Hurting the criminal, justified or not?

[Skwim]

Striking out to hurt what hurts us seems to be a basic human impulse.

"As someone once said, 'It's what makes us kick the table leg on which we stub our toe.'

Retribution rests on the assumption that hurting the wicked is right. The nineteenth century English judge Sir James F. Stephen put it this way.

'The infliction of punishment by law gives definite expression and a solemn ratification and justification to the hatred which is excited by the commission of the offense. The criminal law thus proceeds upon the principle that it is morally right to hate criminal, and it confirms and justifies that sentiment by inflicting on criminals punishments which express it.' "
​

Source: Criminal Law, fifth ed. 1996, Joel Samaha, West Publishing Company. p16.
​

So, just because we may hate what a criminal has done, should this entitle us to hurt the criminal--"hurting the wicked is right" ?

 

[Badran]

I don't think that the hatred for 'the wicked', or hatred for wickedness of criminals in general is what justifies punishment and/or retribution. As i think that is a bit too generic, and leaves the door open for us to inflict punishments on things we perceive as wicked regardless of whether or not there is actually any damage done. Or put differently, whether or not there has been any victimization. As well as the fact that i don't think its necessary that hatred is the word to describe such feelings in general, or always. What i think does justify punishment and/or retribution is the pain and damage caused by the criminal to their victim(s).

In essence, i think that describing it as hatred and accepting it as okay to hate criminals is much more prone to cause abuse towards criminals, since we feel justified in hating them. What i think is more 'healthy' is to look at the crime itself, and understand that its in our nature to want some compensation for whatever damage it caused.

When we talk about punishment in general rather than just retribution, there is also the other aspect of the effectiveness of having consequences for certain actions in a society. Which is a major factor into why some of the things done to criminals are considered justified by most people.

 

[Skwim]

To add to the issue (from the source I cited in the OP. p15)

"Professor Herbert Packer [suggests] that [criminal punishment's] dominant purpose is not to make offenders better but to inflect 'deserved pain' and prevent crimes.'
(Herbert Packer, The limits of the Criminal Sanction (Palo Alto, Calif.:Stanford University Press, 1968)pp. 33-34.)​

 

[bobhikes]

What other solution to you present.

The law says you shouldn't kill another you know the law and you decide to kill another for your own reasons. What should we do?

The law says you shouldn't steal, you know this you walk into a store an steal a pencil for your own reasons. What should we do?

If it can be determined you broke the law knowingly and purposely, punishment seems appropiate to me.

 

[Badran]

To add to the issue (from the source I cited in the OP. p15)

"Professor Herbert Packer [suggests] that [criminal punishment's] dominant purpose is not to make offenders better but to inflect 'deserved pain' and prevent crimes.'
(Herbert Packer, The limits of the Criminal Sanction (Palo Alto, Calif.:Stanford University Press, 1968)pp. 33-34.)​

Making offenders better is a part of preventing crime, a crucial part. Rehabilitation, when successful helps present criminals change and not be future criminals as well.

That said, of course societies apply or use their systems differently. Some value rehabilitation more, some less, and some value it as equally important to compensation of victims (which is the optimal approach in my view).

 

[ZooGirl02]

I don't think we should hurt criminals but we should insure that justice is served by giving them a trial and then if they are found guilty to put them in prison or put them on parole or whatever. That said I do believe that prison life needs to be improved and made more humane like what it is like in Europe. I also believe that the death penalty should be completely abolished.

 

[Me Myself]

Striking out to hurt what hurts us seems to be a basic human impulse.

"As someone once said, 'It's what makes us kick the table leg on which we stub our toe.'

Retribution rests on the assumption that hurting the wicked is right. The nineteenth century English judge Sir James F. Stephen put it this way.

'The infliction of punishment by law gives definite expression and a solemn ratification and justification to the hatred which is excited by the commission of the offense. The criminal law thus proceeds upon the principle that it is morally right to hate criminal, and it confirms and justifies that sentiment by inflicting on criminals punishments which express it.' "
​

Source: Criminal Law, fifth ed. 1996, Joel Samaha, West Publishing Company. p16.
​

So, just because we may hate what a criminal has done, should this entitle us to hurt the criminal--"hurting the wicked is right" ?

