The purpose of punishment

[hmkpoker]

If someone commits an evil act and is accordingly punished, what should the predominant purpose of his punishment be?

Justice: Giving someone what they deserve. Evil deeds deserve suffering, good deeds deserve reward.

Correction: Helping someone correct their poor behavior. A delinquent is sentenced to a correctional facility where they will help him become a more functional, happier member of society.

Deterrant: Preventing others from committing the same crime. People avoid doing something if they are aware of the unfavorable consequences.


What if one is in conflict with another?

FWIW, my favorite quotation from Nietzsche has always been, "Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."

Not that this helps you much.

[Olof]

[ QUOTE ]
Deterrant: Preventing others from committing the same crime. People avoid doing something if they are aware of the unfavorable consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is only a positive side effect that shouldn't constitute a motive for punishment. If it is wrong to punish someone for the actions of other people, it certainly doesn't seem right to punish him for potential future actions of other people.

[DougShrapnel]

Revenge, Restituation, Removal, could be added. Correction is justice. And deterrance isn't as effective as it could be.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Deterrant: Preventing others from committing the same crime. People avoid doing something if they are aware of the unfavorable consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is only a positive side effect that shouldn't constitute a motive for punishment. If it is wrong to punish someone for the actions of other people, it certainly doesn't seem right to punish him for potential future actions of other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't mention that it is also meant for the person who committed the crime. How often is the same crime repeated?

[hmkpoker]

Good call on revenge (that's a BIG one, and imho closely related to justice), and restitution. Removal is also there, although it refers only to certain kinds of punishment.

[ QUOTE ]
Correction is justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. If someone murders someone else, it should seem just that he suffer accordingly in a prison. However, the most effective correctional method may be something like therapy or rehab or something that's not particularly brutal. If this is the case, then it might seem unjust that a murderer gets off with a few years of productive therapy, and it certainly doesn't satisfy the revenge desire.

However, we may hold different ideas of "justice." Personally, I hate the term.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
revenge (that's a BIG one, and imho closely related to justice)

[/ QUOTE ] Revenge is no where close to justice. But the two are used synonymously at times.

[ QUOTE ]
Not necessarily. If someone murders someone else, it should seem just that he suffer accordingly in a prison.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes necessarliy in all cases, without exception. Correction is always just. I'm not saying there is nothing more to justice than correction.

Why should he suffer? Either kill him, or correct him, or remove him, suffering is bad in all cases for any reason.

[ QUOTE ]
and it certainly doesn't satisfy the revenge desire.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, the revenge desire is only destructive in this dayy and age's criminal system.

[DougShrapnel]

There is an old saying "If you remove the phrase 'I have been injured, you remove the injury'" Well I call BS on that. Instead If you remove the injury, or the injurors ability to injure, you have removed the injury. Change in action is the only acceptable restitution for injury that isn't negotiable, or debateable.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes necessarliy in all cases, without exception. Correction is always just. I'm not saying there is nothing more to justice than correction.

Why should he suffer? Either kill him, or correct him, or remove him, suffering is bad in all cases for any reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your definition of justice? I get the feeling that we have the same idea, but are using different ways to express it.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
revenge (that's a BIG one, and imho closely related to justice)

[/ QUOTE ]

Justice should have absolutely nothing to do with revenge. Justice in the sense you are using it, ie state imposed sentences against criminal acts, is a matter of the state imposing sentence.Revenge is a personal matter concerning the victims of crime and in my view should be divorced from considerations of what are appropriate for various crimes.

I believe punishment was first formed out of the need for people to live in some sort of harmony with each other. Therefore, its primary purpose was to deter people from harming each other.

The other two ideas came later in man's progression of thought.

I don't think there is any one answer to your question. I think punishment originally came the fact that without it, humans could not live collectively with one another. For example, we live 3,000 years ago as a small tribe. We just learned agriculture and are beginning to witness divisions in labor. However, we really don't like our neighbors because they repeatedly come over and kill us and take our things. So in order to protect ourselves, we decide to band together and form an army. We kill our neighbors together the next they swing by. (We could also decide to visit them if we become impatient, or if we want some of their things.) In my opinion, this the origin of heirarchical society. Driven by the need to protect ourselves from some one else. Militaries (or militias) need leaders to remain effective, so now the need to protect ourselves from others has created a ruling class.

Unfortunately, just having a leader did not solve all of our problems. Ted doesn't work very hard (or has had a very bad run of bad luck), so he decides to steal from some one else in the tribe, Bill. Bill is quite upset to see his possessions being taken by Ted and wants to kill Ted just as he would kill someone from the neighboring tribe. The problem is if every one in the tribe is killing one another, then the tribe won't be unified for long and we will no longer be able to defend against (or pillage) our neighbors.

The only solution is for the ruler to say what Ted did was wrong and punish him. That way Bill is happy (or happier) and chaos does not erupt. So at least in the early days, punishment was meant to re-direct the feelings of revenge in a manner that would not erode the tribe's ability to live together.

As we have moved through time, we learned things like, "well Ted was just down on his luck that day so maybe he doesn't need to be beaten or hung." Hence, we begin to see rehabilitation enter into the frame work of justice.

I have never been a fan of the deterrence argument, i.e., people will not do what Ted does when they see Ted getting punished. Most likely, a criminal mind would say, "Ted should have waited until this time or he should have done that."

There's another prong of the punishment angle which says if you take the criminal off the street, he won't be able to commit other crimes. (recidivism?) I don't know how effective this is, but with the US prison population at record numbers and growing, we should be seeing some empirical results soon, if not already.

I guess what I am saying is, that you can't say it is about this or that, b/c its probably all of the above, except that I don't think the deterrence argument holds water. Crime results from either anger, unmet needs or irrationality/insanity. Someone operating under any of these probably won't be deterred by the thought of punishment.