You can't "confound" retribution with justice. If something is retribution it is, by definition, part of justice.
If that act isn't part of justice, then it's not retribution.
It might be the case that set of things that can be called retribution is zero. But, if that's the case, then Bob is incorrect in calling the thing he says isn't part of justice "retribution."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, Many theories of justice reject the idea of retribution. It is not part of these theories. Some people don't accept doing bad things to those who've done wrong for no other reason than they've done wrong as a given.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, Many theories of justice reject the idea of retribution. It is not part of these theories. Some people don't accept doing bad things to those who've done wrong for no other reason than they've done wrong as a given.
Then they believe that retribution doesn't exist. And therefore, the things Bob is saying are retribution and not justice, are not actually retribution.
it's a perfectly good word. There's no need to mess with it's definition to make a point.
Oh, and "doing bad things to those who've done wrong for no other reason than they've done wrong" is not what retribution is.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Entry Word: retribution Function: noun Text: the act or an instance of paying back an injury with an injury <the villain kidnapped the superhero's girlfriend in retribution for overthrowing his plans to destroy the city> -- see REVENGE
I think the "see Revenge" at the bottom pretty much sums up my understanding of modern usage of the word "retribution"
I don't think "justice" requires repaying "injury for injury"
It may be possible for society to view revenge as "just punishment" but the two are separable, and I think normal usage is such that the words "revenge" and "retribution" are much stronger in connoting matching the "punishment" to the exact nature of the crime -- "an eye for an eye", than is the word "justice" which is broader and less strict in implying that the punishment be of exactly the same nature as the original act.
At any rate, that is how I am using the term, and I think M-W is in agreement with me.
We could argue semantics, or we could try to puzzle out whether "justice" demands a death in this instance, or if that feeling is coming from some other human emotion or need.
I submit that it is.
If you'd rather not call it retribution, then call it revenger. Or call it "squiggle" for all I care.
The point is that justice could be served in many ways other than the death of this man.
I suspect that people's need for revenge or retribution (or "squiggle") could not.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't accept your definition of retribution any more than I accept your defintion of justice. Retribution means to pay back, nothing more. You may want to include in this "only when it's just", but that's not actually the definition of the word.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, and "doing bad things to those who've done wrong for no other reason than they've done wrong" is not what retribution is.
Err...as far as I can tell, yes it is. Retributive justice is the theory that the act of doing something bad makes it just to have something bad done to you. This punishment can be mixed with a whole mess of other motives, such as preventative or rehabilitation, but that's the meaning of retributive justice. It's often known as paying one's debt to society.
Perhaps you'd care to share why this isn't so.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll go with Merriam Webster Thesaurus on this:
I'll see your merriam webster and raise you dictionary.com:
quote:ret·ri·bu·tion Audio pronunciation of "retribution" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rtr-byshn) n.
1. Something justly deserved; recompense. 2. Something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment. 3. Theology. Punishment or reward distributed in a future life based on performance in this one.
Or, we could go with the definitions that are used in the actual field.
quote:It may be possible for society to view revenge as "just punishment" but the two are separable
Which is why there's a word "revenge" and there's a word "retribution." They're separate concepts and they have separate words.
There are people who argue that revenge is retribution. Many of them support the death penalty. And, of course, many opponents of the death penalty then sieze on that definition and come out against the idea of just dessert in general.
Similarly, there are those who appreciate the distinction and don't believe the death penalty is warranted in this case.
quote:We could argue semantics
It's not semantics, it's an important concept. Does the concept of moral debt exist? If so, what is it.
Beyond that, calling me on "semantics" when you spent a whole post distinguishing between two different words is really cheap.
quote:I don't accept your definition of retribution any more than I accept your defintion of justice. Retribution means to pay back, nothing more. You may want to include it as only when it's just, but that's not actually the definition of the word.
There are indeed lots of people who like to redefine the terms used by those who disagree with them. There is an incredibly large set of literature about the distinction between retribution and revenge and the importance of retribution as a means of keeping criminal punishment schemes from being too harsh.
Just because you find it more convenient to use an unnuanced defintion to casually dismiss the concept doesn't mean I have to play the game.
quote:Err...as far as I can tell, yes it is. Retributive justice is the theory that the act of doing something bad makes it just to have something bad done to you. This punishment can be mixed with a whole mess of other motives, such as preventative or rehabilitation, but that's the meaning of retributive justice. It's often known as paying one's debt to society. Perhaps you'd care to share why this isn't so.
