Ethical Punishment and Retribution
Transgression is inherently attached to punishment and retribution. When someone crosses us, we want to make certain it doesn't happen again, and we want to punish the person that did it. But what is appropriate? What is too much? And what is the purpose of the action?
It is natural to want to punish the person for what they've done. When we're hurt, we want to strike back, even if the hurt was unintentional. There is a desire to make someone "pay" for what they have done. There is also the desire to make certain something doesn't happen again. Even if the original offense was unintentional, if there are no consequences, there's no reason to not do it again, intentionally or otherwise.
Punishment and retribution are dangerous issues. It's not feasible, nor sensible, to get rid of them completely. If there was no punishment, then people would be free to do whatever they wanted to each other. It is the knowledge of retribution that keeps the worst of us from behaving badly. It is the pushing back by another that lets us know where the boundaries are.
But what is ethical here? Punishment for the sake of giving pain certainly isn't. Any punishment that exists solely for the emotional glee of the giver is wrong. While we have every right to make certain, individually and societally, that behavior that's injurious to us doesn't happen again, giving injury to another simply for the sake of revenge isn't moral either.
It's easy to say that we should punish in proportion to our hurt. And it's reasonable. But that doesn't answer the important question: Does it solve the problem? If it doesn't solve the problem, then it's a bad system. And it's easy to say that we shouldn't punish, that punishment is somehow "wrong". But that doesn't solve the problem either. When you refuse to intervene, you simply allow others to behave as they will against you.
At heart, punishment and retribution is a societal issue, not an individual one in most cases. Vigilante justice is frowned upon at this time. But society is built up of individuals and run by those that speak up. And as parents, as groups, we punish those that transgress in ways that don't go up to the level of civil or criminal justice. When we do so, we need to think about what we're doing, but we also need to think about why we're doing it.
It's easy to simply want to punish. It's a lot harder to think about what the effects are, and to try and be effective, and make certain that you're giving the message you want. There are no easy answers when it comes to this subject; or at least, there are no easy, right answers. The easy ones are wrong.
Questions:
Why do we punish people? What do we hope to accomplish?
Think back to a time someone took retribution against you. What was your reaction? Was it the one they wanted?
If you were in charge, what would your method of punishing criminals be? Why? What would happen next?
It is natural to want to punish the person for what they've done. When we're hurt, we want to strike back, even if the hurt was unintentional. There is a desire to make someone "pay" for what they have done. There is also the desire to make certain something doesn't happen again. Even if the original offense was unintentional, if there are no consequences, there's no reason to not do it again, intentionally or otherwise.
Punishment and retribution are dangerous issues. It's not feasible, nor sensible, to get rid of them completely. If there was no punishment, then people would be free to do whatever they wanted to each other. It is the knowledge of retribution that keeps the worst of us from behaving badly. It is the pushing back by another that lets us know where the boundaries are.
But what is ethical here? Punishment for the sake of giving pain certainly isn't. Any punishment that exists solely for the emotional glee of the giver is wrong. While we have every right to make certain, individually and societally, that behavior that's injurious to us doesn't happen again, giving injury to another simply for the sake of revenge isn't moral either.
It's easy to say that we should punish in proportion to our hurt. And it's reasonable. But that doesn't answer the important question: Does it solve the problem? If it doesn't solve the problem, then it's a bad system. And it's easy to say that we shouldn't punish, that punishment is somehow "wrong". But that doesn't solve the problem either. When you refuse to intervene, you simply allow others to behave as they will against you.
At heart, punishment and retribution is a societal issue, not an individual one in most cases. Vigilante justice is frowned upon at this time. But society is built up of individuals and run by those that speak up. And as parents, as groups, we punish those that transgress in ways that don't go up to the level of civil or criminal justice. When we do so, we need to think about what we're doing, but we also need to think about why we're doing it.
It's easy to simply want to punish. It's a lot harder to think about what the effects are, and to try and be effective, and make certain that you're giving the message you want. There are no easy answers when it comes to this subject; or at least, there are no easy, right answers. The easy ones are wrong.
Questions:
Why do we punish people? What do we hope to accomplish?
Think back to a time someone took retribution against you. What was your reaction? Was it the one they wanted?
If you were in charge, what would your method of punishing criminals be? Why? What would happen next?
posted by Vieva @ 12:49 PM
3 Comments:
At 12:14 AM,
Anonymous said…
My maundering about the concept of justice, for your contemplation or whatever.
At 7:35 AM,
Vieva said…
I shoulda just linked to you again. :) I think you said it better than I did.
It's a tricky concept to conceptualize, isn't it? *sigh*
At 1:09 PM,
Anonymous said…
I'm no longer sure what society is after when it punishes. Obviously, historically...long term..it was NOT about rehabilitation, but about revenge and possibly deterrence. Well, if they survived the punishment, one expected they would be deterred!
There was a switch to the idea of teaching folks crime didn't pay. But that lesson doesn't go down well in the best of times, and it bad times, its a laugh. Tell the kid who can't find a job that being a runner for the crack seller on the block doesn't pay---when he has $500 in his pocket?
And for nutcases like men who shoot their wives for refusing to behave like decent property? Punishment is useless....unless it keeps them from remarrying and repeating the experiement in female-training.
I think we have a sort of public-private dichotomy going. You have a clash of ideas and ideals---some folks see punishment tied to religious principles and a 'soul-saving' component; some see it as being best used as legal revenge; some think of it as a sort of social hygiene---keeping the rabids off the streets. Until we can resolve what punishment actually needs to accomplish and mean, I don't think the public sector will be truly served.
And then, there are some forms of justice that are only resolveable privately. There is no law against breaking hearts and wrecking lives, is there?
Post a Comment
<< Home