Does punishment make sense?

Post Reply New Topic

Even before knowing something about cognitive psychology, and the genetic nature of our moral drives and inhibitions I have never been able to accept the idea of punishing for evil doing. Of course you must enforce rules if you want a cooperative and not self destructive social life to exist. But the penal system is permeated by the idea that evildoers are guilty. But are they? If empathy, which is an obstacle to evildoing, is genetic in its origins, then evildoers are “monsters” in the same sense that freaks are monsters: should they be punished for that? To admit that morality is a matter o genetics would destroy the fundamentals of penal systems. But, given that to get rid of the idea that “we are good, they are bad and don’t deserve any compassion” would not be an obstacle to insulate evildoers and protect people from them, what about the concept of evil being somewhere to be destroyed by "retribution"? A mother spanks her child because he/she disobeys: is it a fight against evil or an transaction about power? “With my spanking you, you must understand that I count more than you and that you must accept my rules.” Is it an enforcement of good against evil?. And what is the difference with the legal penal systems? Autistic people may have been individuals like Herman Kahn who wrote “On thermonuclear war” (the subject somehow portrayed by Kubrik in Dr. Srangelove), they should be politically fought away , should not have power or influence (they have both), but should they be submitted to suffering? And a bank robber?

Well, I also reject the concept of any metaphysical guilt, since it seems to contradict our current knowledge. I also don't think that any action is immanently good or evil, since all moral concepts are just a set of values created by mankind and not things that exist in nature, although some concepts are better suited for a common purpose(such as reducing suffering, etc.) than others, so my viewpoint is not completely relativistic.
Another point is free will: Our scientific knowledge seems to indicate that we're completely determined by the neurophysiological processes in our brains, so that a person not actually responsible for his/her actions, which would support the point that there's no such thing as "guilt".
BUT: I still think that punishment is necessary, not for some kind of retribution or to compensate the guilt, but for the preventive value: If a person is punished for a certain behavior, the person tends to see this thing as bad, so will others that know of the punishment. So by punishing actions that are destructive to society and harm other persons, the frequency with which these actions occur could probably be reduced. However, the actual type of punishment that is the most effective for this purpose has yet to be determined. I think most jurisdiction already has the goal to "educate" the people and not to punish them for some obscure, metaphysical concept such as guilt.

Last edited by asgaroth on 05 Mar 2008, 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LOL. They are guilty of committing a crime. The verdict of "guilty" has nothing to do with what the criminal feels or believes. Punishment is not about empathy or sympathy or feelings, it is about consequence for action. Punishment for what actions were taken. Commit a crime, be found guilty of committing said crime, get punished. Don't commit a crime, no judgment is passed for any crime, no punishment. It's fairly simple.

The only thing wrong about any of this is the way you are thinking about it. Unfortunately there are people involved, and as usual, people muck things up with feelings and twisted thoughts. Also unfortunate is that there are corporations who stand to profit, and their greed also mucks things up.

Disobeys a rule, a rule for a purpose. The purpose of punishment is to enforce the rule. It's not about fighting evil or power(I'm sure it is in some cases, but that's not it's rightful purpose). Without enforcement, there is chaos.

It should be, "With my spanking you, you must understand that there are consequences for your actions."

Ehm, just to clarify my statement. I interpreted "guilty" in the sense that doing a thing that is inherently evil, by his own choice and thereby deserving nothing but contempt for it. That's what I meant by "metaphysical", and this is the definition of guilt that I reject.
If used in "guilty of committing a crime" it is more like stating a fact and not like making a moral judgement about the action(more like:this action is, probably for good reasons, defined as a crime, and you did this action and therefore have to be punished). I have no objections to this kind of declaring someone "guilty", although I think that term might be a bit misleading, since it seems to imply that things like good and evil are real, existing, absolute terms and that there's some kind of supernatural guilt somehow tainting the persons "soul", if such a thing should even exist(what I doubt).

