Punishment is no ideal

This is a subject I have wrestled with all my life.  How do we deal with those who harm others?  To what degree do we have the capacity within ourselves to harm others?  Is punishment effective or do we need to look deeper?  Mexie is one of my favourite Youtubers and she has addressed the issue quite effectively here I think.

A few thoughts on this, unfortunately impractical in the real non-ideal world. I have always felt that there might be a sort of ideal Platonic principle of balance involved, in which in human affairs with some individuals causing harm to others the ideal outcome is simply achieving an equal balance between the suffering and loss inflicted by the perpetrator on the victim and the suffering and loss then inflicted by society on the perpetrator in punishment. A truly equal balance would require that the punishment be of exactly the same kind and amount of pain. I think that if society were somehow able to achieve this balance there would be much less crime. Perpetrators who were in their right minds would simply be deterred by the certain threat of such punishment.

Forgiveness and attempted rehabilitation would be seen as naive and not in accordance with this basic principle.

Of course this is ridiculous as far as the likelihood of achieving such an ideal criminal justice system in the real world, for a multitude of reasons having to do with the great human fallibility that is built into all our social systems, and especially the great difficulty in really "proving" guilt. The main problem is the inevitability of occasional mistakes deliberate or not where innocents would be subject to terrible suffering unjustly. I think that this is the main totally rational argument against capital punishment. Such an "ideal" system would be extremely dangerous.
  
Of course the other side of this issue is the very different perspective on punishment of a spiritual world view, especially where it comes to reincarnation. I think that unfortunately, since a great portion of humanity does not follow such higher principles, a spiritual approach to criminal punishment is equally impractical and ineffective.

Perhaps the present very imperfect system can be looked at as at least a complicated practical tradeoff taking human fallibility into account. The old saying, "life is a series of tradeoffs".

A few thoughts on this, unfortunately impractical in the real non-ideal world. I have always felt that there might be a sort of ideal Platonic principle of balance involved, in which in human affairs with some individuals causing harm to others the ideal outcome is simply achieving an equal balance between the suffering and loss inflicted by the perpetrator on the victim and the suffering and loss then inflicted by society on the perpetrator in punishment. A truly equal balance would require that the punishment be of exactly the same kind and amount of pain. I think that if society were somehow able to achieve this balance there would be much less crime. Perpetrators who were in their right minds would simply be deterred by the certain threat of such punishment.

Is that really the case though?  In the US there are plenty of states that still have a death penalty and yet the US has probably the highest rate of murder and violent crime in the world.  I'm not claiming a causal connection but the lack of deterrent potential is clearly evident.

[Laird]

I have always felt that there might be a sort of ideal Platonic principle of balance involved, in which in human affairs with some individuals causing harm to others the ideal outcome is simply achieving an equal balance between the suffering and loss inflicted by the perpetrator on the victim and the suffering and loss then inflicted by society on the perpetrator in punishment. A truly equal balance would require that the punishment be of exactly the same kind and amount of pain.

I think you've started down the right path with this but stumbled along the way. To reprise a trite saying which nevertheless is rightly, in my view, regarded as a truism: two wrongs don't make a right. The visiting of an equal harm upon the perpetrator of a harm in no way constitutes justice for the original victim.

I do believe though that a principle of balance is necessary and right: the perpetrator of a harm should be required to (so far as is reasonable) make restorative amends to the victim of that harm. What those amends constitute in would depend on the nature of the harm. In the context of property crime, it would involve replacing or restoring the stolen or damaged property. In the context of a physically violent crime it might involve paying for the medical costs and rehabilitation of the victim, or actively aiding in the process of care or rehabilitation. Etc.

There could/should be an additional component too which takes into account the means of the perpetrator so far as justice and deterrence goes: a billionaire perpetrator could laugh off the health care costs of a victim whom s/he has physically violated, and thus so far as justice and deterrence go should be forced to compensate much more than a penniless destitute should be forced to compensate.

