Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belindi]

In addition I'd point out that the word 'deserve' applies perhaps to divine justice, but not to this world in which tit for tat is impossible due to our not being God.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there. I said nothing about "divine justice" (whatever that is), and I gave examples of the meaning of "deserves" as used in ordinary speech. Are you suggesting that it is impossible to determine what people deserve, or that the word is too ambiguous to be useful?

Please define "justice" and "deserves" as you understand those terms.

Retributive punishment is justifiable only to the extent that it shows the criminal themself and would be criminals the disapproval of society. When victims of crime express how glad they are when the aggressor is named and brought to justice that is exactly what they are glad of. They seldom want their pound of flesh.

Well, every civil lawsuit belies that claim. What is sought in all of them is compensation for damages allegedly done to the plaintiffs. That should be the objective in criminal prosecutions as well --- the convicted defended forced to work, as long as necessary, to compensate the damages he has done or the losses he inflicted. I agree with you that retributive punishment --- the mere infliction of pain or deprivation as "payback" for pain inflicted by the criminal --- is pointless, except (as you say) to the extent it acts as a deterrent. But it does not result in justice --- securing to each person what he is due. The victim's losses remain uncompensated.

I mean it's impossible to ascertain just deserts. For instance how can there be just deserts for a criminal who has murdered your child?

Compensation for damages is an exception to what I claimed. If a criminal has stolen something it's reasonable to assess how much money it is worth.

[GE Morton]

I mean it's impossible to ascertain just deserts. For instance how can there be just deserts for a criminal who has murdered your child?

No, it isn't. "Just deserts" does not necessarily imply "replacement." It doesn't require the impossible. It only requires compensation to the extent it can be accomplished. There are, for example, well-established standards for determining damages in wrongful death suits, for loss of income, loss of consortium, pain and suffering, emotional distress. Those should be applied to deliberate murderers as well as to negligent drivers who accidentally kill someone.

A restitution hearing would follow conviction in a criminal trial, and the damages owed would be determined in the same way as in civil suits. The costs to the State to investigate his crimes, apprehend, try, and confine him would be added to that restitution obligation. The defendant would then be sentenced to work, at whatever tasks for which he was qualified, for as long as it took to settle that debt. If it took the rest of his life, so be it.

[Belindi]

I mean it's impossible to ascertain just deserts. For instance how can there be just deserts for a criminal who has murdered your child?

No, it isn't. "Just deserts" does not necessarily imply "replacement." It doesn't require the impossible. It only requires compensation to the extent it can be accomplished. There are, for example, well-established standards for determining damages in wrongful death suits, for loss of income, loss of consortium, pain and suffering, emotional distress. Those should be applied to deliberate murderers as well as to negligent drivers who accidentally kill someone.

A restitution hearing would follow conviction in a criminal trial, and the damages owed would be determined in the same way as in civil suits. The costs to the State to investigate his crimes, apprehend, try, and confine him would be added to that restitution obligation. The defendant would then be sentenced to work, at whatever tasks for which he was qualified, for as long as it took to settle that debt. If it took the rest of his life, so be it.

Your criterion then relates to whatever the law dictates. It's impossible to cite absolute justice as a criterion, as perhaps you would agree.

[GE Morton]

Your criterion then relates to whatever the law dictates. It's impossible to cite absolute justice as a criterion, as perhaps you would agree.

I have no idea what "absolute justice" might be. Justice is only requires what is possible.

That criterion, however, is not "whatever the law dictates." If a law dictates something less than full compensation, and the latter is possible, then the law itself is unjust.

[Belindi]

Your criterion then relates to whatever the law dictates. It's impossible to cite absolute justice as a criterion, as perhaps you would agree.

I have no idea what "absolute justice" might be. Justice is only requires what is possible.

That criterion, however, is not "whatever the law dictates." If a law dictates something less than full compensation, and the latter is possible, then the law itself is unjust.

I really think that you should think about abandoning the possibility of absolutes in any human endeavour including administration of justice

[GE Morton]

I really think that you should think about abandoning the possibility of absolutes in any human endeavour including administration of justice

I just did, in the previous post. But there are some absolutes in administration of justice, just as there are in any other field of inquiry or practice. Without them the governing theories would have no foundations. E.g., in physics the gravitational constant and speed of light are absolutes; in economics the law of supply and demand are absolutes; in mathematics the theorems of set theory are absolutes. In any moral theory its axioms are taken as absolutes.

What a criminal defendant owes his victims is also absolute, for the most part, because the market value of their losses can be determined empirically.

[Belindi]

I really think that you should think about abandoning the possibility of absolutes in any human endeavour including administration of justice

I just did, in the previous post. But there are some absolutes in administration of justice, just as there are in any other field of inquiry or practice. Without them the governing theories would have no foundations. E.g., in physics the gravitational constant and speed of light are absolutes; in economics the law of supply and demand are absolutes; in mathematics the theorems of set theory are absolutes. In any moral theory its axioms are taken as absolutes.

What a criminal defendant owes his victims is also absolute, for the most part, because the market value of their losses can be determined empirically.

But morality and politics, which is partly an offshoot of ethics, are arts not sciences. Do you really think that the damage done by a brutal rapist is quantifiable?

[GE Morton]

But morality and politics, which is partly an offshoot of ethics, are arts not sciences. Do you really think that the damage done by a brutal rapist is quantifiable?

