Punishment

When someone does something wrong (let's assume we all agree on something that is wrong here) should the wrongdoer be punished with retribution (eye for an eye), rehabilitation (teaching them not to do the wrong thing), or something else?

Secondary question: Do the conditions of the wrongdoing matter, for instance, whether the wrongdoer intended to do the wrong or whether it was incidental or accidental? Whether they did something just as wrong as someone else, but luck and circumstances meant one wrongdoer caused little to no harm while the other caused more harm?

If you tend to go with retribution, what good is served by this kind of punishment? Is it an effective deterrent when the wrongdoer didn't mean to do wrong?

If you're more inclined to go with rehabilitation, how do you deal with someone who intentionally did the wrong thing rather than through ignorance that it was wrong? Can any good be served if they refuse to learn or are unable to make amends?

I think accidental and purposeful are totally different. I believe we should punish people for the safety of society, so I think there should be negative repercussions for accidental crimes, but not not to the extent of purposeful crime. We still want to create disincentives for negative behavior like drunk driving.

It absolutely depends on the crime. Stealing a loaf of bread is completely different to killing a person and the punishment must also be different, based on the severity of the crime.

I think it really depends on the severity of the crime. For example, stealing something from a store, while definitely a bad thing, is a minor offense compared to something like murder. When it comes to murder, I have a sort of "an-eye-for-an-eye" mentality; if someone kills another person, I think it is fair that the offender also loses their own life because life is precious and you can't put a price on it.

However, with your second question, it is definitely a gray area. There have been a number of cases in the past where the perpetrator accidentally killed someone in self-defense. With self-defense, the person was only trying to protect themselves, so should they be strictly punished for trying to save their own hide? I don't think so. Again, I strongly believe in the whole "an-eye-for-an-eye" thing, but I think there should be an exception in cases of self-defense for the reasons I mentioned earlier. They should be punished, but because it wasn't intentional, it should be less severe.

Majestic Electric said:

I think it really depends on the severity of the crime. For example, stealing something from a store, while definitely a bad thing, is a minor offense compared to something like murder. When it comes to murder, I have a sort of "an-eye-for-an-eye" mentality; if someone kills another person, I think it is fair that the offender also loses their own life because life is precious and you can't put a price on it.

Click to expand...

But if you say life is precious, why would you want to end another life?

Anyway, I agree though that it totally depends on the severity. stealing is way different than killing. But I think rehabilitation should be tried before just throwing people in jail, doesn't it cost a lot to keep someone behind bars?

All life isn't precious, some people are scum. The thing is a lot of the worst crimes don't come with irrefutable evidence so you can't just go putting people down willy nilly.

For cases where there is undeniable evidence I'd be all for capital punishment. Not just for murderers and kiddy fiddlers, things like driving drunk or whilst looking at your mobile phone too.

Hanzo said:

But if you say life is precious, why would you want to end another life?

Anyway, I agree though that it totally depends on the severity. stealing is way different than killing. But I think rehabilitation should be tried before just throwing people in jail, doesn't it cost a lot to keep someone behind bars?

Click to expand...

Maybe it's a bit harsh, but like I said, I see it as "an-eye-for-an-eye" scenario. To answer your question, if an innocent, law-abiding citizen got murdered, why should the person who caused such a crime be allowed to experience life when they took the life of a completely innocent person? The victim is never going to come back, no matter what. No amount of locking the perpetrator away for a number of years or money paid as a fine is worth the value of the life that was unnecessarily lost. Compared to what the murderer did, it is like a slap to the wrist because that person could easily do it again (if they're a sicko) after becoming a free man / woman. That is not real justice for the victim's grieving family, who now have to live the rest of their lives knowing a part of their family has been ripped away from them. Yes, life is precious, but if someone has the audacity to take another person's life, they've essentially infringed upon their victim's right to live, which is completely wrong, so they are deserving of equal punishment!

While I definitely agree that rehabilitation needs to be an option, there are cases of people that have been released from jail / given rehabilitation treatment, and still go back to their old ways. Of course, for something petty like marijuana use, it's not a big deal, but murder is a different story. A murderer who continues to kill others despite doing jail time or receiving mental help becomes a threat to public safety and, as such, needs to stay confined for a lifetime (or given a lethal injection) to prevent more casualties. Rehabilitation is cheaper in the long run and a lot of people should receive it, but sadly there are some people that are beyond saving.

I am against capital punishment because punishments for crime are unquantifiable because value is subjective. You cannot objectively prove that (I'm using random numbers here) 1 year in jail is proper punishment for a $5,000 theft. Therefore, for any crime against non-human beings with value is unjustified for capital punishment. It is too extreme and should be thrown out.

So what about murder? Well, but we run into the same problem because we can calculate the loss of labor from the murder; however, as a society we value people much more than their market value, which is why we spend extreme amounts of resources (greater than the market value of the individual) to save lives without question. On a side note, I believe it would be inhumane to not regard human lives as more than just the labor they provide.

Again, we are stuck on the value of the individual (not the good they give to society, but their value we attribute to them), which is inherently subjective. Whether you are heartless and dont give a crap about people other than what they can provide for you, or if you value human life, either logic leads to the same conclusion: capital punishment is wrong.

In addition, capital punishment in the United States is actually far more expensive than just putting the person in jail (idk about other countries) because the appeals process takes a long time. There is literally no reason for capital punishment to exist.