LogFAQs > #906391863

KhanJohnny posted...

Sure, but deterrence and retribution can often be at odds as well, significantly in the death penalty context where life imprisonment highly deters, but may not announce the same retributive message as an execution.

Whether it's "useless" or not is a matter of perspective, but I think it's a hard argument to make. People were outraged in the case of Brock Turner because his actions may have an harmful effect on that young woman for the rest of her life, but he was only punished for half a year with a few more of probation.

It is likely that he will not reoffend, but is there nothing to be said for a more proportionate punishment?

It is likely that he will not reoffend? Despite getting off so easily the first time? I don't see how you can make that argument without admitting you're totally guessing.

And naw its not a matter of perspective, its a matter of priority. If your priority is a better, safer society, then deterrence is actually useful whereas retribution is not. If your priority is revenge, but you don't actually care about the effect on society or what happens in the future, then yeah retribution is the way to go.

I actually don't think this is even much of a debate, its pretty clear one is objectively beneficial to society and the other is not.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.