The key principle of retribution is proportionality - that is, that the limit of what the state can do in response to an act is related to the moral wrong encompassed by that act.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm unclear as to what point you think that proved. Perhaps you could offer some elaboration with your scolding.
edit: Oh you did. Proportionality is important, but I don't see how that invalidates what I said. It is, in fact, doing bad stuff to people with the sole justification that they did bad stuff themselves, yes? And, to people who reject the idea that this is just, proportionality is completely irrelevant.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are two distinct "flavors" of retributive justice. The classical definition embraces the idea that the amount of punishment must be proportional to the amount of harm caused. A more recent version, advocated by Michael Davis, dismisses this idea and replaces it with the idea that the amount of punishment must be proportional to the amount of unfair advantage gained by the wrongdoer. Davis introduced this version of retributive justice in the early 1980s, at a time when retributive justice was making a resurgence within the philosophy of law community, perhaps due to the practical failings of reform theory in the previous decades. This was to many a breath of fresh air into a theory that had been all but abandoned decades prior, particularly in the United States. There currently appears to be a greater amount of discussion about the difference between these two flavors of retribution than between retribution itself and the other theories of punishment.
quote:The idea that we should treat people as they deserve is commonly accepted. We do not think that war criminals should be allowed to live carefree lives after committing unspeakable crimes against humanity.
However, there is a dangerous tendency to slip from retributive justice to an emphasis on revenge. Vengeance is a matter of retaliation, of getting even with those who have hurt us. It can also serve to teach wrongdoers how it feels to be treated in certain ways. Like retribution, revenge is a response to wrongs committed against innocent victims and reflects the proportionality of the scales of justice. But revenge focuses on the personal hurt involved and typically involves anger, hatred, bitterness, and resentment. Such emotions are potentially quite destructive. Because these intense feelings often lead people to over-react, resulting punishments can be excessive and cause further antagonism.
In addition, punishments dictated by revenge do not satisfy principles of proportionality or consistency. This is because revenge leads to punishments that vary according to the degree of anger provoked. Wrongs that do not provoke anger will receive no response. Acts that provoke a great deal of anger will, on the other hand, provoke an overly intense response and lead to reciprocal acts of violence.
For example, resentment about past injustice can "motivate people who otherwise live peaceably to engage in torture and slaughter of neighbors identified as members of groups who committed past atrocities."[4] Devastating inter-group violence in the form of mass killings can result.
It is not surprising that revenge seldom brings the relief that victims seek. The victim simply gets caught up in feelings of hatred.[5] Vengeful motives lead individuals to exact more than necessary, causing even further harm and setting in motion a downward spiral of violence.[6] Once there is this sort of violence break over, it is difficult to break out of the cycle of revenge and escalation. Overly harsh punishments do not make society any more secure and only serve to increase the level of harm done. In addition, in an atmosphere of heightened violence, there is little room for apology or forgiveness for wrongs committed.
Many believe that "the victim should not seek revenge and become a new victimizer but instead should forgive the offender and end the cycle of offense."[7] However, forgiveness does not take the place of justice or punishment, nor does it rule out giving the wrongdoer his just deserts.
Some say that retribution is unethical and that two wrongs do not make a right. While the Christian Ideal is to "turn the other cheek" before seeking retribution for a wrong, it is hard to reconcile biblical accounts of "just stonings" with the latter forgiveness embodied by Jesus. On the other hand, this effect can be attributed to other justifications for the offense, rather than simple retaliation. Some subscribe to The Golden Rule rather than retaliation.
And your second link is written by someone who clearly accepts the punihsment is part of justice:
quote:Many believe that "the victim should not seek revenge and become a new victimizer but instead should forgive the offender and end the cycle of offense."[7] However, forgiveness does not take the place of justice or punishment, nor does it rule out giving the wrongdoer his just deserts.
. I never argued that people didn't have this as their basic assumption, just that many theories of justice didn't.
edit: Proportionality distinguishes retribution from revenge, but it is not a central feature for those who disagree with the basic assumption that people who did something bad incur some sort of debt that can only be paid by having bad things done to them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is, in fact, doing bad stuff to people with the sole justification that they did bad stuff themselves, yes?
