Author Topic: 3 Traditional Theories of Punishment  (Read 642 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline OverLordd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 802
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
3 Traditional Theories of Punishment
« on: April 19, 2006, 09:43:00 AM »
This is some materials from my current ethics class applyed to my logic with a short oppinon and view.

Punishment is morally justified if and only if

Rehabilitative: It changes the person being punished.

       Compatible with Betham's Utilitarianism.

Deterrence: It prevents others from doing bad acts.

        Compatible with Mill's Utilitarianism.

Retributive: It is deserved.
   
        Compatible with Kantian Ethics. Also know as (Lex Talionis), completely rejected by Utilitarianism.

The following cannot be mixed in any way. One cannot be morally correct because of intentions. The results are what maters, which is the point of view held by Utilitanianism. If one wishes to rehabilitate some one, they must be rehabilitated at the end or its not morally right. If its a deterrence then people must be deterred from action, or its not morally correct.
This logic of course means that the Industry is one of two things. A hypocrite because they say they are rehabilitating and instead giving retrebution.  On the other hand they could just be morally wrong, because the objective is rehabilitative while the accutal even is retributive and a great deterance. Under Kantian ethics the Industry is morally wrong because it does not respect the persons intrinsic value, or his autonomy. Kantian ethics boils down to the person and his autonomy. Rehabilitative is completetly rejected because it does not respect the human being. It says. "I am deciding whats right and wrong, and I am imposing that on you, and making you the person I want to be." While Kantian ethics says. "That is morally wrong because he has the choice to decide his actions." But under Kantian ethics, the beating like we saw in Florida would be morally acceptable, if the youth diserved it. The question is, does the youth diserve it? I personally say no, yet I dont have the athority to make that decision. Your thoughts on the matter?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
our walking down a hallway, you turn left, you turn right. BRICK WALL!

GAH!!!!

Yeah, hes a survivor.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
3 Traditional Theories of Punishment
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2006, 01:25:00 PM »
your presumption(s) rather define acceptable responses.  results are important, but that does not mean one should not try if they are not SURE of succeeding.  one can not be morally correct or ethically appropriate if by accident something good results from wanton destruction of other people's property or harm to their being.  doing so rather approaches justification for wars, does it not?

study is a good thing, and you ought to continue, but when you choose to apply a moral judgment to an action and then ask if the action is moraly acceptable is not fair for real, open discussion as you will have preordained the acceptable response.  not all will see what you call retribution as such, yet you leave no opening for alternatives.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Nihilanthic

  • Posts: 3931
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
3 Traditional Theories of Punishment
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2006, 02:35:00 PM »
A lack of evidence it works doesnt mean you should do it, anon. Especially when the 'what if' could harm a child - and if there are less dangerous, more effective alternatives.

But, well, if anyone could document a change in recidivism over the PAST THIRTY YEARS, we wouldnt be having this discussion now would we?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
DannyB on the internet:I CALLED A LAWYER TODAY TO SEE IF I COULD SUE YOUR ASSES FOR DOING THIS BUT THAT WAS NOT POSSIBLE.

CCMGirl on program restraints: "DON\'T TAZ ME BRO!!!!!"

TheWho on program survivors: "From where I sit I see all the anit-program[sic] people doing all the complaining and crying."

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
3 Traditional Theories of Punishment
« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2006, 08:01:00 PM »
Quote
On 2006-04-19 11:35:00, Nihilanthic wrote:

"A lack of evidence it works doesnt mean you should do it, anon. Especially when the 'what if' could harm a child - and if there are less dangerous, more effective alternatives.



But, well, if anyone could document a change in recidivism over the PAST THIRTY YEARS, we wouldnt be having this discussion now would we? "


one always ought try safest, least intrusive, least disruptive, whatevers.  but if, for example, something works well 90% of the time - say changing the sparkplug on a lawn mower that doesn't run well - but it doesn't always get the mower to run (maybe asome other bad part or adjustment), doesn't mean you trying the spark plug first, even if not 100% sure of success, is ethically or morally indefensible.
The point of the comment was not to address morality of programs, but rather the fault in the original post.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline OverLordd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 802
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
3 Traditional Theories of Punishment
« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2006, 08:29:00 PM »
You miss the point, its not that I dont leave options open, its that the theory does not leave options open. Its not possable to mix them, and if you start something with the intention, the result has got to be what you intended. Thats the way the theory works. Its not a fault in my post. And there is a diferance between a human and a law mower, in the autonomy of a human, your approaching this like they are broken and need to be fixed, and are justa machine you can fix.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
our walking down a hallway, you turn left, you turn right. BRICK WALL!

