing was unfortunate and regrettable. She took no pleasure in it, despite the fact that the young man physically hurt several people in a drunken stupor.

A 'sad duty' could mean anything, it doesnt mean the guy didnt deserve to go to jail but could mean the judge doesn't like punishing people (which is a good thing). I would be more concerned if he said I really enjoy locking you up for ever or having you shot.

mrjonno wrote:

Again, personally, I don't see what form the payment takes. Maybe it makes the family feel better, but I'm not sure that taking solace in another's suffering is a particularly healthy emotion. I don't think someone who raped and murdered a child would ever be rehabilitated enough to rejoin society. I'd lock them away for ever for the safety of others, but I wouldn't make them suffer unduly.

The justice system is not for victims or relatives of victims period. When you kill another person the crime is against the state/society not the person you kill.

Civilised countries remove the implementation of justice away from the individual aggrieved. If I had a loved murdered I would be angry and probably want the person who did it dead. Luckily we don't allow angry people to make those sorts of decisions

I think it has to do with what sort of society most people would like to live in. They want a society where some concept of "justice" seems to prevail. They also want one with a large degree of order and consistency. Allowing the aggrieved family to mete out whatever punishment they wish goes against the second of these more than the first. We go to great lengths to make sure someone who commits a crime was mentally capable of understanding what he did, so when we lock him up we are clear that this is being done so he can receive treatment, rather than for punishment. Because otherwise that would be unjust. Most of the people I have met in this situation don't really care why they've been locked up, of course. They just know they've been locked up.

John Ayers wrote:

Yes, because the rejection is based on the premise that no one deserves to be punished. Justification for that premise while also believing that some people deserve to be rewarded, treated fairly, and so on, seems implausible. The position seems to undermine the whole idea of people deserving anything.

When I was a kid if I done something wrong my ma would beat me. I was a lot weaker so all I could do was cower until she decided I'd had enough (or she'd had enough). She was seeking retribution for my slights while I was completely at her mercy. All the time she was claiming she was doing it "for my own good." This is how it works in a retributative system also. A person does somethng wrong, and now he's on the stand, completely powerless and at the mercy of everyone else deciding his fate. All the while we tell them we take no pleasure in this.

What my mother should've done was talked to me and tried to find out why I was doing what I was. Likewise we should be trying to analysis and find out what is wrong with young offenders and do our best to try help them and out and listen to them instead of chucking them into jail as a punishment. Especially not dangerous jails where they'll have to quickly learn to be vicious if they need to survive and can end up in the arms of gangs for added protection. That is to say we should be doing our best to keep them out of jail. No one but the most dangerous and violent should really be ending up in there. And even then it won't be as a punishment, but for the protection of everyone else.

If someone wrongs me I don't expect any retribution at all. I'd expect an apology, maybe, or in some cases, like after an argument while drinking, it would just simply be dropped the next day. If someone does something serious to me I don't want them punished, I want them to made to face up to what they've done and helped along the way. What good is punishing people with threats and violence going to do anyway? Most people just end up resenting their punishers and end up fighting harder against the system. I know I would, just like I seriously rebelled against my over-bearing mother as a teen.

The only punishment should be a lack of reward. Teaching people a lesson by beating them down doesn't seem very effective to me.

Is sentencing a serial killer to life imprisonment retribution, or society protecting itself?

laklak wrote:Is sentencing a serial killer to life imprisonment retribution, or society protecting itself?

Both, I think. Unless he's found criminally insane. Then, it's only to protect us. He'll come out when he's no longer felt to be a threat. And if he is released, many people will scream about the injustice. Go figure.

laklak wrote:Is sentencing a serial killer to life imprisonment retribution, or society protecting itself?

Depends. If you're doing it knowing it's likely he'll get shanked in there (prisoners like to protect themselves too) then it's retribution. Ideally you should be putting him away even from the other criminals. Or even more ideally in a high-security institute for the mentally ill. I mean, we don't put any other type of mental patients in jail because they pose a threat to the rest of us.

Animavore wrote:

laklak wrote:Is sentencing a serial killer to life imprisonment retribution, or society protecting itself?

