Crime ain't no cause for punishment.

[drkitten]

I've gotten pretty much the responses I've expected. It seems we're somewhat divided on whether or not society should "take revenge" on the criminals or not.

Not surprising. The single biggest problem in penology is that no one is sure what the purpose of treating criminals should be in the first place.

If you're into deterrence, you get one policy. If you're into vengeance, you get a second. If you're into rehabilitation, you get a third. If you're into "protecting society," you get a fourth (that is closely allied with the first).

What you don't get is any basis even for a useful discussion between the different groups.

 

[Mark6]

I've gotten pretty much the responses I've expected. It seems we're somewhat divided on whether or not society should "take revenge" on the criminals or not.

I'd like to ask the ones who believe that vengeance is important: putting aside the deterrent question, do you have a basis for the opinion apart from "the criminals deserve it"?

Oh, and I don't mean to belittle your views. I'm simply interested in hearing the full argument of the view opposing me.

I think SonOfLaertes answered your question. Like it or not, vengeance is a powerful human emotion and provides closure/peace to the victim or victim's family. Whereas unfulfilled vengeance can torment the victim for years -- in addition to whatever happened to him/her in the first place.

 

[drkitten]

I think SonOfLaertes answered your question. Like it or not, vengeance is a powerful human emotion and provides closure/peace to the victim or victim's family.

That's not an answer.

Why should the government be in the business of pandering to that particular emotion?

If I'm feeling lonely, the government doesn't come and play with me. If I'm feeling scared, the government doesn't come and read me a bedtime story. If I'm feeling bored, the government doesn't stage a three-ring circus outside my window.

 

[Wrathernaut]

I've gotten pretty much the responses I've expected. It seems we're somewhat divided on whether or not society should "take revenge" on the criminals or not.

I'd like to ask the ones who believe that vengeance is important: putting aside the deterrent question, do you have a basis for the opinion apart from "the criminals deserve it"?

Oh, and I don't mean to belittle your views. I'm simply interested in hearing the full argument of the view opposing me.

I don't feel that vengeance is really necessary, they just get the "intervention" these are the rules that you will abide by to live with our society. If you do not agree to live by them, you will not be allowed in this society. I find it morally insulting that the society wronged by a criminal has to support that criminal. That man who killed your mother? You're feeding him. The one who stole your car? You're paying for his television.

 

[ddt]

That's not an answer.

Why should the government be in the business of pandering to that particular emotion?

If I'm feeling lonely, the government doesn't come and play with me. If I'm feeling scared, the government doesn't come and read me a bedtime story. If I'm feeling bored, the government doesn't stage a three-ring circus outside my window.

Because the government - and society - has an interest in channelling that emotion (vengeance) and taking over the (partial) fulfillment of it. When people seek their own vengeance on the (suspected) perpetrator, you quickly get into the seemingly never-ending family feuds that are still endemic in some parts of the world, and which take subsequent lives of both families/clans. That's detrimental to public order, and hurts the economy.

When you're feeling bored, you're free to visit that circus that happens to visit town. That actually helps the economy.

 

[Cavemonster]

That's not an answer.

Why should the government be in the business of pandering to that particular emotion?

If I'm feeling lonely, the government doesn't come and play with me. If I'm feeling scared, the government doesn't come and read me a bedtime story. If I'm feeling bored, the government doesn't stage a three-ring circus outside my window.

Yes, but no society has ever had a problem with people taking steps to provide their own company, bedtime stories or circuses. But there is a long history of problems from people providing their own vengeance.

 

[drkitten]

Yes, but no society has ever had a problem with people taking steps to provide their own company, bedtime stories or circuses.

Er,.... the State of California disagrees. One of the more cost-effective ways of preventing crime is simply to provide after-school activities for kids that would otherwise be "at risk" for criminal behavior. The theory is that if you give them something constructive to do, they'll spend less time being destructive -- and the numbers in the report I cited seem to bear that out. (Putting in about ten grand per student saves about sixty grand per student in "reduced crime costs.")

 

[Cavemonster]

Er,.... the State of California disagrees. One of the more cost-effective ways of preventing crime is simply to provide after-school activities for kids that would otherwise be "at risk" for criminal behavior. The theory is that if you give them something constructive to do, they'll spend less time being destructive -- and the numbers in the report I cited seem to bear that out. (Putting in about ten grand per student saves about sixty grand per student in "reduced crime costs.")

