Stoppelmann wrote: ↑March 27th, 2023, 10:08 amYes indeed, you read well. This is a very astute understanding of what Lewis was trying to say in that essay. When it comes to punishment, if one is to respect the dignity and autonomy of the one being punished, retributive justice cannot be abandoned. Things like deterrence or reform can never simply replace the retributive aspect of punishment.Leontiskos wrote: ↑March 25th, 2023, 11:26 pm The trouble is that there are different and competing moral theories used to explain law, and law is in one sense a natural phenomenon rather than a merely positive phenomenon. Law is not a fully rationally transparent construction. It is an amorphous amalgamation of historical human governance.Reading what Lewis has to say is really interesting, and the fact that the criminal is no longer punished for what he morally “deserves,” (retributive justice) because he should have known better, which is judged by someone who interprets the law, instead his punishment is a deterrent, making him an example for others or a means to an end. Or his punishment is a means to “cure” him (or her) of a supposed disorder is truly a change to what was initially intended. It shifts the expertise from the judge to a psychologist or psychiatrist, and lumps the criminal together with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals, who do not know better, instead of being seen a human being who behaved erroneously and to the detriment of society.
Yet vengeance, properly defined, is an essential part of law and justice. I might recommend C.S. Lewis' famous essay, "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment." *
* http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ResJud/1954/30.pdf
Lewis makes the point that such measures make his punishment morally questionable, if there is no question of him “deserving” it, because he, as a fully responsible human being, should have known better. And, as we have sometimes had reason to ask, is making someone an example and a deterrent for others dependant upon them having committed the crime? We have had reason to ask when the evidence was flimsy, but a racial or political bias apparent, or the police were looking for a quick conclusion of the investigation and excessive sentences were issued.
Thank you, it is an important aspect.
Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.