The two buttons

[Koldo]

In a culture that generally embraces narratives of free will and being able to make decisions for oneself free from force or coercion, it is a bit odd that some humans will judge in a way that does precisely that. This means on some level one must disrespect the agency of the person one is judging - treating them more like an object to be used and controlled. Somehow, this stripping of agency is considered justice? Does that make sense?

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. "Justice" is not a concept I'm particularly a fan of because of this and other problems. Stripped of all the moralizing, self-righteous language, justice seems to be about controlling others more than anything else. Removing their agency, not allowing them to make decisions for themselves, but passing judgement because... reasons.

Isn't that because there is a limit as to how far you can swing your arm before you hit someone else?

If a robber didn't care about his victim's agency, to what extent should we care about his own agency?

 

[danieldemol]

How do you assign personal responsibility when it comes down to human behaviour? Would you say we are responsible for what we do? If so, what does it mean to be responsible for something?

We are responsible to a certain extent for the choices we make, but I do not consider those who are mentally unsound to be responsible for their actions where such actions are directly caused by mental imperfections.

According to my understanding that is why we don't punish a person who didnt discover they had epilepsy until they have a fit behind the wheel and slide off the road killing a person, or why we don't punish a person who has a heart attack behind the wheel and faints, driving off the road and killing someone.

ETA its the same principle with mental illness, that they killed as a result of their defect, not because had they been of sound mind and fully in control they would have decided to kill.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I am big fan of restorative justice myself, to the point we should always seek it first and foremost. But how to have justice when it is impossible to restore what was lost?



I think people should be punished when they can't recover what was lost regardless of whether the victims want it to happen. I envision justice as a social virtue, regardless of what form it takes.

Certain debts can not be paid though.

There is literally no gain in executing someone because they can't pay back all of a debt. Especially when we've established they aren't going to incur more debt. It'd just be cruel, as well as unconstructive, since you'd lose what beneficial things the reformed person could bring to the table.

 

[oldbadger]

For the sake of this topic, you have been granted a joystick with two buttons, the triangle button and the square button. Now here is how it works:

You can press only one button. And not more than once.

If you press the triangle button, the most evil criminal in the world, in your perspective, dies. Right away.

If you press the square button, the most evil criminal in the world, in your perspective, gets a complete change of mind. This person will never again commit any evil action and shall not be further punished for any of the past crimes.

What button would you press and why?

Here is my, most certainly, unpopular opinion: I would quickly press the triangle button. I will take justice over recovery any and every time.

Here is my perspective on justice:

When it is possible to repair the damage caused, justice is better served by doing so.

When it is not possible to repair the damage caused, justice is better served by punishing the perpetrator. Plus, there must be proportionality between the crime and the punishment.

Yeah...... I've got how the buttons work, but what does the blooming joystick do?
There is a third answer.......... you've already told us that we 'can' press one button.
I wouldn't press either........
.......... whatever happens to the 'most evil criminal' there will be so many wicked runners up that the world won't change at all, either way.

In other words, let Nature take it's course.

 

[Mock Turtle]

For the sake of this topic, you have been granted a joystick with two buttons, the triangle button and the square button. Now here is how it works:

You can press only one button. And not more than once.

If you press the triangle button, the most evil criminal in the world, in your perspective, dies. Right away.

If you press the square button, the most evil criminal in the world, in your perspective, gets a complete change of mind. This person will never again commit any evil action and shall not be further punished for any of the past crimes.

What button would you press and why?

Here is my, most certainly, unpopular opinion: I would quickly press the triangle button. I will take justice over recovery any and every time.

Here is my perspective on justice:

When it is possible to repair the damage caused, justice is better served by doing so.

When it is not possible to repair the damage caused, justice is better served by punishing the perpetrator. Plus, there must be proportionality between the crime and the punishment.

Probably the square button for me, in that I would want that which tended towards making society better overall (with individuals not being so important), and if one is reclaimed rather than possibly not solving the problem, then so be it. In that revenge, which seems to be at the heart of so much 'justice' only solves one aspect, and often doesn't help and perhaps hinders, other parts of the issue. Much evidence seems to point to deterrence not being effective in reducing or stopping many crimes, and many criminals do reform so as to effectively erase their past crimes. For some crimes, no amount of revenge can bring comfort. An example in the news just now:

Burnley's Pastor Mick - from dangerous drug dealer to lifesaver

And besides all this, as others have mentioned, many commit crimes because of being damaged. Should we just ignore this and punish them regardless? I think the better way is to search for the reasons why people commit crimes and for methods to reduce such or ensure they don't commit further ones.

 

[Koldo]

We are responsible to a certain extent for the choices we make, but I do not consider those who are mentally unsound to be responsible for their actions where such actions are directly caused by mental imperfections.

According to my understanding that is why we don't punish a person who didnt discover they had epilepsy until they have a fit behind the wheel and slide off the road killing a person, or why we don't punish a person who has a heart attack behind the wheel and faints, driving off the road and killing someone.

ETA its the same principle with mental illness, that they killed as a result of their defect, not because had they been of sound mind and fully in control they would have decided to kill.

Sure, but do you think evil can be generally attributed to not having a sound mind though?

 

[Koldo]

There is literally no gain in executing someone because they can't pay back all of a debt. Especially when we've established they aren't going to incur more debt. It'd just be cruel, as well as unconstructive, since you'd lose what beneficial things the reformed person could bring to the table.

The gain is justice.

 

[Koldo]

Yeah...... I've got how the buttons work, but what does the blooming joystick do?
There is a third answer.......... you've already told us that we 'can' press one button.
I wouldn't press either........
.......... whatever happens to the 'most evil criminal' there will be so many wicked runners up that the world won't change at all, either way.

