Why do we punish criminals?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by cneasttx

I will try Baron.

I think most of us when we are little have stolen candy or something that doesn't belong to us. If our parents find out we get punished. More than a slap on the hand, a lot of parents make you go and look the person in the eye and apologize for stealing from them. I preferred getting smacked which was quicker and didn't require personal accountability.

As we become adults I think we try to punish criminals the quickest way, therefor most never have to take personal accountability.

So it sounds to me like you are say retribution? They deserve punishment therefore we punish?

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

So it sounds to me like you are say retribution? They deserve punishment therefore we punish?

No, I think that by the time they are adults now, most dont have personal responsibility and accountability. So they don't understand and it's harder to learn.

And so we fear them.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by cneasttx

No, I think that by the time they are adults now, most dont have personal responsibility and accountability. So they don't understand and it's harder to learn.

And so we fear them.

I fear them because some of them kill.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I fear them because some of them kill.

Ok so public safety. We punish to protect society.

[SDG]

Why do we punish as a society ... an age old question ...

Punishment is one of the pillars of justice. I believe it is to be meted out mercifully in a measure suited to the crime.

Sidney Smith once said, "The only true way to make the mass of mankind see the beauty of justice is by showing to them in pretty plain terms the consequences of injustice.

"With law comes the notion, according to Locke, of either reward or punishment.

The debate between conservatives and liberals over retribution vs. rehabilitation is an old one ...

Also the reasons of deterrence, protection and removal are pertinent.

Biblically ... we see the ideas of an eye for eye ... tooth for a tooth .... as a pervasive guides. Yet also see how justice met grace at Calvary.

I don't think we'll ever definitively answer this ...

But ... of course what we value and devalue in our society also will guide why and how we punish.

[DividedThigh]

deterrane and retribution, safety is the goal and peace

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

If it serves as a deterrent then it matters not if the individual is truly guilty but only that the public is of the opinion that the individual being punished is guilty. So deterrence has nothing to do with justice but serves only to provide an example of what will happen if you break the law. (This is C.S. Lewis' argument from God in the dock).

It's the enforcement of the law which is the deterent. I'm not taking into account whether the individual is innocent or guilty.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Why do we punish as a society ... an age old question ...

Punishment is one of the pillars of justice. I believe it is to be meted out mercifully in a measure suited to the crime.

Sidney Smith once said, "The only true way to make the mass of mankind see the beauty of justice is by showing to them in pretty plain terms the consequences of injustice.

"With law comes the notion, according to Locke, of either reward or punishment.

The debate between conservatives and liberals over retribution vs. rehabilitation is an old one ...

Also the reasons of deterrence, protection and removal.

Biblically ... we see the ideas of an eye for eye ... tooth for a tooth .... as a pervasive idea. Yet also see how justice met grace at Calvary.

I don't think we'll ever definitively answer this ...

But ... of course what we value and devalue in our society also will guide why and how we punish.

I think the idea that justice has a set limit on punishment is contrary to rehabilitation, and ultimatly to safety of society as well.

Assuming that prison is the appropriate punishment (That could be a whole other thread) and someone is sentenced to 2 years. Assuming it’s a fair punishment for the crime committed. But he has no desire to be rehabilitated, he plans on getting drunk and driving as soon as he gets out of jail.

Public safety and rehabilitation would say that we keep him locked up longer because he is not a menace to society and he is not rehabilitated. Retribution on the other hand says he has paid for his crime and regardless of what he does in the future we won't punish him because we failed to either rehabilitate him or protect society from him. So public safety and rehabilitation both are contrary to the limits of an eye for an eye.

What happens when saying homosexuality is a sin becomes a crime, would you want to be jailed until you were rehabilitated or until they were sure your hate speech wouldn’t harm society?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

It's the enforcement of the law which is the deterent. I'm not taking into account whether the individual is innocent or guilty.

This is why C.S. Lewis argues that deterrence isn’t a proper reason to punish.

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

This has been touched on somewhat in a few other posts but I was hoping we could have a discussion on this.

Why do we punish?

To promote safety?

Deterring crime?

Rehabilitation?

Retribution?

I know any answer may include more than one but which one is the most important in your view. What do you think is a Biblical view of punishment?

I submit that the overarching objective is to instill a confidence that EQUITY exists within a system of laws. Justice demands "retribution" for the ills that your actions 'involuntarily' imposed on a non-combative society.

That is why I am saddened that WORK camps have been considered 'cruel and unusual' punishment. The reality of any punitive loss of liberty should not just be a loss of access or discretionary time, but should inherently have a 'retribution' component.

If someone perpetrates an act that contradicts the known laws of a society, the punishment should include activities consistent with an equitable repayment of society's loss plus the cost to apprehend, prosecute and incarcerate(sp?). It would not likely be one-for-one dollar costing, but it would incentivize certain aspects of the process to seek the fastest agreeable resolution.