GAH!!!!

Yeah, hes a survivor.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
3 Traditional Theories of Punishment
« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2006, 08:47:00 AM »
Quote
On 2006-04-19 17:29:00, OverLordd wrote:

"You miss the point, its not that I dont leave options open, its that the theory does not leave options open. Its not possable to mix them, and if you start something with the intention, the result has got to be what you intended. Thats the way the theory works. Its not a fault in my post. And there is a diferance between a human and a law mower, in the autonomy of a human, your approaching this like they are broken and need to be fixed, and are justa machine you can fix."


OL, it is your mixing of other folks statements (theories, theorems, "logic" arguments) that misses the point of what they are saying ... and the comments here.  
I suspect most people who try rehabilitation (in your terms, perhaps impose rehabilitation efforts on another) do so with the same kind of intent as taking someone having a heart attack to a hospital to save their life, and to get care so that life can return to what it could be without the heart problem.  Whether or not the effort proves successful does not determine whether or not the effort was morally justified, but in your faulty argument it does.  Similarly, retribution is not what doctors in the emergency room are providing if they ultimately fail to save the patient's life.

I'm not arguing "program" merits or demerits -- just looking for better thought out and coherent assertions.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline odie

  • Posts: 179
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
3 Traditional Theories of Punishment
« Reply #6 on: April 20, 2006, 01:08:00 PM »
Keep studying OL...more will be revealed. Word of caution though...when speaking about moral judgements one must understand that what may be a moral value to one person may not be to another so to avoid conflict in this field never try to force your morals on others.

As a rule, children love their parents, believe what they teach, and take great pride in saying that the religion of mother is good enough for them.
--Robert G. Ingersoll, American politician and lecturer

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
die

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
3 Traditional Theories of Punishment
« Reply #7 on: April 20, 2006, 01:46:00 PM »
My memory of Philosophy 101 was that it wasn't exactly logical.  Considered from the point of view of human psychology and what we now know about the brain, 90% of it was crap.

Without society, every human is potentially in a state of war to the knife with every other human.  In war to the knife there are no morals.  Morality is an artifact of the nature of humans as social animals and as the particular kind of social animals we are.  Morality is the codification of the unwritten rules of our animal self-interest in re the nature of our species, as modified by our learned strategies for adapting to our society.

According to your thesis, it would be immoral for a family to beat the crap out of a rapist and drive him off from their farm because it *might* not successfully deter him from coming back and raping the farmers' teenage daughter.

According to your thesis, it would be immoral for me to ground my child for stealing a toy from a friend's house on the grounds that she *might* not be rehabilitated by that punishment and *might* steal a toy again.

Reducto ad absurdum.  

Q.E.D.--your thesis is wrong.

Rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution all have the fundamental commonality that they are all in the self interest of society.  As part of the social contract, humans cede the direct power to protect themselves from hostile people by avenging crimes to government *on the condition that* government use its power to do the best job of which it is reasonably capable to protect peacable citizens from those who are not peacable.  People have the natural moral right to protect themselves from attacks on their person or property---by direct defense, preemption of a clear threat, or vengeance.  Society claims the derived right to protect those people who aren't attacking others, to increase accuracy in identification and increase effectiveness of response.

Civilization makes laws against crimes not to make them "bad".  By human nature, "malum in se" crimes are already things inimical to constructive group social function.  We make laws against crimes to codify the procedure by which we identify people who are dangerous to those of the rest of society who are peacably minding our own business, and by which we determine how best to protect society from those identified individuals.

We have criminal laws not to make things crimes, nor even to punish crimes.  We have criminal laws to formally identify forcibly or fraudulently dangerous people and deal with them, so that we avoid the damage to the innocent and other excesses of vigilantism.

Rehabilitation protects society from anyone successfully rehabilitated.  A 75% or even 20% success rate is far better than a zero success rate.  Deterrence protects society from anyone deterred.  Again, even a 20% success rate of crimes deterred is better than a zero success rate.  Retribution heals the victims by providing comfort and an emotional sense of justice after the fact.

Of course society's punishment of the guilty, according to the laws, by its best ability to discern the guilty from the innocent, is morally just----whether the punisment is targetted to rehabilitation, deterrence, or retribution.

All three of those things are things innocent people want, and that people who commit crimes that are malum in se have ample reason to know they face *before* they commit the crime.

It's moral because morality is the formal protection by each other of each other's natural rights in any society.

People in anarchy have the natural right to do their best to protect themselves from other people who attack them, to the best of their ability to determine guilt or innocence, and to use whatever methods they perceive to be most likely to protect or recompense them from threats against themselves.

Society has the derived moral right to exercise those same attempts at protection to the best of its ability to determine guilt or innocence and to the best of its ability to determine what response to the guilty (by society's best attempt to determine guilt) best protects its non-criminal (in that incident) members.  Society's right derives from people delegating their own natural right to it in the interests of all people in society having an improved chance for justice.

Julie
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
3 Traditional Theories of Punishment
« Reply #8 on: April 20, 2006, 01:50:00 PM »
My memory of Philosophy 101 was that it wasn't exactly logical.  Considered from the point of view of human psychology and what we now know about the brain, 90% of it was crap.

Without society, every human is potentially in a state of war to the knife with every other human.  In war to the knife there are no morals.  Morality is an artifact of the nature of humans as social animals and as the particular kind of social animals we are.  Morality is the codification of the unwritten rules of our animal self-interest in re the nature of our species, as modified by our learned strategies for adapting to our society.

According to your thesis, it would be immoral for a family to beat the crap out of a rapist and drive him off from their farm because it *might* not successfully deter him from coming back and raping the farmers' teenage daughter.

According to your thesis, it would be immoral for me to ground my child for stealing a toy from a friend's house on the grounds that she *might* not be rehabilitated by that punishment and *might* steal a toy again.

Reducto ad absurdum.  

Q.E.D.--your thesis is wrong.

Rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution all have the fundamental commonality that they are all in the self interest of society.  As part of the social contract, humans cede the direct power to protect themselves from hostile people by avenging crimes to government *on the condition that* government use its power to do the best job of which it is reasonably capable to protect peacable citizens from those who are not peacable.  People have the natural moral right to protect themselves from attacks on their person or property---by direct defense, preemption of a clear threat, or vengeance.  Society claims the derived right to protect those people who aren't attacking others, to increase accuracy in identification and increase effectiveness of response.

Civilization makes laws against crimes not to make them "bad".  By human nature, "malum in se" crimes are already things inimical to constructive group social function.  We make laws against crimes to codify the procedure by which we identify people who are dangerous to those of the rest of society who are peacably minding our own business, and by which we determine how best to protect society from those identified individuals.

We have criminal laws not to make things crimes, nor even to punish crimes.  We have criminal laws to formally identify forcibly or fraudulently dangerous people and deal with them, so that we avoid the damage to the innocent and other excesses of vigilantism.

Rehabilitation protects society from anyone successfully rehabilitated.  A 75% or even 20% success rate is far better than a zero success rate.  Deterrence protects society from anyone deterred.  Again, even a 20% success rate of crimes deterred is better than a zero success rate.  Retribution heals the victims by providing comfort and an emotional sense of justice after the fact.

Of course society's punishment of the guilty, according to the laws, by its best ability to discern the guilty from the innocent, is morally just----whether the punisment is targetted to rehabilitation, deterrence, or retribution.

All three of those things are things innocent people want, and that people who commit crimes that are malum in se have ample reason to know they face *before* they commit the crime.

It's moral because morality is the formal protection by each other of each other's natural rights in any society.

People in anarchy have the natural right to do their best to protect themselves from other people who attack them, to the best of their ability to determine guilt or innocence, and to use whatever methods they perceive to be most likely to protect or recompense them from threats against themselves.

Society has the derived moral right to exercise those same attempts at protection to the best of its ability to determine guilt or innocence and to the best of its ability to determine what response to the guilty (by society's best attempt to determine guilt) best protects its non-criminal (in that incident) members.  Society's right derives from people delegating their own natural right to it in the interests of all people in society having an improved chance for justice.

Julie
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »