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

[Humanbeing]

Many people they claim that various crimes deserve death penalty and lifelong or long term (or short term) torture even if those crimes don't directly cause death. Particularly henious crimes involving something sexual or children or other vulnerable classes. The assumption is that the victim will face permanent unmanageable suffering for the rest of their life. But is this really the case ? One of the goals of therapy is to ensure that one no longer meets the diagnostic criteria and that the trauma doesn't interfere with their normal life as they see it. In light of these , how can torture or death penalty be justified from a purely retributive perspective

[LuckyR]

Many people they claim that various crimes deserve death penalty and lifelong or long term (or short term) torture even if those crimes don't directly cause death. Particularly henious crimes involving something sexual or children or other vulnerable classes. The assumption is that the victim will face permanent unmanageable suffering for the rest of their life. But is this really the case ? One of the goals of therapy is to ensure that one no longer meets the diagnostic criteria and that the trauma doesn't interfere with their normal life as they see it. In light of these , how can torture or death penalty be justified from a purely retributive perspective

In my opinion the death penalty (and torture) as punishment by the state cannot be supported. Not because I think that the death penalty is too harsh, but because of the relatively high wrongful conviction rate and the unequal application of it along racial and social status lines.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, there have been far too many examples of wrongful conviction. So there is that, and also, I can't see how you can teach people that it is wrong to kill people by killing people. And if punishment, rather than setting an example, is your goal, then punishment may be better achieved by keeping a criminal alive in prison and deprived for life of all those things that make life worth living.

Still, when a serial killer who tortures and murders is executed and there is no doubt about guilt, I can't say I feel he has been wronged by his execution, even though it may, in principle, be always wrong to kill people. Of course, in war it's different, we have to kill or be killed, but in that case I would say that war is wrong in principle and that we shouldn't do it unless we are being aggressed and invaded.

[Humanbeing]

Many people they claim that various crimes deserve death penalty and lifelong or long term (or short term) torture even if those crimes don't directly cause death. Particularly henious crimes involving something sexual or children or other vulnerable classes. The assumption is that the victim will face permanent unmanageable suffering for the rest of their life. But is this really the case ? One of the goals of therapy is to ensure that one no longer meets the diagnostic criteria and that the trauma doesn't interfere with their normal life as they see it. In light of these , how can torture or death penalty be justified from a purely retributive perspective

In my opinion the death penalty (and torture) as punishment by the state cannot be supported. Not because I think that the death penalty is too harsh, but because of the relatively high wrongful conviction rate and the unequal application of it along racial and social status lines.

Honestly if we are to ever make rehabilitation the primary goal of prison. We also need to find a way to address the feelings of victims. In the case of Jeffrey dahmer and Tedd Bundy , what would justice look like ?

I feel like without addressing the concerns of the public. Even rehabilitation wouldn't work because rehabilitation depends on an offender being accepted back. Wouldn't enforcing this means

I feel like of all the goals of punishment such as retribution , deterrance, incapacitation and restitution. Rehabilitation is something that truly lacks definition. Even SEP (Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy) doesn't provide a coherent definition of this

[LuckyR]

Many people they claim that various crimes deserve death penalty and lifelong or long term (or short term) torture even if those crimes don't directly cause death. Particularly henious crimes involving something sexual or children or other vulnerable classes. The assumption is that the victim will face permanent unmanageable suffering for the rest of their life. But is this really the case ? One of the goals of therapy is to ensure that one no longer meets the diagnostic criteria and that the trauma doesn't interfere with their normal life as they see it. In light of these , how can torture or death penalty be justified from a purely retributive perspective

In my opinion the death penalty (and torture) as punishment by the state cannot be supported. Not because I think that the death penalty is too harsh, but because of the relatively high wrongful conviction rate and the unequal application of it along racial and social status lines.

Honestly if we are to ever make rehabilitation the primary goal of prison. We also need to find a way to address the feelings of victims. In the case of Jeffrey dahmer and Tedd Bundy , what would justice look like ?

I feel like without addressing the concerns of the public. Even rehabilitation wouldn't work because rehabilitation depends on an offender being accepted back. Wouldn't enforcing this means

I feel like of all the goals of punishment such as retribution , deterrance, incapacitation and restitution. Rehabilitation is something that truly lacks definition. Even SEP (Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy) doesn't provide a coherent definition of this

As to the goals of criminal punishment. Rehabilitation is both extremely desirable and usually impossible to achieve. Thus overall, a low priority. Vengeance is philosophically bankrupt (I'm not sure if that's what you mean by victim's feelings). To me the main goal should be public safety. Thus incarceration without killing or torturing.

[Humanbeing]

Many people they claim that various crimes deserve death penalty and lifelong or long term (or short term) torture even if those crimes don't directly cause death. Particularly henious crimes involving something sexual or children or other vulnerable classes. The assumption is that the victim will face permanent unmanageable suffering for the rest of their life. But is this really the case ? One of the goals of therapy is to ensure that one no longer meets the diagnostic criteria and that the trauma doesn't interfere with their normal life as they see it. In light of these , how can torture or death penalty be justified from a purely retributive perspective

In my opinion the death penalty (and torture) as punishment by the state cannot be supported. Not because I think that the death penalty is too harsh, but because of the relatively high wrongful conviction rate and the unequal application of it along racial and social status lines.

Honestly if we are to ever make rehabilitation the primary goal of prison. We also need to find a way to address the feelings of victims. In the case of Jeffrey dahmer and Tedd Bundy , what would justice look like ?

I feel like without addressing the concerns of the public. Even rehabilitation wouldn't work because rehabilitation depends on an offender being accepted back. Wouldn't enforcing this means

I feel like of all the goals of punishment such as retribution , deterrance, incapacitation and restitution. Rehabilitation is something that truly lacks definition. Even SEP (Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy) doesn't provide a coherent definition of this

As to the goals of criminal punishment. Rehabilitation is both extremely desirable and usually impossible to achieve. Thus overall, a low priority. Vengeance is philosophically bankrupt (I'm not sure if that's what you mean by victim's feelings). To me the main goal should be public safety. Thus incarceration without killing or torturing.

What makes it impossible to achieve ? I would guess those would be external factors. Because I don't think internally people in prison want to be hated everywhere or be ostracised. I would guess that enough should be a reason why rehabilitation is possible

[LuckyR]

In my opinion the death penalty (and torture) as punishment by the state cannot be supported. Not because I think that the death penalty is too harsh, but because of the relatively high wrongful conviction rate and the unequal application of it along racial and social status lines.

Honestly if we are to ever make rehabilitation the primary goal of prison. We also need to find a way to address the feelings of victims. In the case of Jeffrey dahmer and Tedd Bundy , what would justice look like ?

I feel like without addressing the concerns of the public. Even rehabilitation wouldn't work because rehabilitation depends on an offender being accepted back. Wouldn't enforcing this means

I feel like of all the goals of punishment such as retribution , deterrance, incapacitation and restitution. Rehabilitation is something that truly lacks definition. Even SEP (Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy) doesn't provide a coherent definition of this

As to the goals of criminal punishment. Rehabilitation is both extremely desirable and usually impossible to achieve. Thus overall, a low priority. Vengeance is philosophically bankrupt (I'm not sure if that's what you mean by victim's feelings). To me the main goal should be public safety. Thus incarceration without killing or torturing.

What makes it impossible to achieve ? I would guess those would be external factors. Because I don't think internally people in prison want to be hated everywhere or be ostracised. I would guess that enough should be a reason why rehabilitation is possible

Why? I don't know (I/we can guess), but the stats bear it out.