That's like saying the sole justification for killing in self defense is that they tried to kill you first. The right to life, personal autonomy, and, yes, just dessert, all play a role in the justifications for self defense.
Similarly, there are lots of moral principles between "X did wrongful act Y" and "society should punish X." Not everyone agrees on the steps between them. Condensing it down to the "sole justification" you did is not accurate.
Retribution is the idea that something is due as a matter of justice. If nothing is ever due as a matter of justice, then there's no such thing as retribution.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And many people believe that there is not something due as a matter of justice, and therefore reject the idea of retribution. To them, this makes actions taken in the name of retribution akin to vengence, although, as you have been so good as to point out, it is proportional vengence.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I never argued that people didn't have this as their basic assumption, just that many theories of justice didn't.
I never said you did. What I did say is that if someone thinks that retribution is not part of justice, then they think retribution does not exist. Retribution is intimately tied to the idea of punishment being deserved as a matter of justice. If there is no punishment that is deserved as a matter of justice, then there is no retribution.
quote:edit: Proportionality distinguishes retribution from revenge, but it is not a central feature for those who disagree with the basic assumption that people who did something bad incur some sort of debt that can only be paid by having bad things done to them.
But it is a central feature for those who hold a theory of criminal punishment which includes a retributive component.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And many people believe that there is not something due as a matter of justice, and therefore reject the idea of retribution.
Finally! The clouds part!
quote:To them, this makes actions taken in the name of retribution akin to vengence, although, as you have been so good as to point out, it is proportional vengence.
No. It means, to them, that those who believe in retribution are wrong about its existence, and that punishments carried out in the name of retribution will actually be revenge - not retribution.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because someone doesn't include retribution in their theory of justice doesn't mean that it doesn't exist as a fact of the world that they live in. The thing you took Bob to task for was saying that acts of retribution seemed often to serve no purpose other than to fulfill people's need for vengence.
Regardles of whether or not Bob accepts that punishment becomes mandated after someone does something has little bearing on whether or not, in society's eyes, acts of retribution are carried out. So, I'm not sure whence the disagreement.
If this whole path was a semantic argument about your definition of retribution, I still don't agree with you. Retribution means paying back (or from your link, recompense) and exists external to concerns about whether this is just or not. The specialized definition you're positing is no doubt common among people who support the idea of Retributive Justice, but it in no way fully encapsulates how the word has been and is currently used.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thing you took Bob to task for was saying that acts of retribution seemed often to serve no purpose other than to fulfill people's need for vengence.
No. I took him to task for say that justice is often confounded with retribution.
quote:Regardles of whether or not Bob accepts that punishment becomes mandated after someone does something has little bearing on whether or not, in society's eyes, acts of retribution are carried out. So, I'm not sure whence the disagreement.
Because I'm trying to get people to at least acknowledge that "retribution" means more than "vengeance." I doubt you'd accept the dictionary definition of schizophrenia in a conversation about mental illness. Why would we accept the dictionary definition in a similarly well-developed field of moral philosophy. The word "retribution" has a lot of meaning behind it.
quote:If this whole path was a semantic argument about your definition of retribution, I still don't agree with you. Retribution means paying back (or from your link, recompense) and exists external to concerns about whether this is just or not.
Or, from my link, "Something justly deserved; recompense."
Even the idea of paying back which you keep harping on carries an implicit concept of moral valuation, else how could it be "paying back."
Revenge is "To inflict punishment in return for (injury or insult)." There's no concept of the moral weight of the original wrongdoing.
Retribution, even if we stick with your oversimplified definition, does carry the idea of moral weighing.
It's a HUGE difference, and I'd like it to be appreciated even by those who disagree with the concept.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that there is a difference between retribution and vengence, but I don't agree that this difference is one of moral weighing. Rather it is, as your second link above points out, one of proportionality. Revenge still carries an implied moral weighing and conforms to the idea that those who have done wrong deserve wrong to be done to them. It just often takes a much less limited form.
Schizophrenia is a precise medical term. It is owned by a particular group of experts as a term describing a specific thing. The same is not true for retribution. It does not belong to the people who advocate Retributive Justice.
