Retribution Theory of Justice

[amorphous_constellation]

If my car breaks down I don't scrap it. I diagnose the problem and fix it. Why can we not do this with criminals?

I wondered one time, if a criminal could have his / her memory erased somehow, but retain their skills and everything else somehow, would they be sort of absolved of wrongful action? Because then, it would almost technically be someone else that did what they did, right

 

[amorphous_constellation]

One of the things that turned me away from my childhood Christianity was thinking about Retribution Theory and Hell (of course I had no idea what it was called back then), but this does not have to be a thread about afterlife punishments (though it can be).

I think maybe in a just afterlife, it would make sense to somehow make a person feel how they made anyone, and everyone else feel in life. In this life, the effect you have on other people is kind of too much of a 3rd person experience for you to perceive, when you try to asses what they are going through. So then, what if after death, the gods centered your experience in all the other people who had a negative reaction to you, because of any unjust energy you sent to them, in this life, and made it a 1st person experience for you. By this, I mean you would travel through every part of your life, Act by Act, through every personal encounter and human relationship. And then you would really know who your lower angels are, born from within your own individual self, because your own judging angels would be pretty much be judging you. And that would be hell enough, because only then would you know how much you really fall short of being who you thought you were

 

[Heyo]

I wondered one time, if a criminal could have his / her memory erased somehow, but retain their skills and everything else somehow, would they be sort of absolved of wrongful action? Because then, it would almost technically be someone else that did what they did, right

Only if it were their memories that caused them to become criminal.
And your hypothesis may become falsifiable in the future. Psychologists, psychiatrists and neurologists are working on methods to erase certain memories, not to cure criminals but to cure PTSD.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Only if it were their memories that caused them to become criminal.

What exactly is at the root of criminality? And if its something ineffable, like some kind of predisposition in the physiology that triggers an action, then there isn't anything that can technically be punished there. Such an individual might have more criminal volatility than others I guess, but the error they made then seems like a random production out of that surface of volatility. If on the other hand, it some malevolent thought that starts the determination of the erring individual, then that seems more like it becomes a more recognizable part of the individual's makeup

 

[Heyo]

What exactly is at the root of criminality? And if its something ineffable, like some kind of predisposition in the physiology that triggers an action, then there isn't anything that can technically be punished there. Such an individual might have more criminal volatility than others I guess, but the error they made then seems like a random production out of that surface of volatility. If on the other hand, it some malevolent thought that starts the determination of the erring individual, then that seems more like it becomes a more recognizable part of the individual's makeup

We don't know fully yet. There are hypothesis and there is doctrine. As in many cases it is probably both innate and acquired and it may even differ for the sort of crime.
For a genetic (or prenatal, so, innate) disposition speaks that crime is statistically correlated to the IQ, which is at least 50% innate. Otoh, crime is also correlated to social status and education, which is entirely environmental.
But either way, retributional punishment seem unfair while educational (rehabitational) punishment is adequate.

 

[PureX]

I'm more a believer in pragmatism - that which is effective in reducing crime - as well as that which makes society a safer place within which to exist. I don't think retributive justice has such as an aim and it certainly doesn't in effect. Incarcerating more and more, who often then commit further crimes on release - because nothing has changed so as to ensure they don't continue on such a path - might make society safer whilst they are inside but doesn't overall.

I could imagine a system in which instead of receiving a "sentence" for a crime, one would receive a threat assessment; which would then determine the type and number of rehabilitation benchmarks that would have to be met before the person could be released back into society. There would be no set 'time served'. There would only be a set of required actions that must be achieved before the person could be deemed safe to re-enter a free society. And those actions would depend on what crime they had committed, and why.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I could imagine a system in which instead of receiving a "sentence" for a crime, one would receive a threat assessment; which would then determine the type and number of rehabilitation benchmarks that would have to be met before the person could be released back into society. There would be no set 'time served'. There would only be a set of required actions that must be achieved before the person could be deemed safe to re-enter a free society. And those actions would depend on what crime they had committed, and why.

I don't know what would work but I'm sure it would cost a lot in money and resources, and as such would not be popular with voters.

 

[Heyo]

I don't know what would work but I'm sure it would cost a lot in money and resources, and as such would not be popular with voters.

It would cost a lot more when the delinquent is longer, and most of all, repeatedly incarcerated.
It would be worth a try. Today, US citizens are the most criminal in the world, it only can get better.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How do you feel about Retribution Theory? Is it a valid form of justice?

This is specifically the idea that because someone has transgressed, they should suffer in turn.

One of the things that turned me away from my childhood Christianity was thinking about Retribution Theory and Hell (of course I had no idea what it was called back then), but this does not have to be a thread about afterlife punishments (though it can be).

I remember thinking that two wrongs don't make a right: because someone has caused suffering doesn't make it just to cause them to suffer in turn purely to cause them suffering. There may be other reasons to cause them to suffer, such as by putting a dangerous person in prison; but it seems to me that should be more about protecting society than specifically to hurt the person in prison. So, for instance, I disagree with making prisons bleak and cruel environments (for multiple reasons, but this is one).

I agree with you. Gratuitous punishment for no other purpose than to cause suffering is a religious concept. That's hell in a nutshell. Rather than simply let the sinner cease to exist, or exist in a place like he did in life, one is deliberately kept conscious for eternity just to make him scream to no benefit to anybody that is not a sadist. And that kind of thinking translates into making prisons as hellish as possible in the eyes of some.

