Retribution

Wheatley

Punishment is ubiquitous. It is a method used from childhood to adulthood, from individual families to whole societies. There are two main reasons for punishment:

Retribution. There is the sense where the person getting the punishment deserves it. We believe that the punishment should fit the crime.

Deterrence. Punishment is a crucial part of society, without it society would run amok, there would be less incentive for humans not to bad things. In this sense, punishment is used to protect us.

Society isn't going to give up on the two justifications for punishment mentioned. We need punishment as deterrence because no one has yet figured out a better system to deter people from doing bad things. But is retribution also necessary? Psychologically, yes. If someone rapes your sister you want him to suffer for it. No amount of reason about how this is not going to help your sister forget the traumatic experience is going to help. There's also the lack of empathy, we don't care if the rapist gets hurt.

We need to be careful about retribution. Throughout history, the notion of retribution has been abused. Religious retribution has influenced the inquisition where non-believers "deserved" punishment. The Nazis viewed Jews as pests, and therefore "deserving" of extermination. These are plenty of more examples. The point is, "deserving" is a very slippery idea, and it can be subjective.

How do we know that a person really deserves a specific punishment. Maybe in the future, our beliefs of who deserves what will change, as it did in the past. This uncertainty applies to all our ethical beliefs.

What are your thoughts about retribution?

unenlightened

Let's forgo retribution and deterrence both. Most people obey the law and behave decently because they already find it more pleasant, and those who do not, are not much deterred by the threat of punishment. We have to do our best to protect ourselves from the violent, the cheaters, the manipulators and exploiters, and the way we do it at the moment is not very effective. Sometimes society needs to imprison someone for the safety of others, and such an exclusion and control is bound to be felt as punishment, and bound to increase the prisoner's alienation, isolation, and thus antisocial tendencies. This is only made worse by also treating them harshly, in the hope of frightening them into compliance, or as some bizarre negative payment.

Janis

↪Purple Pond

Hi Purple Pond, I don’t know if you saw my link which discusses this very issue. I hope you take the time to read it.

I can promise you one thing: if you read it carefully, you will not be disappointed with the proof although the proof will not be empirically shown until you see how the extension of this knowledge affects every aspect of our lives. It’s unfortunate that skepticism and cynicism subverts the desire to even learn what this is about.

Wheatley

Hi Purple Pond, I don’t know if you saw my link which discusses this very issue. I hope you take the time to read it. — Janis

Sorry, not interested. Have a good day.

Tzeentch

Retribution is always a terrible idea, no matter how grave the injury. When someone is injured, in order to properly heal the wound one must at some point reach forgiveness and acceptance. This process can take very long, especially with deep wounds, but it must take place if one is ever to put the event behind them.

If one exacts vengeance in kind, this process becomes vastly more complicated and in some cases impossible to complete.

I am reminded of the example of the father whose daughter was murdered, and who then shot the perpetrator in court. Forgiveness was now impossible, because vengeance had already been exacted and the perpetrator was dead. But worse than that, by murdering the perpetrator while he was in a vulnerable state, the father committed the same crime as the perpetrator himself, thereby the father would not only have to accept that he had lost his daughter to the actions of a horrible person, but that he himself was capable of the same evil actions as this person. Also he would have to engage in such a difficult process inside a prison cell.

Vengeance is self-destructive and should never be the motivation for a punishment, if only to protect the injured from their own passions which will inevitably wreak their own vengeance upon the mind.

Janis

Reveal

↪Tzeentch

Vengeance is self-destructive but it is a normal reaction when you've been seriously harmed by another person. It takes a lot to forgive even if one tries to forgive in his heart. There have been people who have been able to change the course of a perpetrator's life by forgiveness. It is also true that prisons do their best to protect the public, but this protection comes too late for the victims and their family. What is necessary is learning how to prevent these atrocities from becoming a reality in the first place, for then there will be no need to forgive. Our penal system does the best they can, but they have fallen short at doing anything more than punishing with a little rehabilitation thrown in for good measure.

gloaming

Someone so damaged, or wanting, that he/she is essentially incapable of empathy, or placing himself in another's shoes, will never be able to link retributive justice, let alone 'retribution' in general however meted out, to the wrongness of his action(s). Or, if you question what 'wrongness' is, the effects on the 'victim' or subject objecting to, and not giving his/consent in principle to, being the object of the acts.

So, prisons only serve to keep those who are so disposed as to impose their will in antisocial ways when given an opportunity from continuing to do that. In a way, it's ethical for the future victims, but also best for the perpetrator because it prevents him/her from continuing to act that way and possibly from incurring personal harm. Of course, prisons aren't nice resorts, and offer their own risks to the 'residents'. I think prison reform is necessary. Mandatory education, even if just in tin smithing, should be included. Then, only the truly intractable thereafter can be culled and placed in an institution with the culture and conditions with which they would be most comfortable. Those more salvageable, more motivated to alter their futures, could find themselves in an environment much more conducive to their development and interests.

TheMadFool

He who opens a school door, closes a prison — Victor Hugo

The problem isn't that there are less prisons, the place where the ugly scene of retributory/deterrent punishments plays out, it's that there are less schools.

Justice shouldn't be about exacting an equal amount of suffering from a perp. It should also include the opportunity for the criminal to mend his ways and rejoin society as a man changed for the better.

I don't know how I'd feel if I myself were a victim. Surely a victim of rape can't be belittled with inappropriate philosophy. Yet, if a victim demands punishment to fit the crime isn't s/he just another perpetrator himself/herself. If the same image is seen in two mirrors what's the difference between the two?

So, in my humble opinion, the punishment should be less than the crime. The criminal gets a chance to improve and the victim doesn't himself/herself become a victimizer.

Retribution

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories