I'm back! But I'm back with a purpose. I've been trying to figure out why we punish, both as a society and in a religious context. And I can't figure it out, so I need your input. Here's a brief note from my Criminal Law casebook describing the two basic theories:
"Broadly speaking, the justifications for punishment fall into two large categories, retributive and utilitarian. A retributivist claims that punishment is justified because people deserve it; a utilitarian believes that justification lies in the useful purposes that punishment serves. Retributive rationales are essentially backward looking, as they seek to justify punishment on the basis of the offender's behavior in the past. Utilitarian rationales are essentially forward looking, as they seek to justify punishment on the basis of the good consequences it is expected to produce in the future."
What do you think? How do we justify punishment?
4 comments:
I say both. I punish my enemies so they know not to mess with me in the future(future looking), so that the Universe can feel better about me having been unjustly wronged (backward looking, though I don't like the term), and so that my other enemies know that messing with me is not a good option (forward looking).
Well, in our house, we are trying to use 'natural consequences' for your choices. if Brigham chooses to hit with a toy, then the toy is put away. If he chooses to color on the wall, then he can wipe it off with a cloth. Punishment? yeah, kinda. But more, You made your choice, and this is the consequence of that choice. Some times that doesn't work and we go with the Time Out. But, at least we are trying.
I think punishment comes when the natural consequences have been averted somehow. Like when Maren uses time out.
For a criminal, they may steal something but not get caught right away--averting the natural consequence of returning the item to make it right--so now they are put in "time out" (jail) to hopefully think about what they did.
I think in a perfect world, punishment is the fair balance between justice and mercy. If a person isn't punished for a crime, justice hasn't been satisfied--this leaves an imbalance for both the criminal and their victim. If the victim feels that justice hasn't been served, they may take revenge on their own. Or the criminal doesn't see any consequence from their poor choice so they do it again. I think this type of imbalance leads to chaos--people taking matters into their own hands or criminals feeling invincible or above the laws of society.
So that's why we have courts and prisons and judges and the like. They are supposed to put people in time out when they do wrong so the victims feel that justice has been served and the criminal feels that their actions have consequences.
I'm thinking about two scriptures.
The first scripture says that this life is a probationary state--ultimate punishment is, happily, not happening yet; time for repentance and behavioral change (thinking about who we are/were as well as what we do/did, in the hopes that our "time out" here can change us somehow).
The other scripture refers to our tendency to misuse authority, or exercise unrighteous dominion. Surely this scripture applies in the punishment discussion--we may well be accountable for our decided "natural consequences" or "punishments" or whatever else we choose to impose on others.
One last thing: the Mosaic law had many punishments, but what of the new law? Are we softer on punishment now (I don't really know)?
Tying it together... not quite there yet
Post a Comment