What is the purpose of punishment?

Post Reply New Topic

Why is it that we punish? We are fond of saying two wrongs don't make a right, but the law tends to disagree.

Is it deterrence? Deterrence imo only works when it comes to very minor crimes, and even then, its effect is limited. For example, if there is a fine for riding a transit train without a ticket, but it's rarely enforced, many people will take the risk. If it's often enforced, many will no longer take that risk, but you will still have people who will. When it comes to large-scale crime, such as robbery, rape and of course murder the threat of prison time or even death has very little deterring effect; one can see this because in Europe the punishment for murder is often very soft by the standard of the crime, like say 7 years, yet they still have far less murder than the US. To be fair of course, Europe is a different culture and society, but I doubt that increasing the punishment length would have much effect or any at all on the murder rate. My theory as to why this is is for one, the reason people commit crimes such as rape, robbery and murder is because of their lack of impulse control. Secondly prison tends to make those kind of people's behavior even worse, which obviously is a problem to general society unless they are in there for life.

In fact, I actually think our insistence on prison sentences for so many different crimes, many of which are non-violent and even basically victimless, is part of WHY America has a crime problem, since our prison system turns good people who made a mistake into monsters by exposing them to gangs and traumatizing them by the constant fear of being jumped, shanked, or raped and then they come out as real criminals.

Is it to settle scores? This might be a more plausible explanation. Since misery loves company, understandably, in many if not most cases it will make a victim a little bit happier to see the person who harmed them get a taste of their own medicine. This isn't true for everyone, of course, some victims may just feel even worse, rather than feeling vindicated.

My theory as to why we have a justice system, is actually to prevent things such as vendettas from happening. The law metes out a legalized kind of revenge that is meant to temper the victim's desire for retribution. Most people have a respect for the law to some extent, and this is why the law is very careful not to make any errors, they do not want to lose this respect. The fastest way to do this is to punish innocent people. Letting guilty people off the hook is not nearly as much a threat to the law's credibility, though it is a lesser threat. If a murderer is say, sentenced to 40 years in prison, the victims' family will probably feel it's not enough, and that they should be given life, or put to death, but it's probably enough that they will not seek vengeance on the murderers' family or try to kill them when they get out.

So yeah basically I would say punishment is a sadistic rite that really serves no good, and in a nobler society we would 'detain' and 'treat' dangerous people rather than punish them, but since most humans are quite vengeful a controlled system of punishment is necessary to keep order and prevent blood feuds and the like from breaking out.

Anyone have any thoughts/agree/disagree?

Depending on the crime there are various reasons:

Drug offences=the government butting in to peoples lives and getting pissy when some people don't listen

Non-violent petty crimes (shoplifting a snickers bar or some such)=deterrent.

More serious non-violent crimes (shoplifting a crate of snickers bars and a few flats of coke)=retribution, often to replace the value of what is lost.

Violent crime=to remove the offender from society until a time when they are fit to be released and become a productive member of society.

Punishment is for correction and deterrence.

ruveyn

If you don't use the current system, what would you use instead?
i can see what you mean with the major crimes and all that, but what would you do instead of that system of deterents?

you can not have no laws as this would result in chaos in large population areas...

Punishment is to give the punisher a sense of satisfaction that they are taking actions to solve something they view as a "problem." When they are accountable to "The Boss" they can say "here is what I did about it."

If the punisher is elected then the motivation may come from the voters/constituents rather than the individual.

Justice, in the United States, isn't about correction & deterrence, certainly isn't about right & wrong, isn't even about public safety. It's about squeezing as much money as possible out of anyone unfortunate enough to get caught in its tentacles. It's all a huge racket - the police, prosecutors, lawyers, prison-industrial complex.

This would go a long way toward explaining our off-the-charts-high incarceration rates. Our high rates of recidivism as well. Also why minorities are so disproportionately represented in our prison population. Whether one goes to prison has less to do with the seriousness of the (alleged) crime than with the financial status of the accused.

When I was a student, it was suggested that the criminal law has six purposes:

1) Protection of the Offender

The criminal law exists to ensure that the treatment meted out to an offender (and even more importantly to a suspected offender) is authorized by Parliament and controlled by judges who are independent of the government and its policing and prosecutorial arms.

