“If people knew how many people actually DON'T get away with crimes, things would shift so dramatically.” — Exactly my point, only if people KNEW, then things would change, but they don’t, i.e., they’re ignorant of the improbability of getting away, so they proceed with their action(s) in ignorance of what’s more than likely going to come their way; but, again, if they did know, most of them would’ve never tried to commit what they did.

If you wake up and cannot feed your family, that is life.

If you wake up and cannot feed your family, that is life. — Valentinus

I think it boils down to retaliation towards some perceived threat. I mean by this, even inaction.

Is that theater completely separated from the options people have in dire circumstances?

Is that theater completely separated from the options people have in dire circumstances? — Valentinus

I don't think they feel like they have a choice at some point.

Unfortunately it is an issue of power. Europeans have quite a liberal and progressive justice system. There are always people fighting to make a more humane society.

I am from England but I have often despaired about The States justice system.

Is there a better gathering of people who feel like they do have a choice?

“I think it boils down to retaliation towards some perceived threat” — Right, as I’ve said in my first post, “negative reinforcement”, or just a negative reaction; &, sure, this can include inaction or a negation of one’s ability to do certain things, as this is case with the “‘holding’ cells” of jail or prison.

Is there a better gathering of people who feel like they do have a choice? — Valentinus

Relative to what? Are we talking in absolutes here?

Defining a crime is controversial. Inequality, poverty, exploitation, religious indoctrination, excessive wealth, environmental damage and many other things are crimes in my book and create societies which are dysfunctional and the vulnerable are penalised

“holding cells” of jail or prison. — aRealidealist

:cry:

What a crazy world. The fact that no better alternative can be entertained as a correctional implementation is enough to negate the just world theory.

I don’t agree with that, as I believe in the maxim of, “you don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone.” So that, in principle, the most effective way to make a person appreciate, or at least miss, a certain thing, is to deprive them of it. Although I don’t deny that the justice system has or can quite unjustly impose such a consequence onto some people; nonetheless, there are times when it’s justified & has the desired effect.

Although I don’t deny that the justice system has or can quite unjustly impose such a consequence onto some people; nonetheless, there are times when it’s justified & has the desired effect. — aRealidealist

Desired??? By whom? God on his almighty throne? Or some judge?

reply="Shawn;411160"]
You presented the idea that punishment is an elective on some level. It could be not selected.

All the serious attempts to advance that idea keep coming up against the problem of equality in opportunity and treatment under bodies of Law.

I am all for advancing the discussion but reject the notion it is not something we have been struggling with for a long time.

If you want to have laws then you have to have enforcement.

So do you prefer anarchy or some form of retribution?

I am all for advancing the discussion but reject the notion it is not something we have been struggling with for a long time. — Valentinus

Then why do we still struggle with it so badly? Is there any room for progress?

So do you prefer anarchy or some form of retribution? — A Seagull

I do not know. I simply reject this current system of punishment and law-abridgment.

Perhaps by the victim; or by people in a society who’ve agreed on upholding “social contracts”, that is, in order to be a citizen of the state, you’ve already agreed to uphold certain rules, & you’ll suffer the consequence(s) for it if you violate said rules. So that such a punishment, in making you reevaluate your appreciation of what was taken from you, will prevent you from repeatedly committing such an act, in fear of being again deprived of what was taken from you.

How can that world in our modern-world with 1000's of laws to abide by?

What? Can you please rephrase the question. Do you mean, “WORK in our modern-world with 1000's of laws to abide by”?

What? Can you please rephrase the question. — aRealidealist

I don't understand the point of a social contract in a society that has thousands of laws to abide by.

Then why do we still struggle with it so badly? Is there any room for progress? — Shawn

If you excuse me taking a step back for a moment, yesterday I was watching David Attenborough's amazing nature commentaries, this one about two musk oxen, a ton each, running at each other's heads at 15mph. That is like falling off a bicycle and hitting your head on the ground at 30mph. After each head-on assault, the two beasts stood dazed for a moment, and one could not help but wonder why they continued at all. Then Mr. Attenborough quietly explained, if they did not carry on keeping their heads pointed at each other, then one would run into the other's flank and rip it open, possibly lethally.

I thought about that quite a bit. It seems to me a biological explanation is not as simple as most make out. Taking that weve not shown ourselves much more evolved than musk oxen, despite advanced intellect, one reaches a new conclusion. It is protection from *future abuse of the herd* that is the DRIVE for the emotion of revenge. However, we perceive it as a direct personal need for revenge for oneself, because our brains are wired for extreme egocentrism.

Regarding justification for revenge, it's been rather clear from more advanced scientific research that current remedial systems often do NOT work as well as outright fear of of future reprisal. Not that fear of future of future reprisal works that well either, considering the high recidivism rate in this country. On the other hand, remedial systems SHOULD, theoretically, work best in the long term, if sufficient investment is put in them. So really it's the expense of making a remedial system thats the hurdle. Frequently stated is that the USA has more people in prison than anywhere else in the world, and more than in the Soviet Union during the height of its 'repression.' Together with other social factors, one is led to wonder whether the all-out commitment to freedom as a primary principal is actually that good for a society in total. However the worship of Goddess Liberty has been shown to produce more economic success, which means, however much the current system of punishment in the USA may not be as fair or as corrective as in other cultures, such as the Netherlands for example, its here to stay and we have to accept it for what it is, despite innumerable irratoinalities.

Sure, I don’t deny that modern “contractualist” states can over do it, but that’s not an objection to contractualism, per se; but just to how certain modern states have employed it, which I’m not against objecting to. So my point has more so to do with contractualism in principle, as opposed to how it’s practiced by certain states nowadays, which, again, I don’t deny that it can be, in these cases, unfair or downright corrupt.

Your questions go in many directions. I am just another fool on the internet.
One way to think about it is how difficult it is to connect our experiences in the inside out form of our tiny minds to what is happening to other people. That was the template for thinkers like Foucault. Such thinkers did not provide an answer to your questions but did explain why they could not.

However it has been shown to produce more economic success, which means, however much the current system of punishment in the USA may not be as fair or as corrective as in other cultures, such as the Netherlands for example, its here to stay and we have to accept it for what it is, despite innumerable irratoinalities. — ernestm

Irrationality in the extreme if I may be so bold!

Sure, I don’t deny modern “contractualist” states can over do it, but that’s not an objection to contractualism, per say, but just to how certain modern states have employed it, which I’m not against objecting to. — aRealidealist

Contractual ism is wrong, should we be educating children about laws? They'll just grow up in fear.

Irrationality in the extreme if I may be so bold! — Shawn

maybe so. on the other hand, 'protection of the herd,' when it is as large as ours is now, does not lead to definitive, rational solutions either. I think it is fair to believe that society continually tries for something better, in a two-steps-forward, one-step-back sort of way. It doesnt seem a hopeless situation.

It doesnt seem a hopeless situation. — ernestm

Yet, the problem persists, and continues to persist. Should we just delve into some thought therapy, or hippocampus memory insertion?

Sure, not the technicalities of jurisprudence, but are you saying that children shouldn’t be taught rules of behavior & interaction at all? Moreover, this necessarily doesn’t imply fear but caution & moderation, which isn’t a bad thing.

Sure, not technical laws of jurisprudence, but are you saying that children shouldn’t be taught rules of behavior & interaction at all? Moreover, this necessarily doesn’t imply fear but caution & moderation, which isn’t a bad thing. — aRealidealist

I don't think teaching children about laws produces anything but neuroticism and fear and maladjustment disorders. It's all therapy at its core.