The definition you are asserting changes the common definition of the term as a foundational argument. It insinuates the idea that pay back is necessarily just. I get that this is the accepted definition among people who accept this insinuation, but it does not conform to the fullness of how this word has been and is currently being used.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Some say that retribution is unethical and that two wrongs do not make a right. While the Christian Ideal is to "turn the other cheek" before seeking retribution for a wrong, it is hard to reconcile biblical accounts of "just stonings" with the latter forgiveness embodied by Jesus. On the other hand, this effect can be attributed to other justifications for the offense, rather than simple retaliation. Some subscribe to The Golden Rule rather than retaliation.
Wow, that's pretty poignant. Ha!
The discrepancy in quality from one Wikipedia article to the next is sometimes amazing.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree that there is a difference between retribution and vengence, but I don't agree that this difference is one of moral weighing. Rather it is, as your second link above points out, one of proportionality. Revenge still carries an implied moral weighing and conforms to the idea that those who have done wrong deserve wrong to be done to them. It just often takes a much less limited form.
Revenge is harm committed in response to injury or insult - both of which are defined by the recipient, neither of which have moral weight. This is exactly why I even brought this up: Bob was equating the death penalty with the needs of society.
Vengeance is from the perspective of the wronged. Justice is from the perspective of a central morality. The difference is phenomenally important.
quote:Schizophrenia is a precise medical term. It is owned by a particular group of experts as a term describing a specific thing. The same is not true for retribution. It does not belong to the people who advocate Retributive Justice.
"Schizo" is very commonly (mis)used to denote multiple personality disorder.
Both "science" and "theory" have had their definition radically changed by a group of experts who insist on precise usage within that field.
I've had people here insist that "abortion isn't murder" because it's not against the law - despite the fact that there is a definition outside the law by which it would be considered murder.
quote:The definition you are asserting changes the common definition of the term as a foundational argument.
No, it doesn't. Rather, it insists on the preservation of the actual meaning of the term within the field of inquiry, just as the Creationist Police here on Hatrack jump on the word theory when someone says evolution is "just a theory."
Retribution isn't "just" vengeance. It isn't based on the "sole justification" that harm deserves harm.
quote:I get that this is the accepted definition among people who accept this insinuation,
The equation of "retribution" with "vengeance" is a common means for those who don't except it to dismiss it out of hand.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Retribution isn't "just" vengeance. It isn't based on the "sole justification" that harm deserves harm.
Well, it sounds like it's based on the justification that a certain amount of harm deserves a certain "proportional" amount of harm. Does that sound fair?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is interesting. Instead of discussing the merits of including retribution in a system of justice, instead try and convince the opposition that their definition of the word is not really what they think it is!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bringing the topic back around to Moussaoui and the death penalty, I offer this article by Elaine Cassel for reasons why Moussaoui should not be executed.
These reasons include:
quote: His defense attorneys -- back on the case now, after the judge found him not competent to represent himself at the sentencing -- are sure to bring up the fact that FBI agents who arrested Moussaoui in August 2001 (on a visa violation when the flight school's suspicions were aroused and reported to the FBI ) did not believe he was telling them the truth and had many grounds for suspicion.
Agents believed that he was taking flight lessons in preparation for hijacking planes. They asked prosecutors for a search warrant for his computer but were denied. Prosecutors also refused to authorize a criminal investigation into Moussaoui's activities. FBI Agent Colleen Rowley testified to these events at the 9/11 Commission hearings.
The government had the means to find out more about Moussaoui prior to the attacks but did not do so. And, one has to wonder, even if Moussaoui had described the 9/11 plot in detail, would he have been believed? Would he have had more credibility with prosecutors than the FBI agents who voiced their concerns?
and
quote: Indeed, his defense attorneys had presented expert psychiatric testimony to this effect -- suggesting that he was suffering from a delusional disorder, perhaps even schizophrenia. However, U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema found the prosecution's experts more credible than those of the defense, ruled Moussaoui competent, and accepted his plea.
But in spite of Judge Brinkema's ruling, Moussaoui's competence is doubtful. Ever since his first court appearance in December 2001, his behavior in the courtroom has been erratic, marked by insults to the judge and his lawyers, rants against the United States, and boasts of martyrdom.
quote:This is interesting. Instead of discussing the merits of including retribution in a system of justice, instead try and convince the opposition that their definition of the word is not really what they think it is!
