CT to repeal the death penalty

[Gustaf]

Wait, are people here claiming that vengeance is not a valid foundation of the justice system? I would argue it is the only sensible (and, yes, rational foundation).

What else would be the purpose of the justice system?

[Gustaf]

Wait, are people here claiming that vengeance is not a valid foundation of the justice system? I would argue it is the only sensible (and, yes, rational foundation).

What else would be the purpose of the justice system?

Maintaining a civilized society where everybody is treated equally?

Seriously, this is one of the most reactionary posts I've ever read. And coming from Gustaf that says a lot.

Lol, what? That's not the specific purpose of the justice system. We have schools and hospitals to achieve that. Maintaining a civilized society is a rather vague concept as well.

To the others who answered with various remarks.

Justice is precisely what vengeance is about. Giving someone what they deserve.

Public mutilation would not be a logical consequence of retribution as the foundation for justice. Most people wouldn't consider it just retribution. If the purpose is to remove a threat to society we should obviously execute all criminals. That's the most efficient way of achieving that goal. Rehabilitation doesn't really work but besides that it's obviously not how we built our justice system. For starters, people who can't be rehabilitated shouldn't get any punishment at all if that's the foundation for the system.

BRTD as usual doesn't really get it. Vengeance is a bit of a loaded term, retribution is probably more apt. Parking tickets are arguably not really a key part of the justice system, it's more of a societal tool to deal with a specific problem. Still, to an extent sure. Most people want people to be punished for bad behaviour. That desire for vengeance is in my opinion the core of the justice system in most countries. That offends peoples' sensibilities quite a lot, apparently.

And saying that the justice system is to keep a law-abiding society seems a bit circular. That's essentially to say that the purpose of the justice system is to make people follow the justice system. That does nothing to explain the underlying principle of it.

But, anyway. What was the point of the Nuremberg trials in the opinion of Px, BRTD, Antonio and the rest of our most esteemed intellectuals on this site?

[Gustaf]

@ Gustaf, isn't quite obvious in my post as to what I believe the underlying principle of a justice system is? The main goal is to ensure that criminal action that causes damage to life, erodes fairness etc is prevented. The rehabilitative goal of the criminal justice system exists for this reason and punitive aspect as well. I only believe in retributive justice as an intrinsically beneficial part of the system with regards to murder, assault and other exceptions. In this case, you're correct: vengeance would be a major goal and I am at times conflicted as to whether or not I should support the death penalty. I generally support what is least costly to the state yet still humane and fully litigated yet still punishes the criminal properly so generally that means I'm opposed.

I think we both misunderstood each other. Looking back on your post, I highly doubt that you believe that retribution is the main goal of the system with regards to the vast majority of crimes and I certainly don't want to eschew the idea of "vengeance" entirely from the system.

If we're talking about crimes (and not say misdemeanors) I do think that retribution is the main   aspect.

Again, if we only had the justice system to prevent crime why not have the death penalty for everything? That would maximize deterrence would it not?

Also, to clear up potential confusion, being a retributivist does not necessarily mean favouring capital punishment. So that's not the point I'm making, in case someone thinks so.

[Gustaf]

"Giving people what they deserve" isn't vengeance. Vengeance is "making people suffer like I suffered". It's something subjective and highly primitive. It's the idea that justice is something individualistic and particularist rather than universalist. It is, in short, reactionary.

There are three fundamental goals of a penal system. That is :

1. To create the bases for a social contract : to make people know that their rights will be respected and that those who infringe them will be punished, so that people are confident enough in their fellows to allow for the establishment of a well-functioning society.

2. To improve people : through punishment, one should ideally understand that what he has done is wrong, and thus strive to adopt a better behaviour ; thus to become a better person.

3. To prevent crimes : since people know they will be punished for their wrongdoings, they will have a significant disincentive.

Vengeance should absolutely never be one of them.

Maybe you should back up your idea of this meaning with something. And also take note of the fact that I said vengeance might not be the best term and retribution might be less confusing. If one wikipedias "vengeance" one gets to revenge and the following paragraph:

"Revenge is a harmful action against a person or group in response to a grievance, be it real or perceived. It is also called payback, retribution, retaliation or vengeance; it may be characterized as a form of justice, an altruistic action which enforces societal rules and which is based on a deep rooted evolutionary instinct that helped humanity by implementing social cohesion in a subtle way."

Obviously reactionary nonsense right there!

Anyway, I assume given your stated criteria, that you consider it an outrage that we punished Goering and the other Nazi leaders after 1945? That did not improve them, it hardly prevented them nor any other politicians from doing it again and peoples' general confidence in strangers for societal interactions was hardly affected either.

[Gustaf]

Parking tickets are arguably not really a key part of the justice system, it's more of a societal tool to deal with a specific problem.

An argument can be made that 'a societal tool to deal with a specific problem' is not an inaccurate characterization of laws against things like murder.

Sure, but would you actually make that argument? When someone gets a parking ticket, do we nod approvingly to each other and say "justice has been served"?

In a society without cars there would be no parking tickets so it's perfectly possible to imagine a justice system without them that would still be just. That's sort of why I don't consider it a fundamental part of the system.

Parking tickets is a technical solution to the problem of cars being in the way that could theoretically be dealt with in different ways. I don't think most people or justice systems take the same view of murders.

Anyway, it's a bit of a side issue, in my opinion.

[Gustaf]

Parking tickets are arguably not really a key part of the justice system, it's more of a societal tool to deal with a specific problem.

An argument can be made that 'a societal tool to deal with a specific problem' is not an inaccurate characterization of laws against things like murder.

Sure, but would you actually make that argument? When someone gets a parking ticket, do we nod approvingly to each other and say "justice has been served"?

No, and you're right that it's a different sort of issue, but that shouldn't be our reaction to killings, either.

To killings? I meant when we arrest someone for murder and gives them whatever punishment has been established (like a prison sentence for example).

Again, I'm not making a case for the death penalty here.