ok so lets start
Justice or judgment has come to stand for a combination of three thing; firstly it is a means of repayment of the crime to the victim (retribution), next as the method of deterring others from committing the same crime (Deterrence) and lastly as a system to teach the criminal a lesson (Rehabilitation).
this thread intends to brings into question of morality of the first two factors of justice and by thus doing present the primary criteria for justice as: the best method of teaching the criminal the errors of their ways.
at the very least it intends to prove that Justice is fundamentally flawed when it negates the possibility for the judged to learn from their mistakes, as this denies the criminal the very right of being human.
at the heart of this problem lies the idea of morality, i will use kant’s categorical imperative:”Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will” as i can see no great flaw in this definition. act in a way that if it were universal law you would still agree with it.
in understanding Retributive justice and Deterrence we must look at the reasons they exist and the outcomes they hope to achieve.
retributive justice is an attempt to right the wrong that has been committed. it stems from the jewish law of moses that states “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” however the in modern law the retribution is not always equivalent to the crime.
Deterrence is an attempt to discourage the general public from committing the same offense. It is a method of teaching the public a set of morals, using fear of consequence.
is it possible to right a wrong?, how can this be achieved?, what benefit does retribution achieve?, who does it benefit? how is retribution different from revenge? how can the justice system be above the moral law it is trying to protect?
is it possible for people to learn new morals or strengthen old ones? how can this be achieved? is fear a good method of achieving this? is it moral for a governments to use fear as a method of governance?
is free will and thus the ability to change not what defines humanity?
these question will be examined and with any luck answered in future posts. but i think you can see were i’m heading.
hmm im not crystal on this but i get the idea, ill have a go at responding. what benefit does retribution achieve?, who does it benefit?
In my opinion i dont think the Retribution method of “an eye for an eye” works well in the greater social arena. Sure when you area a kid it seems fair “you took this, so ill take that”. But in a criminal sense i dont think Retribution is far from revenge at all! Stooping to the level of the crime committed to get equal in my mind gives no room for triggering the criminals will to change and/or rehabilitate.
This is difficult to discuss when the scale and course of crime can greatly influence my point of view, but i struggle see this method of Retribution truly benefiting anyone. Giving someone a dose of there own medicine doesn’t seem rational to me in a criminal sense,revenge rotates in a cyclic nature and that doesn’t speak peace, resolution and moral learning to me.
So; is it possible for people to learn new morals or strengthen old ones? how can this be achieved? is fear a good method of achieving this? Again i keep defaulting to a larger scale of crime here when considering the answers. However in my opinion i defiantly believe people can learn new morals or strengthen old ones. But the simple yet deciding factor to that is, they HAVE to want to change. A mind only works when its open, and when committing a crime of what ever sort, you have to wonder where their mind WAS at. So getting from that A to B it possible, theres not doubt about that. But fear in my opinion isn’t and shouldn’t be the primary transport in getting there. However unfortunately fear is one of the strongest most powerful emotions in the whole spectrum of feelings. Its threatening, intimidating, painful and frightening. The perfect way of breaking someone into pieces so they cannot function, let alone do them selves some good and look inside to consider the cause and consequence of their actions.
…yeah thats 2cents…
cool.
yeah i think this is the conclusion that anyone who sees humanity as a whole has to come to.
if the best way to teach a criminal the errors of his crimes is to send him to prison then so be it (i doubt it), but so long as the goal is rehabilitation not retribution.
similarly if the best way to reinforce morals in society is through fear of consequence, then it would be ok to include some form of deterrence in a sentencing. (i think “best” would have to take ethics into account and not just efficiency)
however i think the Christian view differs a little, for them (and i’m just doing my best to paraphrase here, feel free to correct me adam) we are all responsible for are own actions, and even tho humans are capable to changing if they do not do so by the end of their lives they are eternally danmed.. (trolling for respones from adam
)
sorry to bring this back to religon but that allways seems to be the root of all these debates anyway. tho it’d be interesting to see where atheists stand on this.