[Laird]

Brian, my above post distills the essence, I think, of how I would respond to Mexie's thoughtful video: if people who harm and offend were given the choice, even if forceful, to meaningfully compensate for the harm and offence that they've caused, then those who recognise the justice in and need for that, and do as required, would be fit to remain in the community; those who do not recognise as much or who do not act on it could reasonably be "banished"... at least until such time as the recognition and corresponding action occur.

Is that really the case though?  In the US there are plenty of states that still have a death penalty and yet the US has probably the highest rate of murder and violent crime in the world.  I'm not claiming a causal connection but the lack of deterrent potential is clearly evident.

I agree. AFAICS Deterrents work when there is premeditation and planning. It seems to me most murders don’t fall into that category so I don’t see the deterrent in the death penalty. In fact it may work the other way - no witnesses, no conviction, no conviction no penalty.

Is that really the case though?  In the US there are plenty of states that still have a death penalty and yet the US has probably the highest rate of murder and violent crime in the world.  I'm not claiming a causal connection but the lack of deterrent potential is clearly evident.

I think the apparent ineffectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent is mainly because the criminal justice system is (arguably necessarily) so slow and inefficient in applying it. Perpetrators know that generally only the most heinous murders get that punishment, and that actual enforcement is only after endless challenges and delays. Swift and sure capital punishment I think would be much more effective as a deterrent. 

Also, capital punishment by execution is relatively humanely accomplished. What I was suggesting was an equal balance of suffering in return, not just humane execution. A murder by fire would be punished by death by fire. A murder by beating would be punished by execution by beating to death, etc. The deterrence effect would be much greater. It is true that many such crimes are "crimes of passion", not premeditated, as alluded to in the last post. I think that there would be less deterrence effect with these cases, but still some if the punishment was known to be swift and savage. But of course such a massive change to the criminal justice system would be extremely dangerous and impractical for the reasons I mentioned.

"I could be persuaded to serve you Arthur...but I must know - Would you be a King of Justice or of Mercy?"

"I think a King of Mercy...for Justice is based on Truth which changes with times and peoples but Mercy is Love and the same for all people in all times."

  -Attanasio, The Wolf & The Crown

=-=-=

Klosterheim looked hard at it. "Aye. It's the same. And you've been deceived by the same trick, von Bek, as I told you."

"Then look upon it," I said. "Let all your forces look upon it. Look upon it!"

I hardly know why I spoke thus. I held the Grail up high. No shining came out of it. No music came out of it. No great event took place. It remained what it was: a small clay pot.

Yet, here and there in the ranks of Hell, pairs of eyes became transfixed. They looked. And a certain sort of peace came upon the faces of those who looked.

"It is a Cure," I cried, following my instincts, "a Cure for your Pain. It is a Cure for your Despair. It is a Cure."


The poor damned wretches who had known nothing but fear throughout their existence, who had faced no future but one of terror or oblivion, began to crane to see the clay pot. Weapons were lowered. The gruntings and the gigglings ceased.


Klosterheim was stunned. He made no protest as I moved towards his army.

"It is a Cure," I said again. "Look upon it. Look upon it."

They were falling to their knees. They were dismounting from their beasts. Even the most grotesque of them was transfixed by that clay pot. And still no special radiance came out of it. Still no miracle occurred, save the miracle of their salvation.

    --Michael Moorcock, The Warhound and The World's Pain

My personal feeling is that justice is entirely irrelevant - perhaps just a polite way of saying "revenge"    The important issue is finding effective ways of protecting people and if people are adequately protected, any further punishment of the criminal is simply spiteful and not what I would expect of civillized society.  Life imprisonment is enough to that end - capital punishment is deliberate, pre-meditated, unnecessary taking of human life and is therefore murder by definition!

My personal feeling is that justice is entirely irrelevant - perhaps just a polite way of saying "revenge"    The important issue is finding effective ways of protecting people and if people are adequately protected, any further punishment of the criminal is simply spiteful and not what I would expect of civillized society.  Life imprisonment is enough to that end - capital punishment is deliberate, pre-meditated, unnecessary taking of human life and is therefore murder by definition!

I’m with you on this.
If the state can somehow justify murder, then anyone can. However twisted their thinking may be.