Depends. If you're doing it knowing it's likely he'll get shanked in there (prisoners like to protect themselves too) then it's retribution. Ideally you should be putting him away even from the other criminals. Or even more ideally in a high-security institute for the mentally ill. I mean, we don't put any other type of mental patients in jail because they pose a threat to the rest of us.

Here in Canada, we don't put any of them in jail. They're put in hospitals. Many of which are very difficult to tell from jails, of course....

Animavore wrote:
When I was a kid if I done something wrong my ma would beat me. I was a lot weaker so all I could do was cower until she decided I'd had enough (or she'd had enough). She was seeking retribution for my slights while I was completely at her mercy. All the time she was claiming she was doing it "for my own good." This is how it works in a retributative system also. A person does somethng wrong, and now he's on the stand, completely powerless and at the mercy of everyone else deciding his fate. All the while we tell them we take no pleasure in this.

Yes, and?

What my mother should've done was talked to me and tried to find out why I was doing what I was. Likewise we should be trying to analysis and find out what is wrong with young offenders and do our best to try help them and out and listen to them instead of chucking them into jail as a punishment. Especially not dangerous jails where they'll have to quickly learn to be vicious if they need to survive and can end up in the arms of gangs for added protection. That is to say we should be doing our best to keep them out of jail. No one but the most dangerous and violent should really be ending up in there. And even then it won't be as a punishment, but for the protection of everyone else.

Nothing you said here is against retribution per se. For instance, we could also try to find out why a person committed a crime. We can hear them out (as we often do). We can help them, too. None of this excludes the idea of retribution. We might even decide that the criminal doesn't deserve retribution, and that restitution or rehabilitation should be the sole end. Also, we might even decide that jail is too extreme of a punishment, and prefer something else instead.

I don't want to seem rude here, but nothing you said thus far is relevant questioning the principle of retribution itself. Maybe that's not your goal. If so, then proceed...

If someone wrongs me I don't expect any retribution at all. I'd expect an apology, maybe, or in some cases, like after an argument while drinking, it would just simply be dropped the next day.

Would you say that you deserve an apology, sometimes?

If someone does something serious to me I don't want them punished, I want them to made to face up to what they've done and helped along the way. What good is punishing people with threats and violence going to do anyway? Most people just end up resenting their punishers and end up fighting harder against the system. I know I would, just like I seriously rebelled against my over-bearing mother as a teen.

While I don't think retributivism should be characterized as "punishing people with threats and violence", the good is found in the very act of giving what they deserve.

The only punishment should be a lack of reward. Teaching people a lesson by beating them down doesn't seem very effective to me.

Effective at what? Making them better? That's not even the goal of retributivism.

Shrunk wrote:

Animavore wrote:

laklak wrote:Is sentencing a serial killer to life imprisonment retribution, or society protecting itself?

Depends. If you're doing it knowing it's likely he'll get shanked in there (prisoners like to protect themselves too) then it's retribution. Ideally you should be putting him away even from the other criminals. Or even more ideally in a high-security institute for the mentally ill. I mean, we don't put any other type of mental patients in jail because they pose a threat to the rest of us.

Here in Canada, we don't put any of them in jail. They're put in hospitals. Many of which are very difficult to tell from jails, of course....

I'm not sure what else can be done with seriously dangerous people. Until we can use stem cells to grow the parts of their brain they're lacking from which empathy arise who much can we help them? I'm not even sure it's ethical to grow these parts of the brain. Imagine being a highly sick serial killer responsible for some quite horrifc stuff and all of a sudden you get hit with a sudden remorse!

laklak wrote:Is sentencing a serial killer to life imprisonment retribution, or society protecting itself?

It's very rare its done in the UK and simply doesnt happen in most other European countries. Some people may be kept in for life but a sentence of that without the possibility of parole I believe is actually illegal under the European supreme courts

I personally don't see the point in bed bound 80 year old being kept in jail regardless of how serious their crimes are. I also don't see the point in at least not considering a 18 year old for parole after 25 years in jail regardless of their crime (it still may be they need to stay in if they are a public safety risk)

I doubt Anders Brevik will ever be let out but his sentence is not life

Deserve? This sounds suspiciously like magical thinking.

