NationStates Jolt Archive

Should we punish people based on an idea of Justice (wherein a person has commited a wrong and must pay for it) or do we punish because of necessity (Killers must be removed from society to end damage, jail is a deterrant)

Should we punish people based on an idea of Justice (wherein a person has commited a wrong and must pay for it) or do we punish because of necessity (Killers must be removed from society to end damage, jail is a deterrant)

Very simplistic model of a very complex problem.

I think it should be based on justice, but there are some things that I think they should change some things. I think that there are illegal acts punished way to harshly.

Very simplistic model of a very complex problem.
Can you think of a more complex model, then?
'Cause I can't come up with anything right now.

Can you think of a more complex model, then?
'Cause I can't come up with anything right now.

Well one problem with this is what kind of justice you mean. for example I think that a government's job is to create a just society, but as you seem to mean the more poetic justice type of thing with "punishment fits the crime" then I have to vote no because serving that sort of justice serves no purpose.

You also seem to imply that a yes vote means support for the death penalty and no means you don't, but I see the death penalty as a matter of practical necessity as it scares people into obedience. This is why Sharia law, while oppressive, can drastically lower crime rates. No one wants their hand chopped off.

The criminal law serves several functions:
1. Punishment
2. Deterrance
3. Retribution
4. Protection (of the public by removing the criminal from society)
5. Reparation/Compensation

So, both your justifications are correct as to what actually happens.

I believe that what actually happens, ie. the justification being a mix of the items above, is as it should be. Why? Well, because it addresses all the reasons for why we would have a criminal law and why we would want to enforce the law.

Can you think of a more complex model, then?
'Cause I can't come up with anything right now.

Not all murder cases are similar. I don't think 'You took a life, so the government must take yours' can work all the time.

Especially in cases like self defence, accidents, frame, etc.

The criminal law serves several functions:
1. Punishment
2. Deterrance
3. Retribution
4. Protection (of the public by removing the criminal from society)
5. Reparation/Compensation

So, both your justifications are correct as to what actually happens.

I believe that what actually happens, ie. the justification being a mix of the items above, is as it should be. Why? Well, because it addresses all the reasons for why we would have a criminal law and why we would want to enforce the law.

I'm not sure why some of those are useful. For example, things like punishment, retribution, and reparation/compensation assume you are serving some sort of Karmic scale of justice which really has no effect in the real world. This would be a more useful list:
1. Reform
2. Deterrence
3. Placation of the public
4. Protection
5. Maintaining society in general

I never said one or the other was pro death penalty.
And though our justice system is composed of both of these, which should take greater precedent, society's need, or justice?

I'm not sure why some of those are useful. For example, things like punishment, retribution, and reparation/compensation assume you are serving some sort of Karmic scale of justice which really has no effect in the real world. This would be a more useful list:
1. Reform
2. Deterrence
3. Placation of the public
4. Protection
5. Maintaining society in general


I have to agree. I would have to say though, that deterrence seems to be the best reason for punishments to me. Not that the others dont work, just that deterrence is the best.

Should we punish people based on an idea of Justice (wherein a person has commited a wrong and must pay for it) or do we punish because of necessity (Killers must be removed from society to end damage, jail is a deterrant)

We generally do both. The origin of justice is the protection of society, so the dichotomy either does not exist, or it is badly named.

Someone commits a wrong and they are punished. Why?

To prevent them doing it again
To act as a deterrent to others
To provide satisfaction to the victim
To offset the damge they have caused

All of these count as motivations and justifications for justice. So the second term, necessity, is part of the thinking in having justice anyway. Why try to seperate these motivations? They are not in any way mutually exclusive.

I vote for justice, but on this wider understanding of the term.

nail 'em Up I Say!
Nail Some Sense Into 'em

We generally do both. The origin of justice is the protection of society, so the dichotomy either does not exist, or it is badly named.

Someone commits a wrong and they are punished. Why?

To prevent them doing it again
To act as a deterrent to others
To provide satisfaction to the victim
To offset the damge they have caused

All of these count as motivations and justifications for justice. So the second term, necessity, is part of the thinking in having justice anyway. Why try to seperate these motivations? They are not in any way mutually exclusive.

I vote for justice, but on this wider understanding of the term.

I think the intent of this thread is to ask what happens when you must chose between an abstract philosophical idea of justice and the basic origins you mentioned. The times when what serves those same goals is also in some Karmic way just are not relevant.

I'm not sure why some of those are useful. For example, things like punishment, retribution, and reparation/compensation assume you are serving some sort of Karmic scale of justice which really has no effect in the real world. This would be a more useful list:
1. Reform
2. Deterrence
3. Placation of the public
4. Protection
5. Maintaining society in general

Compensation is not about karmic crap, but about compensating a victim for the harm done to them for example, if I stole $3000 from a person, I would have to pay the $3000 back. Reparation is along karmic lines, I will give you that, but it still deals in real people, who've suffered real harm.

Retribution deals in people wanting to get revenge. It's hardly karmic at all. It's me saying, you killed my brother now I want you to pay.

Punishment, this is part of the deterrance function, and I guess on its own, it is serving some sort of karmic scale of justice...but it's that idea that people shouldn't get away with doing wrong and goes toward placation of the public which you've mentioned there.


I don't agree with retribution being a legitimate function, but it is something that the criminal law does for those whom might be considered victims.

Protection and deterrance are generally the two most important functions served in a justice system, to me the rest are just byproducts.

Rehabilitation anyone?

I thought the idea was to get people to become productive members of society.

Otherwise, why would you ever let anyone out?

Rehabilitation anyone?

I thought the idea was to get people to become productive members of society.

Otherwise, why would you ever let anyone out?
quite. justice doesn't have to mean 'punishment'.

Should we punish people based on an idea of Justice (wherein a person has commited a wrong and must pay for it) or do we punish because of necessity (Killers must be removed from society to end damage, jail is a deterrant)

That is a very good question.

I feel that since many criminals (especially those dealing with drugs) will be re-released back into society, we are obligated to rehabilitate them, so they're not to return.

However, some criminals are just that; criminals. In these cases, I think severe punishments should be netted out as a neccesity, because they have proven themselves to be a threat. Remove the criminal, remove the threat.

I do not believe in punishment as retribution, because sometimes that makes us no better that the criminal we want vengance from.

The criminal law serves several functions:
1. Punishment
2. Deterrance
3. Retribution
4. Protection (of the public by removing the criminal from society)
5. Reparation/Compensation

So, both your justifications are correct as to what actually happens.

I believe that what actually happens, ie. the justification being a mix of the items above, is as it should be. Why? Well, because it addresses all the reasons for why we would have a criminal law and why we would want to enforce the law.

6. Rehabilitation

I say people should be punished, sometimes even when they don't commit a crime, just purely at random....you know, to keep them on their toes!

heres a phrase that the judges should learn.

"SHOOT THEM ALL AND LET GOD SORT THEM OUT!"