Theories of punishment

Remove all ads!

I'm mostly agreeing with Snook and Sprite here in some aspects... However:

Retribution: I think that the Death Penalty is completely pointless and I kind of have to agree that it's hypocritical "It's wrong to kill, so if you kill someone, we'll kill you." But, if say the person is the leader of a terrorist organization then I agree that it becomes a regrettable necessity to kill him/her -- not as a vengence method but because if they are not killed then the rest of those in the terrorist organization will keep killing innocents in order to get their leader released.

As for Rehabilitation: I agree with Snook that it's very difficult to identify which people CAN be effectively rehabilitated and which of them have been. But I also agree with Sprite that kids should be completely seperated from adults and that typically kids can be rehabilitated whereas many adults have lived long lives of crimes. Also Laches makes the point that rehab is kind of a mind-trap, once you're stuck in it, you can't escape and it's like being brainwashed. So, my opinion is that if a kid's still under his parents care and responsibility (that includes if he's say a Senior in high school and living at home but over 18) then the parents (with the child) should be allowed to decide if the kid should go into a rehabilitation center. And adults (whom I feel should STILL go to a seperate one) should be able to make the choice on their own. This is a bit more logical if you think about it because adults and kids who don't want to be in a rehab center aren't going to get anything out of it and those who DO want to go should be given the opportunity. I mean it's a simple case of the smart high school student who fell in with the wrong crowd and ended up dropping out and suddenly becoming a theif and a drug addict. Yet, if he recognized his past mistakes and wanted to change them, then I feel that the opportunity should be given. Except of course there is the problem of determining if he has been rehabilitated but with proper monitering of officials. . . And what about people like Malcom X who did change his ways in prison? Not everyone will change in prison alone but given a slightly easier place to change in. . .

Deterrance: I can't honestly say if it's effective or not. I really don't think so. I mean yes there is the fear factor that motivates some people not to do illegal things but I kind of have to agree that too many offenders are of the belief that they won't get caught or they simply don't care.

Denunciation: Exactly WHERE does this work? No offense Sprite, but many people denounce bad things and then do nothing about it. And it doesn't stop criminals. Nevertheless, I feel denunciation should be continued because if nothing else the criminal can't claim, "I didn't know it was wrong. . ."

Preventing repeat offenders from leaving prison: I'm mostly all for this. If someone chronically gets drunk and then becomes a rapist or whatever and s/he's been on probation, has been to rehab, AA meetings, and all the rest and simply can't change then drastic measures need to be taken. However in such the case as the drunkist who becomes a rapist but only while drunk, I don't believe for an indefinite penalty. Just a more drastic one. I think the problem with that is that it really needs to go case by case.

And lastly restitution: I totally agree with Sprite here that a lot of crimes are "simple" property ones that don't really have evil intent to them, but the offenders should still have to do community service. I would also tie community service into the whole rehab thing. I think there should be prison programs (though not for mass-murderers or other extreme cases) where those who want to can do community service under STRICT supervision. That way in SOME small ways they can pay back to the community to whom they've "offended." It would also be a key way of showing which people are more likely to be rehabilitated and put back into society. Of course it would have to be completely optional or else every liberal in the U.S. would consider it to be sweat-shop type work.

 

Retribution and Deterrence ALL THE WAY!!!!
Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.
Its sick how murderer and rapists just get a jail sentence, under taxpayer's money. People kill, get cable, central heating, and whatever, under someone else's expense.
Laws are too weak in today's society. If someone breaks into your house, you leave a bear trap for him, he loses a chunk out of his leg, he can sue you. Come on, someone breaks into your house, and then you can be sued? some laws suck.
If you choose the Philippines or Thailand method to deal with people with drugs, then thatll probably scare someone straight...

 

An eye for an eye would make the world blind

 

Yes, that's been mentioned before. My thesis is let the eye taker out to do it again and he will, therefore blinding many people. SOMETHING has to be done to stop him.
And whoever mentioned Kant and the other non-consequentialist theorists really burned my bum. We HAVE to respect all people's choices even if we don't agree with them? Give me gas. If some guy chooses to bugger 7 year old kids, I do not respect that decision in the slightest, and anyone who says I should must be on some pretty powerful drugs, because that's ridiculous.

 

@Blackhawk: Lets follow your line of thought...
Would you like it if someone would declare you an idiot for your statement and would decline you the right of free speech because he thinks you are obviously dumb? No? Thought so.

You cannot deny a human being the status of being human. He or she holds this status for life. And all human life is worth protecting, so...

 

Retribution is nasty simply because it makes people hate you, if they hate you then they will do crimes against you, simple. It also voids the value of human life, refer to my point in Rehabilitation.

Deterrance, refer to retribution, it's really the same thing. If threatened most street punks would reciprocate, so threatening them would probably not be in the interest of the state.

Denounciation only works on good people anyway, you're taking advantage of a person's morals so by logic it would only work against those who will never commit crimes anyway.

Rehabilitation is the best path, we HAVE to value human life, if we don't we're no better than animals, you have to try to make the life of all people better even if you disagree with their decisions. That's all it really is, you can say what you want about morality but that's only you disagreeing with them, the only reason we have such things as morality is because it helps people get along, that does not make it intristically better only more helpful to others.

How would you implement the prevention, there's a line somewhere. I agree with cameras in public spaces because people will be looking around anyway but this could easily be extended to mind control, I'm in favour of anything that does not interfere with the operation of the mind or track those with no criminal records. If you're wondering how this fits in with my rehabilitation point then it should be noted that I would only have people instructed on how to get along with others and not brainwashed, even the most hardened criminal will understand that it's in his best interests to get a "interesting" job that is more enjoyable / profitable than crime. This applies in different ways to other crimes, whatever the reasons, killing is wrong, the rule has to extend to EVERYONE.

If someone is a repeat offender then he will simply be rehabilitated constantly, with a lie detector at the end to make sure. Even if some people slip through the number would be much lower than the amount of innocents executed for crimes they did not commit.