I agree that there's been a bit of hair-splitting in this thread, but if we're going to discuss whether a certain activity is good or bad we'd better at least know what it involves.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Indeed, his defense attorneys had presented expert psychiatric testimony to this effect -- suggesting that he was suffering from a delusional disorder, perhaps even schizophrenia. However, U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema found the prosecution's experts more credible than those of the defense, ruled Moussaoui competent, and accepted his plea.
But in spite of Judge Brinkema's ruling, Moussaoui's competence is doubtful. Ever since his first court appearance in December 2001, his behavior in the courtroom has been erratic, marked by insults to the judge and his lawyers, rants against the United States, and boasts of martyrdom.
He's sane there's no question about it. Brainwashed maybe, but definetly sane. If you ask me, no matter what Moussaoui says hes better off dead than alive. He is no use in a hostage exchange situation because even his own leaders don't like him. Moussaoui is perfectly sane if you ask me because while he may appear quite delusional, he is often very aware of what is going on around him. He seems eager to die but at the same time he also gives reasons for his life to be spared. If you ask me I think Moussaoui is trying his best to confuse the jury on what he wants his sentence to be. In my opinion he should get life in prison because its better for him to rot away in some jail cell and live with what he did, than to die a quick (and painful) death.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Retribution is not just the idea that "something is due" or that a moral debt is incurred. It is specifically the idea that if a person causes x amount of harm the moral debt can be paid by f(x) amount of harm caused to that person.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is specifically the idea that if a person causes x amount of harm the moral debt can be paid by f(x) amount of harm caused to that person.
That's clearly incomplete. For one, there are many systems of retribution-based punishment that take mental state into account - something not directly related to the harm caused.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not semantics, it's an important concept. Does the concept of moral debt exist? If so, what is it.
Beyond that, calling me on "semantics" when you spent a whole post distinguishing between two different words is really cheap
Dag:
1) you brought it up.
2) I'm perfectly happy to accept whatever definition you want to use for "retribution"
3) My point has nothing whatsoever to do with the terms "retribution" and "revenge" and everything to do with whether justice demands the death of this man.
I'd be interested in a discussion of that.
I'm not at all interested in a semantic discussion and wouldn't have engaged in it at all except for the fact that you seemed to ignore the substance of my post, and used a definition of terms to negate my point without addressing it.
I'm not sure whether this is something you enjoy, or if it really is important to you that if a term has a strict definition in the legal profession you inject a bit of precision here. If it's that latter, that's fine. I'm always up for learning new things about the legal profession and its wonderful use of the English language.
this being Hatrack, it appears a lot more people are interested in pinning down the definitions of "justice" "retribution" and "revenge."
In which case, I just have to note that the religious definitions of the terms probably pre-date those used currently by the legal profession. So...I think Dana trumps you.
And...the main point at which M-W and dictionary.com agree is on the point about religious connotations.
Anyway, perhaps you'd like to offer some synonyms for the word "justice" and we could see how well they match with the concept of "retribution" or include that as the best possible rubric.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Indeed, his defense attorneys had presented expert psychiatric testimony to this effect -- suggesting that he was suffering from a delusional disorder, perhaps even schizophrenia. However, U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema found the prosecution's experts more credible than those of the defense, ruled Moussaoui competent, and accepted his plea.
But in spite of Judge Brinkema's ruling, Moussaoui's competence is doubtful. Ever since his first court appearance in December 2001, his behavior in the courtroom has been erratic, marked by insults to the judge and his lawyers, rants against the United States, and boasts of martyrdom.
He's sane there's no question about it. Brainwashed maybe, but definetly sane. If you ask me, no matter what Moussaoui says hes better off dead than alive. He is no use in a hostage exchange situation because even his own leaders don't like him. Moussaoui is perfectly sane if you ask me because while he may appear quite delusional, he is often very aware of what is going on around him. He seems eager to die but at the same time he also gives reasons for his life to be spared. If you ask me I think Moussaoui is trying his best to confuse the jury on what he wants his sentence to be. In my opinion he should get life in prison because its better for him to rot away in some jail cell and live with what he did, than to die a quick (and painful) death.
And you know this because you are a competant pscychologist who has examined him I assume.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude all you have to do is read the paper. 99% of the terrorists that come out of places like afganistan are brainwashed. What makes him different? Even Moussaoui himself brushed off the defenses arguement of insanity.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:In which case, I just have to note that the religious definitions of the terms probably pre-date those used currently by the legal profession. So...I think Dana trumps you.