2) Punishment of the Offender

Totally separate from its consequences for community protection, punishment stands alone as a purpose in order that there is a framework within which actions that are adjudged to be wrongful are subject to negative consequences. Even if punishment had no deterrent effect, for example, it would be justifiable on its own merits as a consequence of crime.

Protection of the Community

3) Deterrence

There are two aspects to deterrence: specific and general. Specific deterrence refers to the offender, personally, and is the expectation that punishment will serve to both prevent the offender from reoffending (while imprisoned) and dissuade the offender from reoffending upon release. General deterrence, on the other hand, is the message to the general public that says, "If you do this, this is what will happen to you."

4) Rehabilitation

The community is also protected by providing offenders with the means to avoid crime after release. The provision of education, training, counselling and substance abuse rehabilitation can all serve to help prisoners upon release.

5) Denunciation

Criminal law is also the means by which we assert that some behaviours are acceptable within our community and others are not.

6) Restoration

Finally, the criminal law provides some means by which victims of crime are compensated for their loss--either materially, through restorative payments, or psychologically through other restorative justice initiatives.

Punishment, to my way of thinking, is merely one facet of the criminal law which much be understood in the context of all of the other facets. One should never prevail over the others, but all should be repsected, having due regard to the circumstances of the individuals before it.

Well we have laws and the breaking of certin laws has a Punishment for not following the law it helps keep people in line but doenst spot people from breaking the law.

They would be detained for the safety of the general public and themselves, but it wouldn't be punishment just quarantine and if possible, treatment. More of an asylum rather than a prison. The way I would have it, murderers, rapists, and other chronic criminals would not be seen as demons who deserve pain thrown back at them but rather as lepers infected by a social disease.

There would still be laws of course, the mindset on how to handle those who break the laws I think, should change.

Uh, murderers and rapists *deserve* to be demonized, if not killed outright...

If punishment were truly meant as deterrant, there would be no plea bargains and there would be no parole nor would there be different sentences for the same crime.

If punishment were truly meant as a correction, then prisons and jails would have much more mandatory therapy and education inside than there is.

I believe that punishment is simply societies way of forcing consequences on someone who has broken the law and not suffered any consequences for it. Yes, many people go to prison even if their crime causes negative consequences for them even if they weren't caught, but I think that a big part of the idea of prison is that because we are taught that there are negative consequences for doing something wrong, we want to make sure that someone has those negative consequences even if the consequences don't seem to have any real relation to what they did and even if the original wrong the person committed was victimless.

very true.

Well they should adjust the laws so they aren't so hypocritical and invasive than...I mean I can see that being rational too a point, but it seems like if anything its more about keeping people in line for the purpose of keeping them in line rather then for the safety of the community which I find disturbing.

I find it funny when people say that if there were no laws then there would be chaos. I just don't believe it. I mean, if there were no laws, I would still not go around killing people, raping people, stealing from people, looting in the streets, I mean come, it is so freaking ridiculous, it makes me laugh so hard. It makes me question the inner feelings and beliefs of someone who says such a thing. I am always very skeptical of people who say such things like "Violence is human nature" and such nonsense. I mean, come on, it's BS. I have no desire to f*****g kill people.

Sorry for the language, but seriously, it's BS. People punish out of revenge, that is why the death penalty is so popular. it is the evil within us all that perpeatues evil...

I think that if you look at societies in which law has broken down, this is precisely what you find, until warlords step in to fill the vacuum.

It is not so much that "violence is human nature," but rather, "because violence is an effective means to obtain resources, it is human nature to seek out protection from violence."



And?

While you might decry punishment as revenge, there is not a society on the planet that does not punish wrongdoing (at least none that I am aware of). If our desire for vengeance is the innate characteristic that allows us to set up systems of law and punishment in order to create well ordered societies, is that necessary a bad thing? Civilized societies put frameworks in place to protect offenders and accused persons from abuse--but punishment in se is still a facet of a civilized and peaceful society.

That's what they say, but the real purpose is gratification.