Explosion at the Boston Marathon.

[fuelair]

I find the death penalty morally troubling as well, although I am not against it in principle. I think it should reserved for those criminals who are so psychopathic, so morally irredeemable, and so dangerous that it simply is not worth the risk to society (specifically, the prison guards who must deal with him) to keep him alive. The problem with life in prison without parole being the maximum punishment is that there is simply no deterrent for a prisoner who already has received that sentence. I suppose one could offer rewards for good behavior, but the act of withholding rewards hardly seems like a worthwhile punishment for, in the extreme example, murdering a guard or another prisoner.

That's why, though many here seem to consider me sadistic, I want punishments that get the bad person's attention and concentrate it completely,
on the vile act(s) they performed.

AND I want any police or DAs/prosecutors shown to have hidden exculpatory evidence OR faked/made up/suborned evidence/testimony implying guilt removed the same way.


For the unsure: I want the justice system to actually be a justice system.

 

[Rat]

For the unsure: I want the justice system to actually be a justice system.

As I've probably pointed out before, so do I, and so does everyone else. It's just that you define justice differently.

 

[dudalb]

Real problem is that some people think that "Justice" should not include any form of punishment.
Me, I think that detterence is a major reason for having a justice system.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

As I've probably pointed out before, so do I, and so does everyone else. It's just that you define justice differently.

It's not a unique definition, see Paul Kersey, Frank Castle or John Kruger.

 

[Rat]

It's not a unique definition, see Paul Kersey, Frank Castle or John Kruger.

OK, I looked up Frank Castle, and he appears to have played rugby for England in the 1950s.

 

[phiwum]

Real problem is that some people think that "Justice" should not include any form of punishment.
Me, I think that detterence is a major reason for having a justice system.

Surely, deterrence and punishment are two distinct things.

Usually, when one says that justice requires or allows for punishment, they have in mind the idea that the person has done something so bad that he deserves to suffer a harm and that it would be appropriate to inflict this harm on him.

Deterrence involves doing something negative to the offender as well, but for the purpose of deterring others from doing the same bad act. There's certainly a notion of appropriateness involved (most don't think that amputation is an appropriate sentence for theft, even though it may effectively deter the act), but it's not quite the same issue.

Far as I understand it, capital punishment does not seem to provide much deterrent effect in the case of homicides. If this is correct, then deterrence is not a good justification for capital punishment. Maybe punishment is a better defense, but it requires a fairly difficult argument to the effect that murderers deserve death and it is appropriate for the state to kill them for that reason. (Personally, I'm sympathetic to that view, but I'm not up to making that argument.)

 

[fuelair]

Surely, deterrence and punishment are two distinct things.

Usually, when one says that justice requires or allows for punishment, they have in mind the idea that the person has done something so bad that he deserves to suffer a harm and that it would be appropriate to inflict this harm on him.

Deterrence involves doing something negative to the offender as well, but for the purpose of deterring others from doing the same bad act. There's certainly a notion of appropriateness involved (most don't think that amputation is an appropriate sentence for theft, even though it may effectively deter the act), but it's not quite the same issue.

Far as I understand it, capital punishment does not seem to provide much deterrent effect in the case of homicides. If this is correct, then deterrence is not a good justification for capital punishment. Maybe punishment is a better defense, but it requires a fairly difficult argument to the effect that murderers deserve death and it is appropriate for the state to kill them for that reason. (Personally, I'm sympathetic to that view, but I'm not up to making that argument.)

For me, that depends on who was killed and why they were killed.