Another question for those who are against the death penalty

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Wacki, would I be accurate in saying that in your opinion "retribution" has no place in the judicial system?

[/ QUOTE ]

Revenge???? Doesn't belong in the legal system.

Retribution???? Must exist in the legal system.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's deterence. Think about it harder. If he isn't a threat, why would we need a deterent?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm thinking hard, or at least the level sufficient for this. You said:

[ QUOTE ]
No, he is no longer a threat to society. However, as a deterent, he probably should still "repay his debt to society" someway.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're saying he should still pay his debt to society, you're not making an argument in favor of deterrence! You're saying he deserves some punishment, regardless of whether or not it prevents future crimes.

[ QUOTE ]
If he isn't a threat, why would we need a deterent?

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored] is not making a claim that he needs a deterrent! He's claiming the perpetrator needs to punished, not deterred.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wacki, would I be accurate in saying that in your opinion "retribution" has no place in the judicial system?

[/ QUOTE ]

Revenge???? Doesn't belong in the legal system.

Retribution???? Must exist in the legal system.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your opinion what are the differences?

I think that my above hypothetical would never be accepted by a society because on some level most believe that those who commit a crime against society should go through some level of penalty be it death, prison,or community work and that this has nothing at all to do with deterence or ensuring safety. In my hypothetical I believe society would take matters into their own hands and dole out punishment. Thus I believe that some level of revenge or retribution is vital in our judiciary system. I think this is the real reason most people support the death penalty. Would you agree?

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]

[censored] is not making a claim that he needs a deterrent! He's claiming the perpetrator needs to punished, not deterred.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct.

[Iplayboard]

Punishing an individual in this case is still using the idea of deterence. There are two levels of deterence. One is to deter the individual who committed the crime from committing a future crime. The hypothetical question eliminated this form of deterence.

The other kind is to deter other people from committing future crimes. In this case, I assume society would still want to punish the individual to limit future crimes committed by other people.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Revenge???? Doesn't belong in the legal system.
Retribution???? Must exist in the legal system.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your opinion what are the differences?


[/ QUOTE ]

As far the differences, there is some distinction to be made between the two. Revenge has a negative connotation; implied in the notion of revenge is the desire to cause pain out of spite, or sheer vindictiveness. Therefore, when we think of revenge, we think of a desire to hurt, and often, we don't see revenge as being justly deserved...

which is what seperates revenge from retribution. Even if retributive justice causes pain, it's justly deserved. So we can all agree that revenge and retribution might causes pain; but retribution is justified, whereas revenge typically isn't.

It's similar to the differences between murder and killing. Killings and murders both end life. But murders are not justifiable; killings could have legitimate purposes (like the killing in self defense; or the killing of livestock animals, for instance).

Revenge and retribution both cause pain; but revenge is typically unjustifiable, whereas retribution is just; and this is merely inherent in their defintions. When we say 'revenge', we really mean unjust vengeance. And when we say 'retribution', we really mean just recompense.

[lastchance]

If this existed, we wouldn't need a justice system. The entire point of the justice system is deterrence, not retribution or revenge. The justice system is to stop people from committing crimes for fear of retribution, and since we aren't psychic, it's the only defense we have.

Without it, we would have people stealing and killing left and right. That's why only civilizations with justice systems have lasted, because the justice system as deterrence is a necessity. Retribution and revenge exist because you need deterrance. They have no innate value except for giving other people fear of doing bad stuff.

That said, there might still be a need for deterence because without fear of jail or death, before they get this chip, they might be able to do all the crime they want.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Punishing an individual in this case is still using the idea of deterence. There are two levels of deterence. One is to deter the individual who committed the crime from committing a future crime. The hypothetical question eliminated this form of deterence.

The other kind is to deter other people from committing future crimes. In this case, I assume society would still want to punish the individual to limit future crimes committed by other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been addressed here in previous posts, but regardless, just change the hypothetical situation and say that, in some hypothetical world, this perpetrator is the only criminal in the world. That is, besides this one rapist, we know with certainty that no other crime will ever be comitted in the future.

Knowing all this, we would still seek to punish the rapist, and it would be legitimate to do so.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
If this existed, we wouldn't need a justice system. The entire point of the justice system is deterrence, not retribution or revenge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll repeat myself from a previous post, but again, imagine a hypothetical world where this child rapist is the only criminal in the world. I should hope that, even after the rapist's corrective brain surgery, he would be severely punished.

The justice system exists to deter, no doubt. But it also exists to extract retribution on guilty parties.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
The entire point of the justice system is deterrence, not retribution or revenge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. IMO it is clear to me that one pupose of the judicial system is indeeed retribution. IMO this is just and moral.