Durkheim said that, in a sense, crime is useful, because, through the rite of punisment it allows people to see where the line is between good and evil. that is makes visible the system of values on which a society is founded.
Than there is deterrence, that is punishemnt as a means to scare people out of going stray.
But, in societies which are deeply unjust (and all societies are unjust, and more and more unjust as time passes) to scare people in line is the only possibility, anyhow without death penalty and without torture. The second thing will be difficult to obtain.
Then there are the metaphisical problems. The Catholic church has always fought against dualism: the existence of evil as an ontological entity. But the church has been also compenetrated by dualism as it is shown in the inquisition, for example. And in protestantism this fight against Satan is even stronger (witch hunting etc).
Be it what it is, what I perceive of penal trials is their caricature of justice. Eichmann was tried and hanged, but how many of the victors?

These are only hints. Many problems and no solutions.
Raskolnikov (in Crime and punishment) was tracked by his judge and and convinced by him (the judge) that he was morally wrong and took the way of atonement.
But how many trials are conducted in the same way?. And when the generals who sent kids to be slaughtered in WW1 have been tried for their conduct and for their decisions?
Who will ever try "bomber Harris", commandant of the allied air fleet who destroyed Dresden?
In think that no justice will ever appear on the planet and the only attitude we can have is an attitude of compassion toward anyone who committs "evil"-
Also toward Eichmann? I would like to say yes.

When it comes to responsible adults who knowingly and deliberately commit a serious (murder/rape) crime without any provocation, I'm not suggesting punishment - I'm in favor of safety.

eg:
Rapist - removal of the weapon - then release back into society.

Murderer - removal of the person from society forever. I don't care what happens to them, just get them away

Most of the other crimes have appropriate punishments already (in Australia anyway).

As far as kids are concerned... I don't think punishment works well, but it can make the parent feel better ... seriously though, if there was more direct support for parents, there'd be less punishment for kids.

Sense and nonsense topic

Would you please explain the bolded sentence, gbollard?

I'd have thought it was fairly obvious what it means to remove the weapon of the rapist.

I can't see any reason to keep them in Jail - it's taxpayer's money. Just remove the ability for them to rape. (eunuch).

Of course ... I probably have some extremist views on the subject.

Atonement. Atonement should be only way, but atonement is not atonement if it is forced.

I'm not sure that would do the trick. I understand its more about power over the victim. In my experience dealing with violent people, if you make them feel even more powerless, they will lash out harder.

If a mugger is unsuccessful using a knife, he will seek to employ a gun. A rapist with anger issues will gravitate towards stronger violence. Removal of the genitals or erectile capabilities will enhance the anger and also accelerate the means of violence. Most of the murders following a rape come from a dissatisfaction(perhaps failure) of some element of that rape.

You can see this in teenage bullying as well. The teenage bully is often a victim at home and tries to compensate by bullying at school.

As for the OPs original statement: I too dont see it as punishment, or rather that punishment is the point of it all. The point of disciplinary measures is to remove the occurrence of more crimes by that individual. You lock a murderer up for decades so that when they get out they are too old to care or too feeble to do more crimes.

Revenge based punitive measures strikes me as too emotional to be practical. Law isnt about feelings.

Making sense of the sentence topic

I concur, Fuzzy.

Yeah, I guess you're right - disarming the rapist probably wouldn't do much good.

I had actually considered that it could escalate things, but in the long run my feelings are that if the solution was well known, it might cause people to have second thoughts.

I bet Loreena Bobbit doesn't have problems with rapists.

Touché. I know chemical castration helps in some circumstances though.

Some circumstances...how would we know? I do know that child molesters are amazingly resistant to treatment.

G and Fuzzy, first degree murderers, rapists, and child molesters should be given a life sentence to get them away from potential victims. They are unable to socialize in a positive way...

You guys, I just found out my nieces were molested by different men when they were pre-teens...tell me most guys would never consider this...I am really disheartened by this...broken hearted I wasn't there, and they weren't even teenagers. And it was by men I knew, thought I knew. They didn't know that I knew them, but it makes me sick. They're all dead now...but whoa. How common is this? I know numbers, but do you know anyone who's done this? I dunno...

Woohoo ! !

I guess it wasn't really like one of those revenge films but we can dream on.


I wasn't thinking of chemical castration anyway, I was thinking more of one of those little guillotines that Rabbi Tuck (Mel Brooks) had in Robin Hood: Men in Tights.

BTW: I don't mean to make light of your nieces predicament. You must have been torn. I would have been if it was my niece/nephews.

Of course, if it was my children, that would be a very different story. I do believe I'd become dangerous because I have no faith in the law on that count.

Agreed. 100%