Onyx8 wrote:Deserve? This sounds suspiciously like magical thinking.

Wow.

I don't think that Charlie Manson, for example, is a good candidate for eventual release. Some people are just too fucked up to live among the rest of us. He's not legally insane, but that just points out how difficult defining legal insanity is. In my mind he's a full-on lunatic, as are all serial killers, spree killers, mass murderers and probably a host of other habitual offenders. At some point you have to look at their criminal career and say "this one needs to be put away forever" in order to protect society as a whole. The difficulty lies in determining at what point to lock them up and throw away the key.

John Ayers wrote:

Yes, and?

That's it.

John Ayers wrote:
Nothing you said here is against retribution per se. For instance, we could also try to find out why a person committed a crime. We can hear them out (as we often do). We can help them, too. None of this excludes the idea of retribution. We might even decide that the criminal doesn't deserve retribution, and that restitution or rehabilitation should be the sole end. Also, we might even decide that jail is too extreme of a punishment, and prefer something else instead.

I don't want to seem rude here, but nothing you said thus far is relevant questioning the principle of retribution itself. Maybe that's not your goal. If so, then proceed...

It's not about the ciminal 'deserving' anything. It's about trying to help them out so for the embetterment of themselves and society. You're the only one talking about what people 'deserve' here. I'm not arrogant enough to tell people what they deserve.

John Ayers wrote:

Would you say that you deserve an apology, sometimes?

No. There is no between the lines here. I would expect an apology. If they don't want to give it then fine, I'll not be chasing them up and demanding one off them. I'll probably not think much of them afterwards though.

John Ayers wrote:
While I don't think retributivism should be characterized as "punishing people with threats and violence", the good is found in the very act of giving what they deserve.

What else are you doing when you threaten to put people into dangerous institutions which can be quite fearful but punishing them with threats and violence? I don't know one of my friends or people I've met who've been on the inside who "deserved" to be there.

John Ayers wrote:
Effective at what? Making them better? That's not even the goal of retributivism.

No shit it's not the goal of retibutivism. And that's the problem.

John Ayers wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:Deserve? This sounds suspiciously like magical thinking.

Wow.

Ok, by what metric is it decided what is 'deserved' by someone?

Animavore wrote:

John Ayers wrote:

Yes, and?

That's it.

John Ayers wrote:
Nothing you said here is against retribution per se. For instance, we could also try to find out why a person committed a crime. We can hear them out (as we often do). We can help them, too. None of this excludes the idea of retribution. We might even decide that the criminal doesn't deserve retribution, and that restitution or rehabilitation should be the sole end. Also, we might even decide that jail is too extreme of a punishment, and prefer something else instead.

I don't want to seem rude here, but nothing you said thus far is relevant questioning the principle of retribution itself. Maybe that's not your goal. If so, then proceed...

It's not about the ciminal 'deserving' anything. It's about trying to help them out so for the embetterment of themselves and society. You're the only one talking about what people 'deserve' here. I'm not arrogant enough to tell people what they deserve.

John Ayers wrote:

Would you say that you deserve an apology, sometimes?

No. There is no between the lines here. I would expect an apology. If they don't want to give it then fine, I'll not be chasing them up and demanding one off them. I'll probably not think much of them afterwards though.

John Ayers wrote:
While I don't think retributivism should be characterized as "punishing people with threats and violence", the good is found in the very act of giving what they deserve.

What else are you doing when you threaten to put people into dangerous institutions which can be quite fearful but punishing them with threats and violence? I don't know one of my friends or people I've met who've been on the inside who "deserved" to be there.

John Ayers wrote:
Effective at what? Making them better? That's not even the goal of retributivism.

No shit it's not the goal of retibutivism. And that's the problem.

So, the problem with retribution is that it is ineffective at making people better, a goal that it is not even supposed to have? That's like saying that a problem with forks is that they're not effective computers. Don't argue like that. If you want to criticize its effectiveness, you can only reference what it aims to do.

Why do you expect an apology? Before you dance around this question, avoiding any commitment to entitlement, you should ask yourself whether you're being genuine. Ask yourself this: If John asked this question outside of this discussion, would I say that I am entitled to an apology, that I deserve one? And be honest!