Prison should remove dangerous people from the streets for the benefit of the rest of society, not to punish them. Their incarceration should serve as a disincentive to them and others not to repeat the criminal action. And if prison rehabilitation ever becomes a thing, that would also be a good reason to lock somebody up. The loss of freedom, the loss of an income, and the social stigma of prison are de facto punishments - not because prisoners should be punished, but because the justifiable reasons for locking them up named above produce those effects. If we had secure islands to place them, I wouldn't want them caged.

But that's not how most people think. They have the religious model in mind, where violators are thought of like sinners, meaning they deserve to be hurt the way God would hurt them. If it's considered appropriate for a good god to do, then it is appropriate for civil authorities to do as well. Rape them. Give them AIDS. Strip them of their humanity and dignity. They deserve it, right, for sinning against the state.

 

[PureX]

I don't know what would work but I'm sure it would cost a lot in money and resources, and as such would not be popular with voters.

Crime already cost an enormous amount of money, and so does incarceration.

 

[Valjean]

Retribution is not justice.

Quite true, but, in fact, this is how the term is generally used and understood. People will say they want "justice for" some aggrieved person -- by which they mean vengeance.
The clearest example of this I've found involves police procedural or similar TV shows. The term's thrown around liberally on these shows, but it's never used as an abstraction. "Vengeance" or "retribution" can, in every instance, be substituted for justice in the dialogue, with no change in meaning. Linguistically, this defines a synonym.

 

[Valjean]

Secularly speaking, secular criminal systems (at least in Europe) have stated that the social rehabilitation of the culprit is mandatory.
So therefore, the penitentiary sistem has the obligation to treat convicts fairly and to turn them into future contributors to the social progress of a nation.
For example convicts can study, work inside the penitentiary.

Alas, such an approach here in the US would be anathema to American sensibilities as well as politically inexpedient.
Looking abroad for successful approaches to social problems? -- the horror! That would be un-American! Besides, simple, cheap or effective programs don't line anyone's pockets -- or garner campaign contributions from corporate interests.

Nevertheless, the aim of reprobation is present too. Not all crimes are equal. The more serious is the offence, the more strict is the penalty.
There are crimes of light entity where rehabilitation is possible. There are people like Ted Bundy (I am against death penty, btw).

Ted Bundy had a serious personality disorder, likely more organic than environmental. These tend to be highly refractory to talk or pharmaceutical therapy.
Personally, I think surgical intervention, eg, cryoablation of overactive neural regions or pathways, might be explored.

 

[Valjean]

I wondered one time, if a criminal could have his / her memory erased somehow, but retain their skills and everything else somehow, would they be sort of absolved of wrongful action? Because then, it would almost technically be someone else that did what they did, right

Sure, but surgical intervention has had a bad record of abusive and profligate misusage, so noöne dare propose it, and pharmaceutical ablation tends to be overly global and scattershot.

 

[Valjean]

I agree with you. Gratuitous punishment for no other purpose than to cause suffering is a religious concept. That's hell in a nutshell. Rather than simply let the sinner cease to exist, or exist in a place like he did in life, one is deliberately kept conscious for eternity just to make him scream to no benefit to anybody that is not a sadist. And that kind of thinking translates into making prisons as hellish as possible in the eyes of some.

Prison should remove dangerous people from the streets for the benefit of the rest of society, not to punish them. Their incarceration should serve as a disincentive to them and others not to repeat the criminal action. And if prison rehabilitation ever becomes a thing, that would also be a good reason to lock somebody up. The loss of freedom, the loss of an income, and the social stigma of prison are de facto punishments - not because prisoners should be punished, but because the justifiable reasons for locking them up named above produce those effects. If we had secure islands to place them, I wouldn't want them caged.

But that's not how most people think. They have the religious model in mind, where violators are thought of like sinners, meaning they deserve to be hurt the way God would hurt them. If it's considered appropriate for a good god to do, then it is appropriate for civil authorities to do as well. Rape them. Give them AIDS. Strip them of their humanity and dignity. They deserve it, right, for sinning against the state.

Prisons could also be places of education, in the skills, values and knowledge who's lack led to their criminal lifestyles in the first place. It's been tried, it's been successful, but it's usually politically inexpedient. "Soft on crime" and "mollycoddling criminals" doesn't win elections.

 

[Valjean]

Crime already cost an enormous amount of money, and so does incarceration.

What would work is well known to sociologists. It's been tried. It's been successful. It saves money in the long run.
Doesn't win elections, though.....

 

[Mock Turtle]

Crime already cost an enormous amount of money, and so does incarceration.

No need to tell me, but others might not be so eager to listen, given that punishment seems the natural way to so many more.

 

[Heyo]

Prisons could also be places of education, in the skills, values and knowledge who's lack led to their criminal lifestyles in the first place. It's been tried, it's been successful, but it's usually politically inexpedient. "Soft on crime" and "mollycoddling criminals" doesn't win elections.

Somebody has to explain the difference between "tough on crime" and "tough on criminals".

 

[PureX]

No need to tell me, but others might not be so eager to listen, given that punishment seems the natural way to so many more.

Very true. And there are big economic interests in keeping things as they are to stir that pot.

 

[Valjean]

"If you treat a prisoner like an animal, he will be an animal."