The purpose of justice

[Orko]

I would like to start a discussion about what do you think is/should be the purpose of the judicial system.
In my eyes, there are four purposes to the judicial system, and here they are in andom order:
1.Rehabiliation
2. Retalitaion
3. Security of society
4. Detterance

The first one means that prisons and punishment serve as a way to rehabiliate criminials, so that they learn not to commit crimes anymore, to make beneficial to society. It is also against capital punishment(how can you make anybody learn from his mistakes or be a better person when you don't give them a second chance, bu just kill them?).

The second one is a little bit like legal revenge. It is sort of a "You did something wrong, you deserve to pay for it" way of thinking. An eye-for-an-eye method.

The third one is putting criminals in prison and punishing them so that the general public won't have to suffer them. It doesn't care about the criminals themselves, but about society.

The fourth one means, that punishment exists in order to terrify people, so that they won't even think about comitting crime, because of the consequences. This one supports, I think, harsher punishment for most crimes, because it's the only way to keep people out of it.

So which one, in your mind, is/should be the main purpose of legal punishment? Is it the combination of 2, 3 or perhaps all of them?
discuss.

[kesa82]

Rehabilitation --- the problem with this is the problem I have with psychology ; Thank God it doesn't work / is so primitive ! Because people will abuse that power . If you just want to be nice to people, then be nice to people. It's less trouble.

retaliation --- good idea. If we went back to public executions, public flogging, etc, we might see , tangibly, that our power lust, vanity, legislative mania, has gotten completely out of hand. Or maybe not ?
Anyway, as things currently stand the way things are arranged now the results of our exercise of power are most often concealed. For example, no doubt you must be surrounded by people with permanent criminal records, daily suffering the consequences thereof, but you wouldn't know it because of course they aren't going to tell you if they don't have to.
The trouble with retaliation is, as Gandhi said , " An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. "

Security of society --- I like this one too. It's merely a painful necessity. it has its fundamental problem too though . The problem is that what constitutes a threat is potentially a matter of a definition that has no logical limit. It can be spun out to infinity.
An extreme example of this is the progression that occurred in the National Socialist German workers party. In the beginning the Jews and the Bolsheviks were the threat. In the end though, old party members were also considered a threat and were being hanged. Hitler youth, little boys who just wanted to go home, were being shot as deserters.

Deterrence --- I honestly don't believe in it. That is, I think people really refrain from doing things because of personal reasons such as " God sees what I'm doing , and if I did that God might not like me. "
( that is deterrence of course, but it is internal. The state has nothing to do with it. ) or because of empathy ; I would like to smack the stuffing out of that little girl, but, if I put myself in her shoes, how would I feel if someone smacked me upside the jaw ?
All of that is learned at home, with but rare if any exceptions.
Then you have the species of sociopath who concludes that since this is ALL there is, and DEATH is inevitable, you might as well rape and murder for fun while you can , and NOTHING deters them.
Then there is the species of sociopath who IS deterred by prison or execution from indulging murder as hobby. Except that they always find legal, socially exceptable ways.......to do basically just that anyway.
For example, maybe he can't literally kill somebody, but he can assassinate someones character, which effectively ruins their life. And maybe that is even funner ?

[gambit]

In our world where you are free to believe what you want, deterrance is most important to keep order I think. While rehabilitation is the only way we're ever gonna get anything done, progress wise, (prison systems are terrible in that department) it's never gonna make a big enough impact past without using absolute mind control or theres a global revolution in thinking

[Strelok]

What I agree with, in order:

1. Security of society
2. Rehabilitation

I don't care about anything else.

[Spiff]

What I agree with, in order:

1. Security of society
2. Rehabilitation

I don't care about anything else.

Would you be fine with prisons being equipped as 5 star hotels?

[Strelok]

Would you be fine with prisons being equipped as 5 star hotels?

No, because its a disbenefit to the rest of the society for the money it would cost to build and maintain such prisons.

[Spiff]

You never said anything about the disbenefit to society before.. only security and rehabilitation. Security is taken care of so long as the criminal is isolated from society - so surely if the only other concern is rehabilitation then cost should be irrelevant so long as it increases the chances of success.

How do you determine a suitable expense to a society in the name of rehabilitation?

[kesa82]

Would you be fine with prisons being equipped as 5 star hotels?

Geez, a petty misdemeanor, don't pay the bail or the fine, will give you a weekend in jail, and I soo wish people would do that.

[motiv-8]

What I agree with, in order:

1. Security of society
2. Rehabilitation

I don't care about anything else.

You don't care about deterrance? Why not?

[Strelok]

You never said anything about the disbenefit to society before.. only security and rehabilitation

Because that wasn't on the list. I was picking from the list.

so surely if the only other concern is rehabilitation then cost should be irrelevant so long as it increases the chances of success.

