Should criminals be punished?

[Inner Albania]

This is a continuation of a thread, which got locked down for an insufficient OP.

So, onto the question: Should criminals be punished?

My answer: In my opinion, criminals should be punished, although the main purpose of prison should be to rehabilitate prisoners. Most criminals do have a reason for commiting crimes (a.k.a they don't do it out of the blue without reason) - that being debts, mental health issues, substance addictions. They should get treatment and help them reintegrate into society. For example: Norway's Halden prison (which Norway considers a maximum security prison) has education programs for its prisoners, and their system is clearly working better than a traditional prison, with a significantly lower recidivism rate in Norway than in the U.S & better quality of life.

[Unmet Player]

Yes, criminals should be punished for their crimes. Rehabilitation should also be considered .

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

Reposting my post from the locked thread

Punishing criminals only makes sense if you believe in free will, which I am not too sure I do.

If you do there are a number of approaches:

Retributive Justice:- which is to punish offenders in proportion to the offence committed. Backward looking and only concerned with punishment.

Utilitarian Justice:- which is tailored to producing the best outcome for society n the future. Forward looking, aims to deter the offender and others in the future (so could include making an example of a famous person and giving them a harsher sentence), or incapacitate the offender to prevent further offences by locking up, tagging, etc., and through rehabilitation.

Restorative Justice:- where the offender is seen to have committed a crime against an individual rather than the state, and is aimed at making the offender repair the harm done to the victim, and through that improve themselves.

(All this is stolen from Who's in charge: Free will and the science of the brain by Michael S. Gazzaniga)

I can see some benefits of restorative justice, but I largely lean towards utilitarian justice. Retributive justice is just dumb in my view.

[Lawbreaker]

No, they shouldn't.

[Floofybit]

Yes.

[New Mordka]

Yes they should, preferably with their extremely painful and public executions so that they would not be a problem again.

[Portzania]

Yes. Criminals should be punished, however I do not think that ALL criminals deserve imprisonment, and rather rehabilitations for things like drug abuse and other petty crimes like so. Restorative Justice is also great for juvenile crimes, like a kid stealing from a store, being punished to work for the store owner to pay it back.

[Denoidumbutoniurucwivobrs]

Depends on the crime.

Someone hopelessly addicted to drugs? No, rehabilitation and support should be given.

Someone who murdered their wife and children? Yes, punish them.

[Floofybit]

The death penalty should never be ensued. However, rehabilitation doesn't work in every case.

[Juansonia]

Short answer: No, but punishment as a side effect is fine.
Long answer: copied from my post in the other thread:

Most people break the purpose of the justice system into five points: retribution, repayment, reform, deterrence, and containment. I will discuss these points in order.

I do not believe that free will exists at all(on a "how the brain works" level), nor do I believe that anyone is capable of resisting near-infinite incentive to violate a deeply-held moral code. Therefore, I believe that the idea of "deserving punishment" is complete bullshit. Retribution is purely an act of sadism that cannot be justified.

It is perfectly just to seize assets from someone to compensate those who are wronged, but inflicting pain and suffering does not right the victim's wrongs. Killing a murderer won't bring back your son, starving a terrorist won't rebuild the post office, castrating a rapist won't get rid of the victim's suffering. All talk of "closure" is bullshit - if inflicting pain and suffering upon the offender is the only way to bring the victim closure, the victim is a sadist, and their sadism shouldn't be accommodated.

Whether negative reinforcement works as a method of reform is arguably the most important question as to whether punishment is ethical at all. While I doubt that I am able to answer this question in the abstract, I know that the stick ony works if the carrot is also present, and American Prisons have no carrots at all.

An expectation of "if you do this, you will be punished" might work (if it is actualised enough to be believable), but that's assuming that the people in question are rational actors with a reason to care. Not everyone is rational, and those who are might not be swayed by punishment's effects.

When China was ruled by the Qin dynasty, the punishment for insurrection was death. Death was also the punishment for being late for government jobs, regardless of the nature of the delay. When Chen Sheng and Wu Guang were delayed by flooding, they decided that insurrection would be better than accepting their fate. The Dazexiang Uprising was a failure, but it paved the way for the fall of the Qin dynasty.

And finally, the matter of preventing harm to society. It is perfectly acceptable to put someone in a cell to stop them from causing harm to those outside of the cell. However, punishment creates resentment and breaks the recipient, which is a dangerous combination.

---

Yes they should, preferably with their extremely painful and public executions so that they would not be a problem again.

What will happen when it's your head on the chopping block?

[Portzania]

Yes they should, preferably with their extremely painful and public executions so that they would not be a problem again.

Why extremely painful? If you're going to end someone's precious life, at least do it with dignity and painlessness. No need for such barbaric executions.

[Andronya]

I can hardly believe this is an actual question...

Yes, obviously yes, self-evidently yes.

[Floofybit]

Yes they should, preferably with their extremely painful and public executions so that they would not be a problem again.

Why extremely painful? If you're going to end someone's precious life, at least do it with dignity and painlessness. No need for such barbaric executions.

100 player battle royale, winner gets pardoned

[Mtwara]

I would say utilitarian justice is the best approach, BUT:

Although I am a determinist, I don't think life makes sense on a small/individual basis if you don't take personal responsibility and accountability as factors.

So, in one sense, I think most criminals would benefit from feeling punished - but only if it creates the right outcone.