Is it moral to seek "justice" or "retribution" in law?

[Nord Amour]

(Apologies if this has already been discussed.)

This is separate from the other topic of free will because it explores specific consequences of the debate.

Elaborating on the title, my question mostly pertains to how you believe that neuroscience and determinism should or should not influence law. This is separate from the topic "Free Will" because it concerns the legal implications specifically.

I have seen massive amounts of evidence pile against the traditional concept of "free will" (which I will include below) and have recently been considering the effect this could have on legal punishment. Personally, I believe it is wrong to seek retribution against even the worst of the worst, because people can not and should not, in my thinking, be held responsible for the consequences of their genes, neurological chemistry, upbringing, etc. However, I still believe prisons are necessary, because they prevent violent criminals from roaming freely.

I envision a future where violence can be treated like any other disease. (Literally.) Of course, no one wants to have their neurons manipulated, but no one wants murderers either.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-free-will-an-illusion/?page=1

http://www.livescience.com/46411-free-will-is-background-noise.html

"In a kind of spooky experiment, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences reveal that our decisions are made seconds before we become aware of them."

http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide

This is not a topic about whether free will exists. It only applies to the influence of free will in law.

If you don't want to read all of that, the question is, "do you believe criminals should be punished?"

[Hakio]

Punishment first, rehabilitation second. Some offenses in our country do not lead to punitive action but do lead to rehabilitation and/or counselling and psychiatry.

[Shaggai]

Do what reduces crime, without causing damage to society greater than the damage it prevents. Simple as that. Which isn't simple at all, of course, but regardless.

[Atlanticatia]

Rehabilitation should always take precedence. For example, a drug offender shouldn't be imprisoned.

Prison should be a last resort IMO, rehabilitation should come first, except for very violent crimes.

Also, there should be a bigger focus on prevention - build up the welfare state, improve employment, intervene early in risky situations, gun control, etc.

[Cyrisnia]

Rehabilitation should always take precedence. For example, a drug offender shouldn't be imprisoned.

Prison should be a last resort IMO, rehabilitation should come first, except for very violent crimes.

Also, there should be a bigger focus on prevention - build up the welfare state, improve employment, intervene early in risky situations, gun control, etc.

With you 1/2 on the welfare, not on the gun control, but other than that I agree with you.

[WestRedMaple]

(Apologies if this has already been discussed.)

This is separate from the other topic of free will because it explores specific consequences of the debate.

Elaborating on the title, my question mostly pertains to how you believe that neuroscience and determinism should or should not influence law. This is separate from the topic "Free Will" because it concerns the legal implications specifically.

I have seen massive amounts of evidence pile against the traditional concept of "free will" (which I will include below) and have recently been considering the effect this could have on legal punishment. Personally, I believe it is wrong to seek retribution against even the worst of the worst, because people can not and should not, in my thinking, be held responsible for the consequences of their genes, neurological chemistry, upbringing, etc. However, I still believe prisons are necessary, because they prevent violent criminals from roaming freely.

I envision a future where violence can be treated like any other disease. (Literally.) Of course, no one wants to have their neurons manipulated, but no one wants murderers either.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-free-will-an-illusion/?page=1

http://www.livescience.com/46411-free-will-is-background-noise.html

"In a kind of spooky experiment, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences reveal that our decisions are made seconds before we become aware of them."

http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide

This is not a topic about whether free will exists. It only applies to the influence of free will in law.

If you don't want to read all of that, the question is, "do you believe criminals should be punished?"

Since imprisonment falls under the definitions of punishment and retribution, by accepting prisons, you are also accepting punishment and retribution.

Now, different people hold different views of the purpose of prisons

Some feel that they should exist to make criminals suffer. Some feel that they should exist to rehabilitate criminals. Some feel that they should exist to keep criminals away from any more victims. Some feel that there shouldn't be any prisons. Some feel that there should for multiple of the reasons previously listed.

I think the primary purpose should be keeping criminals away from more victims. It seems you think the primary purpose should be rehabilitation.

[WestRedMaple]

Rehabilitation should always take precedence. For example, a drug offender shouldn't be imprisoned.

Prison should be a last resort IMO, rehabilitation should come first, except for very violent crimes.

Also, there should be a bigger focus on prevention - build up the welfare state, improve employment, intervene early in risky situations, gun control, etc.

I disagree with you on most parts except prevention.

There shouldn't be any such thing as a 'drug offender', the welfare state should be reduced, ease the current restrictions on firearms rather than increase them

[Nord Amour]

Since imprisonment falls under the definitions of punishment and retribution, by accepting prisons, you are also accepting punishment and retribution.

I have to disagree. I believe that the only purposes of prison should be rehabilitation and, more importantly, protecting others from violent criminals. I don't see how either of these qualify as "punishment."

[Atlanticatia]

Rehabilitation should always take precedence. For example, a drug offender shouldn't be imprisoned.

Prison should be a last resort IMO, rehabilitation should come first, except for very violent crimes.

