Another question for those who are against the death penalty

[[censored]]

Hypothetical for who against society punishing out of revenge.

A new micro brain surgery has been developed. The affects of which are those who have committed a crime and then had the surgery no longer have the impulse to committ crime with 100% certainty. There are no side affects from said surgery other than not committing crimes.

A man is convicted of rapping 10 children. He undergoes the surgery and now with 100% certainty is no longer a danger to committ this or any other crime again. Should this man be imprisioned for any length of time?

Electing to have all members of society to undergo preemptive surgery is not an option.

[DVaut1]

I think this is a strong implied argument in [censored]'s post, which I've seen ignored by many on this board; that is, deterrence theory is limited in scope (I don't deny the deterrent effect of say, parking tickets; but what I am asserting is that the death penalty does little to deter future murders. I'm willing to listen to others who feel differently, however). [censored]’s question is a good one: even if we could guarantee deterrence would be successful, we would likely still want to exercise punishment.

Therefore, if we can concede that we can't justify punishment through deterrence only, we must turn to a retributive theory of justice. And I think there’s room in a legitimate retributive theory of justice for the death penalty.

I’m not claiming that I support the death penalty; it’s certainly applied imperfectly, and this creates a host of ethical problems (innocent people being put to death is one of these problems). But it’s shortsighted to claim that deterrence is the only legitimate theory of punishment.

We punish all the time with the purpose of retribution, with little concern for deterrance. [censored] is right to be skepitcal of claims that retributive punishment is inherently unjustified.

[nicky g]

If reasonable punishment could be shown to deter others from doing the same thing, yes he should still be punished. If not, I can't really see the point.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
If reasonable punishment could be shown to deter others from doing the same thing, yes he should still be punished. If not, I can't really see the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people ought to (and do) possess a right to retributive justice.

[dr_venkman]

More than that people ought to be held responsible for their actions.

However the punishment should fit the crime. Raping 10 children sounds like a good reason to lock a person in a small box for about 60 years. Even if there were no next of kin or the children themselves didn't want to press charges. You do wrong you get punished. Not as a deterence but as a fact. After surgery they can organize some therapy for the convict, but he still has to pay his dues. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

On the other hand, smoking pot while watching a Phish concert isn't really a punishable offense in my world. But then again I'm a pretty tolerant when it comes to smoking a doobie now and then.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
You do wrong you get punished. Not as a deterence but as a fact. After surgery they can organize some therapy for the convict, but he still has to pay his dues

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, smoking pot while watching a Phish concert isn't really a punishable offense in my world. But then again I'm a pretty tolerant when it comes to smoking a doobie now and then.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope I wasn't misunderstood. I think we can all agree the punishment should fit the crime. I'm not proposing locking up pot smokers, jaywalkers, poker players in home games, etc. We can certainly disagree about whether or not certain actions should be legal or not.

But I essentially agree your original point; if someone rapes 10 children, they deserve punishment not because we feel it prevents the perpetrator from committing the same crime again, or because we feel it would deter other would-be child rapists, but because the rapist deserves it.

[Bodhi]

I am against both the death penalty, and this surgery you speak of. Didn't you ever read "A Clockwork Orange?"

I also don't believe that you can eliminate 'criminal' instincts without also removing things like ambition and autonomy.

[Utah]

Interesting original question and interesting answer. So, if there is no danger and no deterent effect than he should not be locked up? What about the notions of justice and punishment? Do they have no weight?

[thatpfunk]

I'm thinking about this one. Very interesting.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
I am against both the death penalty, and this surgery you speak of. Didn't you ever read "A Clockwork Orange?"

I also don't believe that you can eliminate 'criminal' instincts without also removing things like ambition and autonomy.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a hypothetical which dealt with your concerns.