Forum:Alternative for punishment?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

So, I was taking a look on some articles and I saw the article about Punishment and one of the things it says is as follow:


"...The problem with retributive justice is that, as everybody knows, two wrongs don't make a right. Taking "an eye for an eye" just results in two mutilated people instead of one. Its only purpose is cathartic, and that is retributive justice's other major flaw: it appeals to the worst side of human nature, our sadistic capacity for taking satisfaction in another's suffering. Hence it becomes questionable whether the punishers are really morally superior to the perpetrator."

Ok, fair enough, but what the hell can we do? Shouldn't we at least "avenge" the victim? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Why? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
You have any other better ideas?
Focus on turning criminals into productive members of society. Because which is better; a society that has less crime, or a society that tortures people? As much as I'm in favor of torturing people, I'd rather have lower crime. CorruptUser (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It is a good idea, horewer, good luck in convincing people to that, people believe that criminals should be punished, for instance, people delight themselves on thinking how the prisioners are going to punish the new prisioner, especially if it's a rapist. Telling them that punishing the criminal is not the best idea will earn you lots of enemies. The problem, therefore, is convincing people. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
What your argument proves, instead, is that there's no real difference between the convicts in the pen, and the solid citizens still walking the streets. I will cheerfully concede that this point is true. All of us are inherently evil, all of us deserve nothing but punishment, and "there but for fortune go you and go I." It is exactly as you say: people delight in the sufferings of prisoners in jails, and proposals to make them suffer more are perennially popular. A democracy must feed this hunger for torment somehow; give the people enough say in government, and this is what they'll tell you they want. So really, it doesn't matter who you punish or execute. May as well do it by a lottery. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Weaseloid, you asked why. If someone commited a crime against you or a member of your family, wouldn't you want to see the bastard suffering?
Yes. But as a member of society who doesn't know where in society I'll land I want the best possible society. So I'll ask you a question. Would you rather live in the society where there's a 1% chance you'll be mugged with a baseball bat but the mugger will spend 20 years being viciously raped, or the society where there's a .25% chance you'll be mugged with a baseball bat but the mugger will spend only 1 year in a mental health center? CorruptUser (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
20 years being viciously raped... That's real harsh, wouldn't wish that for my worst enemy, not to mention it's really, really immoral, unethical too. Why is it that the percentage is higher on the latter and will the 1 year solve anything? By the way, is there a third option? And which one of those alternatives, if I may ask, would you prefer to live in? (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I pick option 1, but then, I'm a bit of a sadist, and I'm in favor of "vengeance for vengeance's sake." Thanos6 (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Umm, .25% is a quarter of 1%. As for 20 years being raped? That's American prison (well it varies; some are worse than others). And forget morals and ethics, getting raped is a good way to spread disease, and really, there's no advantage. CorruptUser (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
TThat the carcerary system is extremely flawed, and that paying an eye for an eye does not solve anything, and we just get two people half-blind is undoubtful. But we need to do something with the criminals, we cannot simply give them a slap on the wrist and tell them to not do this again. (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanos6, are you serious? (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yep. I view retributive vengeance as an end in itself, it doesn't have to be a means to anything. Thanos6 (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you some kind of psychopath? (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't think he's being serious CorruptUser (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh no, I am serious. I'm not a psychopath, though I will confess to having a mild sadistic streak. As I said, I approve of the concept of vengeance, and the only reason I don't whole-heartedly endorse its use is the fallibility of the justice system. But in a theoretical universe where everyone found guilty was guilty, then I would say bring on the pain. Thanos6 (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
What kind of punishment are we talking about, though? Does it depend on the crime?. I wouldn't want rape to be the generally accepted punishment for just every type of crime. (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Or any crime. There are cases where I believe the best course of action is to burn the whole thing down and salt the earth (e.g., what the Russians did in the Crimean War; the genocidal maniacs were the LEAST horrible side in that war), but never rape. If you ever take any pleasure from harming others, no matter how much they deserve it, you are a bad person. CorruptUser (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree about rape being notably awful (understatement), but what people take pleasure in doesn't sound like a good criterion to judge the badness of the person tbh. As long as sadists don't let their sadistic desires guide them into causing immoral suffering in others, I wouldn't call them bad people. (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)