7 ms·

>All else being equal, capital punishment is a great deterrent: 100% effective at preventing that person from committing that crime again. Deterrence isn't pre

by colah 17y ago

>All else being equal, capital punishment is a great deterrent: 100% effective at preventing that person from committing that crime again. Deterrence isn't preventing a person from repeating a crime, but ever doing it. The idea is that they won't do it to avoid the punishment -- a sort of sociopath's substitute for morality. I've yet to see any actual evidence that capital punishment is a more effective deterrent than long-term imprisonment and have heard claims (though no evidence) to the contrary (that the psychology of such large punishments leaves them effectively indistinguishable)... I've never researched it but I probably should. As for preventing repetition, so do many other things, such as imprisonment. >More to your point, though, I think that a justice system which was ultimately based on retribution would have all the positive qualities you speak of as valid motivations. I'm sorry but I have to disagree. You'll notice I said that I mentioned protecting the perpetrator from society... Killing them kind of defeats that. Also, they can't achieve rehabilitation if we kill them. Essentially, I want a justice system based off compassion for _all_ parties. Call it naive altruism if you wish. This isn't to say we shouldn't make protecting ourselves from criminals a priority, but after that we should be trying to help them. As we do, in providing counseling, etc.

randallsquared 17y ago
You'll notice I said that I mentioned protecting the perpetrator from society... Killing them kind of defeats that. Also, they can't achieve rehabilitation if we kill them. You focus on the single exception I mentioned to a retribution-based system as though I had not mentioned it as an exception at all. Why is that?
- colah 17y ago
  Because edge cases and extreme cases often reveal the difference between approaches/strategies/philosophies/ideologies/etc. Our approaches lead us to different conclusions in this case, except for the fact that you look at reality and say that yours shouldn't be applied because in reality mistakes can happen. This is a perfectly valid stance, but it doesn't mean that the point shouldn't be looked at to analyse the differences in our approaches, as this is the most obvious case where they diverge. There's also the fact that capital punishment is where this discussion began.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    it doesn't mean that the point shouldn't be looked at to analyse the differences in our approaches, as this is the most obvious case where they diverge. Wow, I strongly disagree. Our approaches diverge on virtually every case, as far as I can tell. My approach would be to apply the exact damage to the aggressor that they applied to the victim, except where the victim forgives all or part (for monetary "damages" or some other consideration or reason). If a mistake is made, the same procedure can be used to rectify it. This does mean that completely irrevocable damage (that is, death) can't be applied while keeping the property that mistakes can be fixed or paid for. Murder is already an exceptional situation, not like other crimes of violence, due to its finality. As far as I can tell, your approach (along with the vast majority of existing legal systems today) requires sentencing or damages to be decided individually by a third party, rather than by the parties already involved, which seems inelegant. There's also the fact that capital punishment is where this discussion began. Oh. Well, there is something to be said for staying on topic, I suppose. :)
    - colah 17y ago
      >Wow, I strongly disagree. Our approaches diverge on virtually every case, as far as I can tell. That was a poor wording on my part. Make that where they diverge most strongly. >My approach would be to apply the exact damage to the aggressor that they applied to the victim, except where the victim forgives all or part (for monetary "damages" or some other consideration or reason). I'm going to assume your talking about assault. If I'm wrong, sorry. In any case, we can't just let them settle it with a fee to cover damages. The aggressor demonstrated themselves a threat to the Public. Depending on the circumstances, the aggressor will need to spend some time in jail, with a psychologist, doing community service, reporting to a probation officer, et cetra, or most likely a combination of the above, for the protection of society. If there was material damage in addition to that, it is not a criminal matter and can be settled in the way you described. >As far as I can tell, your approach (along with the vast majority of existing legal systems today) requires sentencing or damages to be decided individually by a third party, rather than by the parties already involved, which seems inelegant. As the previous example illustrates, this is only true for criminal matters.

by colah 17y ago

randallsquared 17y ago

You'll notice I said that I mentioned protecting the perpetrator from society... Killing them kind of defeats that. Also, they can't achieve rehabilitation if we kill them. You focus on the single exception I mentioned to a retribution-based system as though I had not mentioned it as an exception at all. Why is that?

colah 17y ago
Because edge cases and extreme cases often reveal the difference between approaches/strategies/philosophies/ideologies/etc. Our approaches lead us to different conclusions in this case, except for the fact that you look at reality and say that yours shouldn't be applied because in reality mistakes can happen. This is a perfectly valid stance, but it doesn't mean that the point shouldn't be looked at to analyse the differences in our approaches, as this is the most obvious case where they diverge. There's also the fact that capital punishment is where this discussion began.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  it doesn't mean that the point shouldn't be looked at to analyse the differences in our approaches, as this is the most obvious case where they diverge. Wow, I strongly disagree. Our approaches diverge on virtually every case, as far as I can tell. My approach would be to apply the exact damage to the aggressor that they applied to the victim, except where the victim forgives all or part (for monetary "damages" or some other consideration or reason). If a mistake is made, the same procedure can be used to rectify it. This does mean that completely irrevocable damage (that is, death) can't be applied while keeping the property that mistakes can be fixed or paid for. Murder is already an exceptional situation, not like other crimes of violence, due to its finality. As far as I can tell, your approach (along with the vast majority of existing legal systems today) requires sentencing or damages to be decided individually by a third party, rather than by the parties already involved, which seems inelegant. There's also the fact that capital punishment is where this discussion began. Oh. Well, there is something to be said for staying on topic, I suppose. :)
  - colah 17y ago
    >Wow, I strongly disagree. Our approaches diverge on virtually every case, as far as I can tell. That was a poor wording on my part. Make that where they diverge most strongly. >My approach would be to apply the exact damage to the aggressor that they applied to the victim, except where the victim forgives all or part (for monetary "damages" or some other consideration or reason). I'm going to assume your talking about assault. If I'm wrong, sorry. In any case, we can't just let them settle it with a fee to cover damages. The aggressor demonstrated themselves a threat to the Public. Depending on the circumstances, the aggressor will need to spend some time in jail, with a psychologist, doing community service, reporting to a probation officer, et cetra, or most likely a combination of the above, for the protection of society. If there was material damage in addition to that, it is not a criminal matter and can be settled in the way you described. >As far as I can tell, your approach (along with the vast majority of existing legal systems today) requires sentencing or damages to be decided individually by a third party, rather than by the parties already involved, which seems inelegant. As the previous example illustrates, this is only true for criminal matters.