On a societ level yes because we must discourage the behaviour. On a personal level yes in the sense we must report to authorities. On a level of punching the heck out of the guy after he is unconscious cause he tried to steal our wallets, nah, dont i thats good. Just call the cops.

 

[McBell]

Striking out to hurt what hurts us seems to be a basic human impulse.

"As someone once said, 'It's what makes us kick the table leg on which we stub our toe.'

Retribution rests on the assumption that hurting the wicked is right. The nineteenth century English judge Sir James F. Stephen put it this way.

'The infliction of punishment by law gives definite expression and a solemn ratification and justification to the hatred which is excited by the commission of the offense. The criminal law thus proceeds upon the principle that it is morally right to hate criminal, and it confirms and justifies that sentiment by inflicting on criminals punishments which express it.' "
​

Source: Criminal Law, fifth ed. 1996, Joel Samaha, West Publishing Company. p16.
​

So, just because we may hate what a criminal has done, should this entitle us to hurt the criminal--"hurting the wicked is right" ?

To add to the issue (from the source I cited in the OP. p15)

"Professor Herbert Packer [suggests] that [criminal punishment's] dominant purpose is not to make offenders better but to inflect 'deserved pain' and prevent crimes.'
(Herbert Packer, The limits of the Criminal Sanction (Palo Alto, Calif.:Stanford University Press, 1968)pp. 33-34.)​

Seems to me you are conflating justice with revenge.

 

[BSM1]

[

quote=Skwim;3022284]Striking out to hurt what hurts us seems to be a basic human impulse.

"As someone once said, 'It's what makes us kick the table leg on which we stub our toe.'​

This is a good argument against returning hurt for hurt. If you kick the table leg the only thing you really hurt is your other toe. The more sensible approach is to calm down and move or remove the offending table. Many criminals are sociopaths or psychopaths, so they may laugh in your face as you pummel theirs. After the beat down you may be faced with the question of whether you are any better than the animal you left bleeding in the floor. Tough call.

 

[dust1n]

Seems to me you are conflating justice with revenge.

Perhaps you can draw the appropriate distinction?

 

[Valjean]

If my car breaks down I don't take it to the wreaking yard to be crushed. I fix it.

As satisfying as it is to hurt those who have offended us, is this really the ideal approach? Is it the most cost effective? Does it yield the best outcome? Is it congruent with our national identity or with our Christian values?

 

[Penumbra]

Striking out to hurt what hurts us seems to be a basic human impulse.

"As someone once said, 'It's what makes us kick the table leg on which we stub our toe.'

Retribution rests on the assumption that hurting the wicked is right. The nineteenth century English judge Sir James F. Stephen put it this way.

'The infliction of punishment by law gives definite expression and a solemn ratification and justification to the hatred which is excited by the commission of the offense. The criminal law thus proceeds upon the principle that it is morally right to hate criminal, and it confirms and justifies that sentiment by inflicting on criminals punishments which express it.' "
​

Source: Criminal Law, fifth ed. 1996, Joel Samaha, West Publishing Company. p16.
​

So, just because we may hate what a criminal has done, should this entitle us to hurt the criminal--"hurting the wicked is right" ?

IMO, the main goals of the justice system should be:
-Deterring illegal behavior.
-Restricting dangerous people from hurting others.
-Rehabilitating people that can be rehabilitated.

Hurting the criminal only relates to the first one. Other things, like secure prisons, can be used for deterrence that also relate to the other two.

Plus, seeking revenge or wanting to hurt criminals as a moral right implies that they have free will, which if I recall correctly you do not believe in.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Prison is a joke and it does nothing which is why we have so many repent offenders while other countries solve this by making criminals suffer in prison.
Nothing is wrong with appropriate physical pain/torture being done on a criminals and this serves as a better deterrent. Places like Russia and Japan for example have prisons where they work 9 hours a day and have no social contact. It is the best deterrent (although not for Russia).

 

[Penumbra]

Prison is a joke and it does nothing which is why we have so many repent offenders while other countries solve this by making criminals suffer in prison.
Nothing is wrong with appropriate physical pain/torture being done on a criminals and this serves as a better deterrent. Places like Russia and Japan for example have prisons where they work 9 hours a day and have no social contact. It is the best deterrent (although not for Russia).

Evidence?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Evidence?