Kitten,
That is both at odds with your original post and besides the point to mine. You know that my point was that since people who don't feel justice is served by the state are likely to go out and get it themselves, then the state has a valid business in preventing that. Your link backs up the government interest.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Yes, my second point still stands. It may be desirable for people to get over their need for revenge, but it won't happen soon. Looking at the world as a whole, on a broader timescale, populations and sub-populations who feel that the law doesn't provide punishment closure tend to enact that punishment themselves. I think it's too optimistic to expect society to outgrow it.

If your daughter has been raped and you know who the perpetrator is and know that the government will do nothing to punish the rapist, you would have to be gigantically zen to not want to make that punishment happen. If violent criminals are not punished to some extent, there will be vigilantism.

That's a good point. Still, I believe that to some extent the desire for vengeance could be subdued by offering the victim (not in the case of murder, of course) and the family proper therapeutic services.

Also, even in a system geared towards rehabilitation, rapists and murderers would certainly have to spend long times in the rehabilitation centers (aka prisons), so it's not like the system means letting criminals off easy. It would just mean doing away with unnecessary pain to the criminal.

To the extremist view (not the one quoted above) that states that all rapists and murderers should be locked away for life or given the death penalty, I'd like to point out that in a large number of crimes, the criminal is also a victim, of sorts. A severely schitzophrenic murderer does not deserve punishment but medical care. A kid grown in the slums who gets swept to gang activity and shoots a man during an armed robbery isn't a heinous criminal, but a kid who didn't have the chance he should have had. The solution to problems like these is not to punish the criminal; it is to find the source of the problems and fix those. Blind hate towards the criminal only serves to hide the circumstances behind the crime.

That's not to say there aren't people who are just evil and beyond rehabilitation, but they are an exception, not the norm. And even those evil people are, in the end, mentally incomplete individuals who should be treated as such.

 

[drkitten]

Kitten,
That is both at odds with your original post and besides the point to mine. You know that my point was that since people who don't feel justice is served by the state are likely to go out and get it themselves, then the state has a valid business in preventing that.

Or, alternatively, the state has a valid business in providing a distraction so that people don't feel temped to act on their own.

You'll notice that what the state does NOT offer (even in California) is for the state to perform anti-social acts on behalf of the people who, left to their own devices, would perform anti-social acts.

I'm still not seeing why the state should be in the vengeance business.

 

[Cavemonster]

Or, alternatively, the state has a valid business in providing a distraction so that people don't feel temped to act on their own.

You'll notice that what the state does NOT offer (even in California) is for the state to perform anti-social acts on behalf of the people who, left to their own devices, would perform anti-social acts.

I'm still not seeing why the state should be in the vengeance business.

I'm not sure I understand your second paragraph.

The state should be in the vengeance business because history tells us that the vengeance business will always be widespread and it is better to have it controlled and limited.

In every time period or geographic location where populations can have no reasonable expectations of vengeance from the state, they create that vengeance for themselves. Show me a single place on earth where there was no authority based punishment for rape and murder and also no significant vigilantism.

 

[drkitten]

I'm not sure I understand your second paragraph.

The state should be in the vengeance business because history tells us that the vengeance business will always be widespread and it is better to have it controlled and limited.

In every time period or geographic location where populations can have no reasonable expectations of vengeance from the state, they create that vengeance for themselves. Show me a single place on earth where there was no authority based punishment for rape and murder and also no significant vigilantism.

POW camps.

People die in wars, and people -- both soldiers and civilians -- want vengeance for those deaths. Despite this, the military has an active duty to protect surrendered POWs This is a relatively new development (historically speaking -- two thousand years ago, POWs were fed to wild beasts for the amusement of the onlookers) that came about precisely because the government recognized that pandering to the blood thirst of the mob was a bad thing.

 

[Cavemonster]

POW camps.

People die in wars, and people -- both soldiers and civilians -- want vengeance for those deaths. Despite this, the military has an active duty to protect surrendered POWs This is a relatively new development (historically speaking -- two thousand years ago, POWs were fed to wild beasts for the amusement of the onlookers) that came about precisely because the government recognized that pandering to the blood thirst of the mob was a bad thing.

That's a terrible example.
You're focussing on the individual, when in war, the enemy is generalized. The family of a killed soldier may not be able to insist that the specific enemy soldier who killed their son is punished, but the country that sent that soldier is punished with the full force of an active military.

Look at the rhetoric surrounding any war and the violence enacted on enemy troops or insurgents in battle is seen as the retribution for the deaths of one's own soldiers.

EDIT: The war itself it their mechanism for revenge, and it's even better than prisons. If given the choice, would you rather have the guy who killed your son locked up for a while, or have an army of tanks, planes and rocket launchers headed for the people who ordered it?