In other words, let Nature take it's course.

What do you mean by 'there will be so many wicked runners up that the world won't change at all, either way.'? Why is that important?

 

[oldbadger]

What do you mean by 'there will be so many wicked runners up that the world won't change at all, either way.'? Why is that important?

...... because you won't have changed a thing.
Imagine that........ thousands and thousands of 'very very bad criminals' who didn't quite make 'top-spot' still left.......

 

[Koldo]

Probably the square button for me, in that I would want that which tended towards making society better overall (with individuals not being so important), and if one is reclaimed rather than possibly not solving the problem, then so be it. In that revenge, which seems to be at the heart of so much 'justice' only solves one aspect, and often doesn't help and perhaps hinders, other parts of the issue. Much evidence seems to point to deterrence not being effective in reducing or stopping many crimes, and many criminals do reform so as to effectively erase their past crimes. For some crimes, no amount of revenge can bring comfort. An example in the news just now:

Burnley's Pastor Mick - from dangerous drug dealer to lifesaver

And besides all this, as others have mentioned, many commit crimes because of being damaged. Should we just ignore this and punish them regardless? I think the better way is to search for the reasons why people commit crimes and for methods to reduce such or ensure they don't commit further ones.

How can murderers effectively erase their past crimes?

You have said: "For some crimes, no amount of revenge can bring comfort.".
I haven't mentioned anything about revenge bringing comfort. But do you think that if it did, would it be justified?

 

[Koldo]

...... because you won't have changed a thing.
Imagine that........ thousands and thousands of 'very very bad criminals' who didn't quite make 'top-spot' still left.......

Do we always need to solve everything to improve something though?

 

[oldbadger]

Do we always need to solve everything to improve something though?

Well, if your button had eliminated or changed them all, that would have made a difference, but just the top-dog.....?

You did want to repair damage, you wrote :

When it is possible to repair the damage caused, justice is better served by doing so.

..... so your 'kill or cure' button needs to be bigger, I think.

 

[danieldemol]

Sure, but do you think evil can be generally attributed to not having a sound mind though?

Possibly not in all circumstances but I don't know.
That being said there could also be environmental factors outside the control of the criminal.

 

[Mock Turtle]

How can murderers effectively erase their past crimes?

You have said: "For some crimes, no amount of revenge can bring comfort.".
I haven't mentioned anything about revenge bringing comfort. But do you think that if it did, would it be justified?

Well some crimes cannot be erased, in the sense that one killed cannot be brought back, but as the article seemingly showed, some seem to do more good after all the bad they might have done. Not sure there is an equation to show such though.

And the revenge aspect is often used to justify punishments - they deserve (whatever) - and seemingly bringing some peace to the victims and/or relatives. But although superficially it might do so, it often just is a nagging thorn in many, knowing that nothing truly can make things right for them. Many however do manage to remove the anger and hatred often felt towards any perpetrator, and which tends to fuel thoughts of 'punishment', and thereby often is a gain for both parties.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The gain is justice.

That's not justice to me. That's just vengeance. Not an admirable goal, since it serves no one. As I said, it's a poor deterrent of crime and it doesn't help victims. It doesn't improve society, and wouldn't improve the individual.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sure.
Justice is the virtue of treating people fairly.
What does it mean to treat people fairly?
It is to treat people by the merit of their actions and conditions. In essence, this also means that good actions deserve to be reciprocated with good reactions while evil actions deserve to be reciprocated with evil reactions. When either do not happen, justice is missing. This is the simple version.

Therefore, it doesn't matter if killing a murderer is unnecessary to prevent further harm from him, it is the fair treatment and therefore just.

Now, let me put a different colour on that for you, and see if you still feel the same.

And while I'm at it, let me refer to @danieldemol in this thread who has tried to show that people are not always (possibly not even the majority of the time) totally responsible for their actions.

Now suppose you have two teenage children, and in a fight, one of them actually blinds the other in one eye. Do you, as a seeker after justice, accordingly blind one eye of the first? Or do you make the assumption that as teenagers, things got out of their control -- since we know that learning self-control is something that comes with maturity?

Consider, as well, that sometimes those with aberrant mental processes (which can lead to criminal activity) can also sometimes see the world in ways that others cannot. What if, for example, the person for whom I pushed the square button, and can thus do no evil, turns his peculiar brain patters to other areas, and finds the ultimate cure for all cancers? What would have been the cost to millions of future lives had you been in control, and pushed the triangle button?

It does sometimes seem to me that those who choose final solutions presume themselves able to see all ends. I can't.

 

[Koldo]

Well, if your button had eliminated or changed them all, that would have made a difference, but just the top-dog.....?

You did want to repair damage, you wrote :

..... so your 'kill or cure' button needs to be bigger, I think.

I don't understand this rationale. Do you also apply it to other situations? For example, do you refuse to help others because that wouldn't make a diffetence in the large scale of things too?

 

[Koldo]

Possibly not in all circumstances but I don't know.
That being said there could also be environmental factors outside the control of the criminal.

But even if there are factors outside of his control, isn't it still their choice nonetheless?

 

[Koldo]

That's not justice to me. That's just vengeance. Not an admirable goal, since it serves no one. As I said, it's a poor deterrent of crime and it doesn't help victims. It doesn't improve society, and wouldn't improve the individual.

How can it be just not to punish?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

How can it be just not to punish?

1. Not all justice systems are retributive/punitive (and those that are don't necessarily make a society healthier Why Punishment Doesn't Reduce Crime )
and
2. Punishment doesn't necessitate death for any crime.