I wasn't aware it was a contest about whose definition is the real one. Unless your point is that depending on which definition is the 'best' one, all arguments about it must flow from there?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That could be included in whatever function is chosen for f().
I don't think that's quite fair, because mental state is another, distinct variable, which leads to far more complexity than suggested by f(x). And, yes, we could say it's really f(xy), but then I'd come up with another variable that's taken into account.
If you want to say that f(x,x1,..xn) is a discrete function with a different formula for any given value of x,x1,..xn, I'd agree.
My principle issue is that retribution is being over-simplified by those who don't believe in it.
quote:and used a definition of terms to negate my point without addressing it.
I wasn't negating your post at all. I have expressed no opinion on the conclusion that there's no benefit to executing Moussoui.
As you said, your perfectly happy using "revenge" to express that thought.
quote:it really is important to you that if a term has a strict definition in the legal profession you inject a bit of precision here
It's basically because it's come up in several recent threads and words are being used imprecisely. It is important to me, because a wide spectrum of what I believe about criminal justice has been casually swept aside with people stating the "obvious" conclusion that retribution is bad, without considering things like proportionality and the moral underpinnings of why deterrence is acceptable.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, what's so just about bad things happening to bad people?
I think the trouble is that there are no bad people - there is only the illusion of bad people, caused by the fact that we cannot see into the minds of others to fully understand why they do the bad things they do.
quote:It is unless you've redefined the word.
It means "that which is justly deserved."
I think the debate is not just about the word, "justice". The definitions of words are arbitrary. We are talking about the concept of justice, which is what it is and cannot be redefined. There is a good deal of disagreement on the nature of that concept, how to describe it, and how to apply it.
To simply state that it means "that which is justly deserved" suggests that there is some sort of agreement on that definition, which is very much not true. Plato spent whole books, including The Republic, to try to describe what justice is. If you want to propose a definition, it will probably take a good deal of reasoning to back it up.
Furthermore, "that which is justly deserved" is a circular way of describing justice, because it includes "justly" in it. What distinguishes "justly deserved" from "not justly deserved"? I would say the punishment that is necessary to pursue the greater good may be "justly" deserved. I would say retribution for the sake of retribution is NEVER "justly" deserved. That is not to say that retribution doesn't exist. That is just to say that retribution is inherently unjust if there is no reason to do it other than for the sake of retribution.
quote:Retribution is the idea that something is due as a matter of justice. If nothing is ever due as a matter of justice, then there's no such thing as retribution.
This is not an accurate definition of the concept of retribution. Retribution, it is saying, is whatever justice demands. But by that logic, retribution would never be unjust. Yet I think it's clear that most people conceive of retribution as a thing that is often above and beyond justice. "I want retribution" they say, but will often admit that the thing they demand is not just, but is nevertheless what they want. Similarly, as has been pointed out, many people conceive of justice as a thing that does not entail retribution. Hence "what is justly deserved" to them is not retribution, meaning retribution must mean more than simply "what is justly deserved."
I think a more accurate description of retribution is "something done to someone to pay back some moral debt they have incurred." It is different from revenge because revenge is not concerned with righting moral debts; it is about personal grudges. You can take revenge on someone who did nothing wrong, but that merely did something you didn't like. However, retribution could also different from justice because may not require payment for moral debts. It could be just to forgive moral debts.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think that's quite fair, because mental state is another, distinct variable, which leads to far more complexity than suggested by f(x). And, yes, we could say it's really f(xy), but then I'd come up with another variable that's taken into account.
If you want to say that f(x,x1,..xn) is a discrete function with a different formula for any given value of x,x1,..xn, I'd agree.
Well, if you guys want to get technical..,
So long as f is given in units of harm to the wrongdoer, and for some nonzero f, the x_i don't contain any non-punishment good accomplished by the harm, I maintain that retributive justice is indefensible.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh, my mistake. I thought about that, but I think I channeled Porter or something. The smiley a sentence later actually led me to think, "OK, that was a joke clearly, hence the smiley...was this?" Sorry. Ahh, to be unsleep deprived Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So long as f is given in units of harm to the wrongdoer, and for some nonzero f, the x_i don't contain any non-punishment good accomplished by the harm, I maintain that retributive justice is indefensible.