Onyx8 wrote:

John Ayers wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:Deserve? This sounds suspiciously like magical thinking.

Wow.

Ok, by what metric is it decided what is 'deserved' by someone?

People learn about that kind of shit in church. Biblical morality is all about what rewards and punishments people deserve.

John Ayers wrote:That's like saying that a problem with forks is that they're not effective computers.

No, Mr. Ayers. Here you're showing that analogies are like swimming holes filled with drunkards who can't swim trying to rescue one another from drowning.

John Ayers wrote:

So, the problem with retribution is that it is ineffective at making people better, a goal that it is not even supposed to have? That's like saying that a problem with forks is that they're not effective computers. Don't argue like that. If you want to criticize its effectiveness, you can only reference what it aims to do.

Oh I'm sure it's very effective at what it aims to do - Help reap vengence for vengeful people.

John Ayers wrote:

Why do you expect an apology? Before you dance around this question, avoiding any commitment to entitlement, you should ask yourself whether you're being genuine. Ask yourself this: If John asked this question outside of this discussion, would I say that I am entitled to an apology, that I deserve one? And be honest!

I'm being very genuine so quit trying to question my sincerity. I expect people to own up, of their own volition, no asking for or demanding an apolgy, to what they've done and acknowledge when they're at fault and if they don't, well I will think less of them. It's nothing to do with what I 'deserve' or think I'm 'entitled' to. The apology isn't for me at all. It's for the good of relations. If they don't think anything of the relationship then I'll leave them to it. I'm not going to be upset I didn't get what I believed I was owed.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:

John Ayers wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:Deserve? This sounds suspiciously like magical thinking.

Wow.

Ok, by what metric is it decided what is 'deserved' by someone?

People learn about that kind of shit in church. Biblical morality is all about what rewards and punishments people deserve.

John Ayers wrote:That's like saying that a problem with forks is that they're not effective computers.

No, Mr. Ayers. Here you're showing that analogies are like swimming holes filled with drunkards who can't swim trying to rescue one another from drowning.

I'm not too sure where "people" learn that idea (which people?), but it is existent in non-Christian nations and in pre-Christian times. Thus, the source of the idea itself is neither Jewish, Christian nor Islamic. Of course you knew that already, and so I am left wondering why you'd offer such a silly idea.

I can use any analogues. What matters is that there is a similarly inappropriate judgment about its effectiveness. I mean, I could say that a fork is not an effective computer, and I'd be right, but that's hardly a criticism against the use of forks.

Animavore wrote:

John Ayers wrote:

So, the problem with retribution is that it is ineffective at making people better, a goal that it is not even supposed to have? That's like saying that a problem with forks is that they're not effective computers. Don't argue like that. If you want to criticize its effectiveness, you can only reference what it aims to do.

Oh I'm sure it's very effective at what it aims to do - Help reap vengence for vengeful people.

John Ayers wrote:

Why do you expect an apology? Before you dance around this question, avoiding any commitment to entitlement, you should ask yourself whether you're being genuine. Ask yourself this: If John asked this question outside of this discussion, would I say that I am entitled to an apology, that I deserve one? And be honest!

I'm being very genuine so quit trying to question my sincerity. I expect people to own up, of their own volition, no asking for or demanding an apolgy, to what they've done and acknowledge when they're at fault and if they don't, well I will think less of them. It's nothing to do with what I 'deserve' or think I'm 'entitled' to. The apology isn't for me at all. It's for the good of relations. If they don't think anything of the relationship then I'll leave them to it. I'm not going to be upset I didn't get what I believed I was owed.

You're dancing.

Listen to your language--you can't help it! People only "own up" to things that they believed to have done wrong. If an apology is directed to you, it is because they believe that you have been wronged in some way. You can only be wronged in some way if you're entitled to have been treated otherwise. People apologize for transgressions. Transgressions presuppose entitlements, things you deserve.

There's no getting around it, so stop trying. Focus your energy on embracing my view, or you can establish why people deserve sorts of good treatment but no one deserves poor consequences.