It does have less relevence, for sure. As for the maximum budget, I don't know. At least it's not building a bridge to nowhere, or laying off people who sit in a desk laughing at people losing their homes all day. Tax money would be efficiently spent on people like this, IMO. When I say rehabilitation, I am primarily talking about people who have psychopathic disorders, as for people who don't fit that criteria, again, I am not sure.

How do you determine a suitable expense to a society in the name of rehabilitation?

I definitely haven't crunched the numbers. I'm unsure, in general. I shall examine this, now that you have mentioned it.

You don't care about deterrance? Why not?

Better to persuade, or get into their hearts, than to sway their actions by fear, IMO. Even if it's less effective.

Is my method effective on a financial basis, no. Will my method ever be implemented in a society, probably not. Would it work well? I don't know.

[Spiff]

It does have less relevence, for sure. As for the maximum budget, I don't know. At least it's not building a bridge to nowhere, or laying off people who sit in a desk laughing at people losing their homes all day. Tax money would be efficiently spent on people like this, IMO. When I say rehabilitation, I am primarily talking about people who have psychopathic disorders, as for people who don't fit that criteria, again, I am not sure.

So how would you change the current prisons to take whatever element there is of punishment and deterrence out of the system? Assuming you'd say these elements are currently in the system.

Im not entirely sure I understand either way, it reminds me of someone saying that no sane person would commit a crime thereby risk social exclusion, therefore all criminals are insane and as a result free from liability, requiring only treatment for their condition.

Then again maybe some people are victims of their own psychology.

[Strelok]

So how would you change the current prisons to take whatever element there is of punishment and deterrence out of the system? Assuming you'd say these elements are currently in the system.

They definitely wouldn't be five star hotels. Now, when I said I didn't care about them, I was ending at that. I'm not sure if in my fantasy-dream-world if there would be explicit steps to have it taken out. Overall, it would be a lot like some prisons are today, generally dull, every-day is a specific routine, you get your specified meals a day, you sleep and repeat. You're restrictied of quite a bit of freedom which can act as an indirect form of punishemnt (and detterence) but mainly so that:

A. So that prisons are not higher standards of living than "normal" life (I mean: that's just stupid)
B. Make it harder to actually escape the compound (and hence protect the society).

At the same time, my ideal judicial system would mean that pot smokers and tax evaders simply just do not go to prison.

[QUOTE=Spiff;6851255]Im not entirely sure I understand either way, it reminds me of someone saying that no sane person would commit a crime thereby risk social exclusion, therefore all criminals are insane and as a result free from liability, requiring only treatment for their condition.[/quote[I wasn't trying to say all criminals are insane, but I also want ones that are to be noticed and to have a chance at rehabilitation.

Then again maybe some people are victims of their own psychology.

Pretty much. They are victims to themselves and their victims are unfortunate consequences of their mental prison.

[Tankbuster]

Don't forget symbolism: that's also important (although it's usually a combination of retaliation and deterrance).

For example I think people involved in genocides and other horrific crimes (like nazi criminals, for example) should be tried and punished no matter how old they are, or how they've changed in the meantime or repented their actions.

[kesa82]

Don't forget symbolism: that's also important (although it's usually a combination of retaliation and deterrance).

For example I think people involved in genocides and other horrific crimes (like nazi criminals, for example) should be tried and punished no matter how old they are, or how they've changed in the meantime or repented their actions.

My theory is that republicanism gave us Hitler. So I'll be sharing the dock with a lot of people. That's gonna be a real looong trial. Suits me just fine.

[motiv-8]

Better to persuade, or get into their hearts, than to sway their actions by fear, IMO. Even if it's less effective.

Ah, well, personally I see deterrance as the former rather than the latter, but I see what you're saying.

[Elfdude]

One of the first things you learn in psychology is the nature of positive and negative reinforcement and punishment. It's generally recognized that arbitrary punishment accomplishes little; however positive and negative reinforcement accomplishes a great deal. Thus I've always toyed with the idea of a society that runs by encouraging people to be good rather than punishing them for doing wrong.

I have no idea if it would work but it throws in a fifth possible solution to the judicial system.

[Adrian]

none of the above a combination of all a social defense measure preventive rehabilitation should be second but should be present.

[spanish_emperor]

Laws were created because a long time ago humans discovered that the only way to survive and prosper in this life is by living peacefully together.

I have no idea if it would work but it throws in a fifth possible solution to the judicial system.

It would but this would require sacrifice from governments and society but we live in a world where no one wants to sacrifice

[Kjertesvein]

So, is the real world data which can confirm what works best?