Also, there should be a bigger focus on prevention - build up the welfare state, improve employment, intervene early in risky situations, gun control, etc.

I disagree with you on most parts except prevention.

There shouldn't be any such thing as a 'drug offender', the welfare state should be reduced, ease the current restrictions on firearms rather than increase them

1) I agree. Drugs should be decriminalised. Drug addicts should be treated medically rather than punitively/criminally.

2) Why? The welfare state can reduce crime. If tons of people have no or inadequate incomes, and can't afford food or shelter, social exclusion increases. When social exclusion increases, crime increases. Social inclusion is extremely important. Ensuring more people are employed while also ensuring there is a strong safety net will further that goal.

3) Well, I think that people who are criminals or mentally unstable shouldn't be able to obtain guns.

[The Liberated Territories]

I do not think there is "piles and piles of evidence against free will," but that's for another debate.

A lot of crimes we have - aren't crimes. The ones that are - and are violated by criminals - should be focused on repaying the victim for the damages done instead of punishment, since harsher punishments don't do bs but paying back a person is a "punishment" in itself. At the moment we are wasting money locking people up for smokin dope, and then you wonder why there is so much crime in the first place.

[WestRedMaple]

Since imprisonment falls under the definitions of punishment and retribution, by accepting prisons, you are also accepting punishment and retribution.

I have to disagree. I believe that the only purposes of prison should be rehabilitation and, more importantly, protecting others from violent criminals. I don't see how either of these qualify as "punishment."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/punishment
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/punishment
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/punish
http://thelawdictionary.org/punishment/

There you go.

[WestRedMaple]

I disagree with you on most parts except prevention.

There shouldn't be any such thing as a 'drug offender', the welfare state should be reduced, ease the current restrictions on firearms rather than increase them

1) I agree. Drugs should be decriminalised. Drug addicts should be treated medically rather than punitively/criminally.

2) Why? The welfare state can reduce crime. If tons of people have no or inadequate incomes, and can't afford food or shelter, social exclusion increases. When social exclusion increases, crime increases. Social inclusion is extremely important. Ensuring more people are employed while also ensuring there is a strong safety net will further that goal.

3) Well, I think that people who are criminals or mentally unstable shouldn't be able to obtain guns.

I view 2 as contrary to liberty.

As for 3, violent criminals and those deemed mentally unfit for possession of firearms are already prohibited from legally obtaining them.....so what increased measures would you propose?

[Nord Amour]

I have to disagree. I believe that the only purposes of prison should be rehabilitation and, more importantly, protecting others from violent criminals. I don't see how either of these qualify as "punishment."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/punishment
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/punishment
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/punish
http://thelawdictionary.org/punishment/

There you go.

Thus proving that prisons are not necessarily a punishment. Just as quarantining ebola patients is not a "punishment." My point was that prisons should be thought of as "quarantine centers" for people unfortunate enough to have neurological predispositions to violence, rape, etc.

"Punishment" would be imprisoning people because "they deserved it." Your dictionary links prove this.

[The Liberated Territories]

1) I agree. Drugs should be decriminalised. Drug addicts should be treated medically rather than punitively/criminally.

2) Why? The welfare state can reduce crime. If tons of people have no or inadequate incomes, and can't afford food or shelter, social exclusion increases. When social exclusion increases, crime increases. Social inclusion is extremely important. Ensuring more people are employed while also ensuring there is a strong safety net will further that goal.

3) Well, I think that people who are criminals or mentally unstable shouldn't be able to obtain guns.

I view 2 as contrary to liberty.

As for 3, violent criminals and those deemed mentally unfit for possession of firearms are already prohibited from legally obtaining them.....so what increased measures would you propose?

Bad argument, pal. Explain how the welfare state is a detriment to "liberty" first before going populist.

Making laws against law abiding gun owners, obv

[Atlanticatia]

1) I agree. Drugs should be decriminalised. Drug addicts should be treated medically rather than punitively/criminally.

2) Why? The welfare state can reduce crime. If tons of people have no or inadequate incomes, and can't afford food or shelter, social exclusion increases. When social exclusion increases, crime increases. Social inclusion is extremely important. Ensuring more people are employed while also ensuring there is a strong safety net will further that goal.

3) Well, I think that people who are criminals or mentally unstable shouldn't be able to obtain guns.

I view 2 as contrary to liberty.

As for 3, violent criminals and those deemed mentally unfit for possession of firearms are already prohibited from legally obtaining them.....so what increased measures would you propose?

How is it contrary to liberty? You need to explain why, not just make statements without an explanation.

I'd establish a central registry of certain firearms/firearm purchases and sales, and make sure loopholes are closed - i.e. the gun show loophole and private sale loophole.

[WestRedMaple]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/punishment
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/punishment
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/punish
http://thelawdictionary.org/punishment/

There you go.

Thus proving that prisons are not necessarily a punishment. Just as quarantining ebola patients is not a "punishment." My point was that prisons should be thought of as "quarantine centers" for people unfortunate enough to have neurological predispositions to violence, rape, etc.