It is to some extent. If medical treatment, counseling, loss of income are involved, those costs are quantifiable. Awards for pain and suffering usually reflect a jury's estimate of what it would take to provide the victim with some sense of satisfaction. Of course, that amount cannot be precisely calculated. Are you suggesting that because it because it cannot be precisely calculated, the victim should receive nothing?

What is "absolute" here is that crime victims must receive restitution if justice is to be served. If losses cannot be precisely calculated, then best estimates are sufficient. While those may not be perfectly just, it is less unjust than awarding victims nothing.

For most other crimes --- robbery, burglary, theft, embezzlement, arson, fraud, etc., losses can be determined quite precisely.

[Belindi]

But morality and politics, which is partly an offshoot of ethics, are arts not sciences. Do you really think that the damage done by a brutal rapist is quantifiable?

It is to some extent. If medical treatment, counseling, loss of income are involved, those costs are quantifiable. Awards for pain and suffering usually reflect a jury's estimate of what it would take to provide the victim with some sense of satisfaction. Of course, that amount cannot be precisely calculated. Are you suggesting that because it because it cannot be precisely calculated, the victim should receive nothing?

What is "absolute" here is that crime victims must receive restitution if justice is to be served. If losses cannot be precisely calculated, then best estimates are sufficient. While those may not be perfectly just, it is less unjust than awarding victims nothing.

For most other crimes --- robbery, burglary, theft, embezzlement, arson, fraud, etc., losses can be determined quite precisely.

I think that your remuneration suggestion is a good one, and certainly victims should not have to pay costs including all the costs you mention. Victims of crimes have been heard to say that they feel satisfied that justice has been done but this was because the accused had been brought to justice and punished not because of remuneration. I doubt that if my nearest and dearest was murdered I would never feel any satisfaction that the murderer had paid for the crime, and a suggestion that remuneration could make up for the suffering and loss would insult me and the victim.

[GE Morton]

I doubt that if my nearest and dearest was murdered I would never feel any satisfaction that the murderer had paid for the crime, and a suggestion that remuneration could make up for the suffering and loss would insult me and the victim.

If a victim or his/her survivors would feel insulted by payments, they could always forgive their shares of the restitution obligation, allowing the criminal to be freed earlier. But I think most would see those monthly restitution checks as evidence that the thug was still paying, and take satisfaction from that.

[LuckyR]

It is to some extent. If medical treatment, counseling, loss of income are involved, those costs are quantifiable. Awards for pain and suffering usually reflect a jury's estimate of what it would take to provide the victim with some sense of satisfaction. Of course, that amount cannot be precisely calculated. Are you suggesting that because it because it cannot be precisely calculated, the victim should receive nothing?

What is "absolute" here is that crime victims must receive restitution if justice is to be served. If losses cannot be precisely calculated, then best estimates are sufficient. While those may not be perfectly just, it is less unjust than awarding victims nothing.

For most other crimes --- robbery, burglary, theft, embezzlement, arson, fraud, etc., losses can be determined quite precisely.

I think that your remuneration suggestion is a good one, and certainly victims should not have to pay costs including all the costs you mention. Victims of crimes have been heard to say that they feel satisfied that justice has been done but this was because the accused had been brought to justice and punished not because of remuneration. I doubt that if my nearest and dearest was murdered I would never feel any satisfaction that the murderer had paid for the crime, and a suggestion that remuneration could make up for the suffering and loss would insult me and the victim.

Currently, felons are weighted towards the economically challenged. And any meager wealth accumulated by these felons would likely be best spent (from the perspective of society) in keeping the felon's kids out of the welfare system.

[Belindi]

I think that your remuneration suggestion is a good one, and certainly victims should not have to pay costs including all the costs you mention. Victims of crimes have been heard to say that they feel satisfied that justice has been done but this was because the accused had been brought to justice and punished not because of remuneration. I doubt that if my nearest and dearest was murdered I would never feel any satisfaction that the murderer had paid for the crime, and a suggestion that remuneration could make up for the suffering and loss would insult me and the victim.

Currently, felons are weighted towards the economically challenged. And any meager wealth accumulated by these felons would likely be best spent (from the perspective of society) in keeping the felon's kids out of the welfare system.

That's a practical fact worth pointing out. And I agree with your recommendation.

[GE Morton]

Currently, felons are weighted towards the economically challenged. And any meager wealth accumulated by these felons would likely be best spent (from the perspective of society) in keeping the felon's kids out of the welfare system.

Ah, so saving money for taxpayers (who have no duty to finance anyone's welfare in the first place) takes priority over securing justice for crime victims. The "criminal justice system" becomes a "criminal welfare system."

[Belindi]

GEMorton, do you agree that societies exist and have to be paid for in some fashion?

If not, how do you think people are going to do activities such as trade?

[GE Morton]

GEMorton, do you agree that societies exist and have to be paid for in some fashion?

If not, how do you think people are going to do activities such as trade?

"Societies" don't need to be paid for, but certain functions and the institutions which perform them, e.g., maintaining a rule of law, defense, managing natural commons, supplying certain public goods, must be paid for if the society is to provide the advantages for which it is sought. Providing for everyone's personal welfare, however, is not one of those functions. That is the responsibility of each individual member of the society.