Good isn't found in the variables. The good derived from a punishment is g(f(x,x1,..xn)), and it is never non-zero.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Well...it just feels like "justice was done" right up to the point where we discover the guy was innocent all along.
I understand that from the legal definition of retribution, if it turns out the sentence was a mistake then it's automatically NOT retribution. But the point I've been making all along is that it (the punishment) was there to satisfy some baser human need (one other than justice).
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's nothing particular unique or damaging about wrongful convictions in a retributive system as opposed to others. In fact, deterrence and incapacitation are at least (I'd say more) likely to lead to a harsher sentence.
The possibility of wrongful conviction exists independent of the type of punishment to be imposed. It is a reason for tempering all types of punishment with mercy. But the wrongful conviction and subsequent punishment is not inherently there to satisfy some baser human need.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That last sentence was independent of the point about wrongful conviction...or punishment of the wrong person.
I look at it this way: - revenge (or retribution in the common use of the term) is often satisfied by attacking people who are like or in some way (even vague way) supported the person who actually committed the crime.
- justice is not.
I look at the Iraq war as a prime example of this. Iraqis were not behind the attacks on 9/11, nor were they providing material support to the terrorists who had attacked us. And yet, in the Administration's ramp up to attacking Iraq, much was made of Saddam's supposed complicity. Later, as it became abundantly clear that Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, that was changed to Saddam was capable of doing the same sorts of things. As that too became less certain, the change was to something like "Saddam would've liked to be capable of doing..."
Clearly, in some folks minds (including our Administrtion's), Afghanistan and targetting Al Qaeda was not enough retribution (or revenge), regardless of whether justice was served.
I know that some will try to disagree with this assessment of the progression of Administration statements on Iraq, but it is pretty well documented in the public record, and I do think it's not a stretch to talk about it in terms of revenge (or retribution).
Now, we have this guy who was kicked out of the local "cell" for being too unstable. He had knowledge of something and we've got him in a place where he can't do any further harm.
I submit that there is no sense of the word "justice" that demands his death.
I submit that there are reasons to kill him that relate to retribution (or revenge).
Whether there are other...less base...human needs served by killing him is immaterial to me. If anything, they just provide a balm to spread over the event after the fact so some can try to claim that this was really a good and reasonable use of the death penalty.
But...read the words above carefully, please, this time.
Justice does not DEMAND his death.
A sense of revenge does.
Beyond that...we can speculate on how people might rationalize this, but I want us all to realize before we kill this man, that there is no reason that we MUST kill him.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That last sentence was independent of the point about wrongful conviction...or punishment of the wrong person.
My point was that this statement: "Well...it just feels like 'justice was done' right up to the point where we discover the guy was innocent all along" is true whether the punishment was served up for retribution, revenge, deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, or all or some of these. Assuming we want to have a sense when we punish someone that "justice was done," (and I hoppe to God we do), then ANY wrongful conviction which we think correct at the time will result in us feeling like "'justice was done' right up to the point where we discover the guy was innocent all along."
It seems you agree with that.
quote:Whether there are other...less base...human needs served by killing him is immaterial to me. If anything, they just provide a balm to spread over the event after the fact so some can try to claim that this was really a good and reasonable use of the death penalty.
This statement seem to be stating that YOU understand the true motivation behind people's statements to the contrary and are substituting your judgment for theirs. The "good" reasons don't matter, because the retribution reasons exist. It's one thing to say "I think it would be unjust to kill this man" or "I think justice can be served without killing this man."
It's another thing entirely to say that non-revenge-based reasons for killing this man are just a "balm." You go from "justice does not demand his death" to "there are reasons to kill him that relate to revenge." Although you seem to acknowledge that there might be reasons to kill him that relate to justice, you rather casually dismiss those reasons.
quote:A sense of revenge does.
Clearly, a sense of revenge does not demand execution, since there are people who want him kept alive so he'll suffer longer. Revenge can justify killing him or imprisoning him. Justice can justify both as well, especially if we're going to use phrases like "no sense of the word 'justice.'"
The accurate way to sum this up would be:
1.) Justice does not demand his death. 2.) A sense of revenge does not demand his death. 3.) A sense of revenge can be used to justify his death. 4.) Justice can be used to justify his death.
P.S., I miss the Prosecutor thread. If you have the state and a newspaper cite, I would put that in my paper.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