"Punishment" would be imprisoning people because "they deserved it." Your dictionary links prove this.

Um, in what possible way is imprisonment NOT confinement?

[Nord Amour]

Thus proving that prisons are not necessarily a punishment. Just as quarantining ebola patients is not a "punishment." My point was that prisons should be thought of as "quarantine centers" for people unfortunate enough to have neurological predispositions to violence, rape, etc.

"Punishment" would be imprisoning people because "they deserved it." Your dictionary links prove this.

Um, in what possible way is imprisonment NOT confinement?

You still seem to be missing my point. Yes, imprisonment is a form of confinement. But it still doesn't necessarily fall under the definitions of "punishment" so long as they are being confined for their own safety and that of others, as opposed to being confined so that they'll feel 'guilty' or so the plaintiff can feel that they've gotten their revenge, or "justice."

For the imprisonment to be punishment, you need to not only recognize the person's actions as being wrong but also recognize the person as being inherently "bad," with no regards to possible neurological factors involved in whatever crime they committed.

[The Rich Port]

The problem with wanting to seek retribution is that it is emotional to do so.

To want people to stop seeking retribution is to deny human emotion.

But, that said, I'm opposed to retribution. I believe the state should try to discourage it by engaging it's citizens in discussion and supporting victims.

[WestRedMaple]

Um, in what possible way is imprisonment NOT confinement?

You still seem to be missing my point. Yes, imprisonment is a form of confinement. But it still doesn't necessarily fall under the definitions of "punishment" so long as they are being confined for their own safety and that of others, as opposed to being confined so that they'll feel 'guilty' or so the plaintiff can feel that they've gotten their revenge, or "justice."

For the imprisonment to be punishment, you need to not only recognize the person's actions as being wrong but also recognize the person as being inherently "bad," with no regards to possible neurological factors involved in whatever crime they committed.

You are ignoring the actual definitions given. Sure, if you choose to continue redefining words to mean whatever you want, then under your personal definitions, any word can mean anything you want.

[The United Territories of Providence]

We shouldn't go "Hammurabi" on criminals. But before we rehabilitate them, so they don't become repeat offenders....there should be punishment. Crimes deserve punishment. If you weren't punished, you'd have no reason to not commit crimes. Unless you're just a decent human being, but a lot of folks aren't. They'd rob banks, kill people, and rape women if they knew they could get away with it.

[WestRedMaple]

I view 2 as contrary to liberty.

As for 3, violent criminals and those deemed mentally unfit for possession of firearms are already prohibited from legally obtaining them.....so what increased measures would you propose?

How is it contrary to liberty? You need to explain why, not just make statements without an explanation.

I'd establish a central registry of certain firearms/firearm purchases and sales, and make sure loopholes are closed - i.e. the gun show loophole and private sale loophole.

Why do I need to explain everything before even being asked, but you don't do it yourself? Why the double standard?


As for being contrary to liberty, I feel that way because it relies on coercion to take what belongs to people.

[Nord Amour]

You still seem to be missing my point. Yes, imprisonment is a form of confinement. But it still doesn't necessarily fall under the definitions of "punishment" so long as they are being confined for their own safety and that of others, as opposed to being confined so that they'll feel 'guilty' or so the plaintiff can feel that they've gotten their revenge, or "justice."

For the imprisonment to be punishment, you need to not only recognize the person's actions as being wrong but also recognize the person as being inherently "bad," with no regards to possible neurological factors involved in whatever crime they committed.

You are ignoring the actual definitions given. Sure, if you choose to continue redefining words to mean whatever you want, then under your personal definitions, any word can mean anything you want.

I am not redefining "punishment," I am redefining the nature of crime. My analogy to physical health and placing the sick under quarantine illustrates this well.

As someone who is leaning towards a determinist viewpoint, my belief that some criminals should still be placed in prison does not prove that I am willing to punish them, or seek retribution, because I consider it quarantine. This does not, in any sensible way, conflict with the accepted dictionary definitions of the English word "punishment."

I believe we should leave it at that.

[Asyir]

Imprison violent offenders, such as murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc.

For drug abusers, treat it as a public health concern, not a crime.

[Nord Amour]

Crimes deserve punishment. If you weren't punished, you'd have no reason to not commit crimes. Unless you're just a decent human being, but a lot of folks aren't. They'd rob banks, kill people, and rape women if they knew they could get away with it.

I agree, to an extent. But what if (and this is purely hypothetical) we re-wired those individuals' brains to remove their natural predispositions to the aforementioned crimes?

Not that this technology is necessarily available in the present. I don't know if it is.

[Atlanticatia]

Why do I need to explain everything before even being asked, but you don't do it yourself? Why the double standard?

I did explain. I said "The welfare state can reduce crime. If tons of people have no or inadequate incomes, and can't afford food or shelter, social exclusion increases. When social exclusion increases, crime increases. Social inclusion is extremely important. Ensuring more people are employed while also ensuring there is a strong safety net will further that goal."
That sounds like an explanation to me.