Politics: The Basics 4 (Punishment)
Removing (***) freedom: punishment:
What can justify taking freedom away as a form of punishment?
Positive freedom can justify coercion in some way: only by being protected against themselves can such people achieve true freedom.
Four main ways to justify state punishment: as retribution; as deterrent; as protection for society; as reform of the person punished.
The first is usually defended from a deontological position, the other three typically on consequentialist grounds. (**)
Punishment as retribution (报应主义):
Simplest form: those who intentionally break the law deserve (**) punishment regardless of whether there are any beneficial consequence.
For retributivist, punishment is justified as the appropriate response (**) to wrongdoing.
'An eye for an eye' principle: the punishment need to mirror the crime.
Criticisms of retributivism:
1, It appeals to baser feelings:
Retributivism gets much of its force from feelings of revenge.
Opponents argue that state punishment should be founded on a sounder (**) principle than 'tit for tat'.
2, It ignores effects:
Main criticism, it pays no attention the the effects of the punishment on criminal or on society.
According to retributivists, criminals deserve to be punished whether this has a beneficial effect on them or not.
Again, the debate between consequentialists and deontologists.
Deterrence:
A common justification of punishment is that it discourages lawbreaking: both by individual punished and by others who are aware.
This justifies punishing even those who will not be reformed by the punishment.
This sort of justification focuses exclusively on the consequences (benefits to society) of punishment.
Criticisms of deterrence:
1, Punishing the innocent:
At least in its simplest form, it could be used to justify punishing people who are innocent. Punishing a scapegoat can have a very strong deterrent effect if the general public remain unaware that the victim is in fact innocent.
An unattractive consequence of this theory.
2, It doesn't work:
This sort of criticisms relies on empirical data. If the data can show punishment has little deterrent effect, then this is a devastating attack.
Protection of society:
The need to protect the society from people who have a tendency (**) to break the law.
(What is it different from the deterrent justification?)
Criticisms:
1, only relevant for some crimes:
Only relevant for crimes that may be commited more than once by the same person. (A woman who poisoned her long-hated husband).
2, It doesn't work:
In practice, imprisonment is unlikely to protect society.
Again, this is an empirical argument.
Reform:
Punishment's tendency to reform the wrong-doers.
A form of treatment to change their characters.
Criticisms:
1, Only relevant for some criminals:
Again, those who commit one-off crimes should not punished according to this justification.
Also some criminals are clearly beyond reforms.
This in itself is not a criticism of the theory, just the implications. However, many people would find these implications unacceptable.
2, It doesn't work:
Existing punishment rarely reform criminals.
The most plausible justification make reform an element of the justification along with deterrence and protect of the society. Such hybrid justifications are usually based on consequentialists moral principles.
(Could it be compatible with retribution justification? Can retribution be hybrided? Can consequentialism and deontology be compatible?)
What can justify taking freedom away as a form of punishment?
Positive freedom can justify coercion in some way: only by being protected against themselves can such people achieve true freedom.
Four main ways to justify state punishment: as retribution; as deterrent; as protection for society; as reform of the person punished.
The first is usually defended from a deontological position, the other three typically on consequentialist grounds. (**)
Punishment as retribution (报应主义):
Simplest form: those who intentionally break the law deserve (**) punishment regardless of whether there are any beneficial consequence.
For retributivist, punishment is justified as the appropriate response (**) to wrongdoing.
'An eye for an eye' principle: the punishment need to mirror the crime.
Criticisms of retributivism:
1, It appeals to baser feelings:
Retributivism gets much of its force from feelings of revenge.
Opponents argue that state punishment should be founded on a sounder (**) principle than 'tit for tat'.
2, It ignores effects:
Main criticism, it pays no attention the the effects of the punishment on criminal or on society.
According to retributivists, criminals deserve to be punished whether this has a beneficial effect on them or not.
Again, the debate between consequentialists and deontologists.
Deterrence:
A common justification of punishment is that it discourages lawbreaking: both by individual punished and by others who are aware.
This justifies punishing even those who will not be reformed by the punishment.
This sort of justification focuses exclusively on the consequences (benefits to society) of punishment.
Criticisms of deterrence:
1, Punishing the innocent:
At least in its simplest form, it could be used to justify punishing people who are innocent. Punishing a scapegoat can have a very strong deterrent effect if the general public remain unaware that the victim is in fact innocent.
An unattractive consequence of this theory.
2, It doesn't work:
This sort of criticisms relies on empirical data. If the data can show punishment has little deterrent effect, then this is a devastating attack.
Protection of society:
The need to protect the society from people who have a tendency (**) to break the law.
(What is it different from the deterrent justification?)
Criticisms:
1, only relevant for some crimes:
Only relevant for crimes that may be commited more than once by the same person. (A woman who poisoned her long-hated husband).
2, It doesn't work:
In practice, imprisonment is unlikely to protect society.
Again, this is an empirical argument.
Reform:
Punishment's tendency to reform the wrong-doers.
A form of treatment to change their characters.
Criticisms:
1, Only relevant for some criminals:
Again, those who commit one-off crimes should not punished according to this justification.
Also some criminals are clearly beyond reforms.
This in itself is not a criticism of the theory, just the implications. However, many people would find these implications unacceptable.
2, It doesn't work:
Existing punishment rarely reform criminals.
The most plausible justification make reform an element of the justification along with deterrence and protect of the society. Such hybrid justifications are usually based on consequentialists moral principles.
(Could it be compatible with retribution justification? Can retribution be hybrided? Can consequentialism and deontology be compatible?)
还没人赞这篇日记