You can find a multitude of articles just like this if you actually looked. All varying statistics are solid and many more exist like it throughout the years and this is just one although it is old.This is treated as a common fact actually....
Study: Prisons failing to deter repeat criminals in 41 states - USATODAY.com

 

[Penumbra]

You can find a multitude of articles just like this if you actually looked.

Oh I've looked into crime and prison statistics. Me asking you for evidence wasn't because I'm not aware of evidence about these things. Rather, it was because I assumed (apparently correctly) that you did not have evidence to support your position.

That article talks about having better rehabilitation programs, finding prison alternatives for non-violent offenders, not about torture or hard labor. It doesn't isolate the variables you identified, and therefore doesn't support your conclusion at all.

All varying statistics are solid and many more exist like it throughout the years and this is just one although it is old.This is treated as a common fact actually....
Study: Prisons failing to deter repeat criminals in 41 states - USATODAY.com

How does your theory work with the fact that countries in western and northern Europe are generally known for more humane prisons, a lack of the death penalty, and lower crime rates than the U.S.?

Here are the UN statistics on homicide, for example:
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And look how many people are in U.S. and Russian prisons per capita compared to much of Europe:
Prisoners per capita statistics - Countries compared - NationMaster

Where you getting the idea that what you said is common fact?

 

[dawny0826]

Striking out to hurt what hurts us seems to be a basic human impulse.

"As someone once said, 'It's what makes us kick the table leg on which we stub our toe.'

Retribution rests on the assumption that hurting the wicked is right. The nineteenth century English judge Sir James F. Stephen put it this way.

'The infliction of punishment by law gives definite expression and a solemn ratification and justification to the hatred which is excited by the commission of the offense. The criminal law thus proceeds upon the principle that it is morally right to hate criminal, and it confirms and justifies that sentiment by inflicting on criminals punishments which express it.' "
​

Source: Criminal Law, fifth ed. 1996, Joel Samaha, West Publishing Company. p16.
​

So, just because we may hate what a criminal has done, should this entitle us to hurt the criminal--"hurting the wicked is right" ?

How are you defining "hurt", here? Punishment, in general, will typically yield "hurt", even if it's solely mental or emotional. Is this not the purpose of punishment? Penance for wrongful action.

I don't understand the rationale behind labeling punishment a "wicked" act, in regards to criminals.

Punishment serves, in a sense, as a protection for those who could be victimized. If the ciminal is to be released in society, punishment is intended to rehabilitate. If the crime does not warrant release, punishment may serve a very different purpose - the "ultimate" penance for harming or interrupting society's safety.

The punishment of criminals is justifiable if you desire a cooperative society.

Retribution suggests an emotional inclination for vengeance.

We should not be determining fault through emotion, but, through that which we can reasonably and logically conclude through evidence. Emotion for the guilty is secondary in my opinion, to emotion for the innocent.

 

[Valjean]

The punishment of criminals is justifiable if you desire a cooperative society.

But what is its function, to deter crime, to deter vendetta, or to fix the psychological defect that allowed the crime?

Retribution suggests an emotional inclination for vengeance.

You think?

We should not be determining fault through emotion, but, through that which we can reasonably and logically conclude through evidence. Emotion for the guilty is secondary in my opinion, to emotion for the innocent.

What does this mean?

 

[Pagan_Patriot]

I think it really depends on the crime. Although I am against robbery, I can understand if a hungry homeless guy steals a loaf of bread(I watched Alladin as a child and he used to steal bread =p).

But then there's other crimes like rape and murder. People who do these things have serious mental problems. I'm not sure if prison alone can stop them. I always heard people saying that poverty makes them do it, but this is false. Poverty may cause you to steal food once in a while, but being poor doesn't make people want to go out and kill or rape people. People who do these things need rehab.

Also, we should really stop treating all crimes as equal, because they're not.

 

[dawny0826]

But what is its function, to deter crime, to deter vendetta, or to fix the psychological defect that allowed the crime?

Punishment has the ability to accomplish all of the above, in my opinion, but it's completely contingent upon the indiviudal and whether or not they are capable of rehabilitation.

What does this mean?

What do you think it meant?

Dangerous people who will murder, rape and steal without fear, have no place in our society, if we value a free and peaceful society or at least aspire to peace.