 

[NewtonTrino]

/agree with op.

Prison is whack.

 

[Dog Town]

The purpose of any sentence should be to minimize the damage done to society. This is best achieved by doing everything possible to hasten the prisoner's rehabilitation, or when that is impossible, creating an environment where the prisoner can still achieve some level of usefulness.

Sure, in a PERFECT Utopian world .But then, on Utopia there would be no crime. Hmmm...

Should the prisons be places for punishing criminals?

Hell yes, accordingly of course.
How should we enforce laws if there is no penalty, fitting for the action? Maybe no laws at all? In that case Viva anarchy! Pfftttt...

 

[drkitten]

That's a terrible example.

Only because it proves my point, and disproves yours.

You're focussing on the individual, when in war, the enemy is generalized. The family of a killed soldier may not be able to insist that the specific enemy soldier who killed their son is punished, but the country that sent that soldier is punished with the full force of an active military.

... until the peace treaty is signed. Which suddenly eliminates any need or desire for revenge on the part of the family of the dead soldier?

Bullfrog.

Look at the rhetoric surrounding any war and the violence enacted on enemy troops or insurgents in battle

Yes, exactly. And prior to the various formalizations of the rules of war (such as the Hague conventions and later the Geneva conventions), the whole idea of restricting violence to enemy troops in battle was ludicrous, because it is and was natural to see the enemy as "the enemy" and to do what you like to him. Indeed, we still have that problem today with soldiers mistreating prisoners despite rules to the contrary.

And at the same time, we expect that POWs will be protected and we punish those -- soldiers and civilians alike -- for failure to protect them.

The whole idea that we must take vengeance on behalf of the wronged lest things dissolve into anarchy seems not to hold water, then. Because we make a point (with POWs) not only of not inflicting vengeance upon them, but of protecting them from private vengeance. We make a point of frustrating the public's bloodlust.

... and yet we don't see wholesale insurrection among POW camp guards.

 

[drkitten]

Hell yes, accordingly of course.
How should we enforce laws if there is no penalty, fitting for the action?

That's a false dichotomy.

Prison need not be a penalty (and indeed, as originally envisioned, it was not), any more than a hospital need be a "penalty."

 

[Cavemonster]

Only because it proves my point, and disproves yours.
...

That's grade school, you're better than that.

The bottom line, is that the war itself is a mechanism for that vengeance.

Look at the sanctions and penalties imposed on the loser when the peace treaty is signed, and all the havoc leading up to it, the victor certainly gets their vengeance.

As for the loser, that desire for vengeance doesn't just go away. Talk to some Germans in 1919, they were still so pissed that decades later desire for revenge was still a driving factor in WWII.

Look at Iraq today, the "war" part ended quickly, we're at peace with the country, but magically, their desire for retribution didn't magically go away.

 

[Dog Town]

(and indeed, as originally envisioned, it was not),

Evidence please! Can't wait to see this.

any more than a hospital need be a "penalty."

What are you talking about? That makes no sense.


ETA: dodge noted on how we should enforce law!

 

[SonOfLaertes]

Er,.... the State of California disagrees. One of the more cost-effective ways of preventing crime is simply to provide after-school activities for kids that would otherwise be "at risk" for criminal behavior. The theory is that if you give them something constructive to do, they'll spend less time being destructive -- and the numbers in the report I cited seem to bear that out. (Putting in about ten grand per student saves about sixty grand per student in "reduced crime costs.")

I really don't understand your perspective, especially this post, which is a total non sequitur.

"Vengeance" is an emotionally charged word and I don't agree with it's use here. "Justice" is much more applicable. My friend and his family would receive justice from the state, and would not feel compelled to provide for it themselves.

Even though their son was casually murdered and deprived of his future, and even though my friends lives have been destroyed and will never be the same as long as they live, they would accept incarceration as justice and somehow move slowly on from their devastated lives. This, whether you agree or not, is a service the state must provide if any modicum of order can be expected to survive in a harsh world.

I completely agree that many"criminals" can be rehabilitated or even prevented from leading a life of crime if we had better systems in place. That in no way excuses sadistically violent behaviour, perpetrated for trivial reasons. These acts cry out for justice - justice for the families, justice for all of us outraged by casual, vicious attacks on the innocent.

You see the potential to mold most of the worlds citizens into law-abiding people. I have looked into the eye's of many and have seen nothing but selfish entitlement, people for whom opportunity and escapability will always be the only morality.