Current Events > Is the primary purpose of punishment retribution or deterrence?

(+) Yeah! (+)

What should our primary motivation be in punishing criminal behavior?

Both. Though it'd be hard to deter in a way that doesn't qualify as retribution too, anyway.
---

Scenario:

Say a young college aged male is convicted of raping a fellow college student, because he acted inappropriately while both were drunk.

The male, who is fully remorseful and has a 0% chance of ever raping anyone ever again, is given a prison sentence of two weeks.

Should that be enough? Punishment beyond that does not achieve the goal of further deterrence because the student is already adequately deterred nor will it make him more rehabilitated because he has already expressed remorse throughout the trial phase.

How do you know the college student isn't going to repeat that act?
---

retribution.
---

Hexenherz posted...

How do you know the college student isn't going to repeat that act?

It's a hypothetical.

But let's say you bring in a psychologist with expertise in such matters, and she states that based on his psychological profile, demographic information, past experiences, and expression of remorse that there is a minuscule chance of reoffending.

Hypothetically, im awesome.
---

Rehabilitation>=specific deterrence>general deterrence>punishment, IMO.
---

ThePieReborn posted...

Rehabilitation>=specific deterrence>general deterrence>punishment, IMO.

So then you think that the type of sexual assault perpetrator in my hypothetical should be given a very lenient sentence then?

Basically that the Brock Turner sentencing was correct, inasmuch as my hypo was essentially a rephrasing of that case.

it seems to be more about retribution to me, but idk
---

ThePieReborn posted...

Rehabilitation>=specific deterrence>general deterrence>punishment, IMO.

So you would be ok living in a society with a lot of crime so long as the individual doesn't repeat? Have 1 rape on uncle sam?
---

I go

deterrence > rehabilitation > punishment

i want low crime
i want offenders to be able to reintegrate into lawful society
once those are accomplished, I want there the sentence to carry a sense of justice. many white collar criminals it seems like there is a lack of justice with the sentencing.
---

KILBOTz posted...

I go

deterrence > rehabilitation > punishment

i want low crime
i want offenders to be able to reintegrate into lawful society
once those are accomplished, I want there the sentence to carry a sense of justice. many white collar criminals it seems like there is a lack of justice with the sentencing.

So you think the rehabilitation of a criminal should outweigh the concerns of the family and society in seeing an evil deed punished?

deterrence and if possible rehabilitation is what matters. vengeance is pure emotion and useless for society
---

KhanJohnny posted...

KILBOTz posted...

I go

deterrence > rehabilitation > punishment

i want low crime
i want offenders to be able to reintegrate into lawful society
once those are accomplished, I want there the sentence to carry a sense of justice. many white collar criminals it seems like there is a lack of justice with the sentencing.

So you think the rehabilitation of a criminal should outweigh the concerns of the family and society in seeing an evil deed punished?

Clearly. You think its worth that criminal committing another crime just so the family can get their revenge porn?
---

ThyCorndog posted...

deterrence and if possible rehabilitation is what matters. vengeance is pure emotion and useless for society

Why is it useless? Isn't the entire purpose of a criminal justice system to cede the power of vengeance to the state in order to prevent endless bloodfeuds?

If the state will categorically refuse to seek retribution against criminals, then won't this encourage private parties to seek vengeance for themselves?

KhanJohnny posted...

ThePieReborn posted...

Rehabilitation>=specific deterrence>general deterrence>punishment, IMO.

So then you think that the type of sexual assault perpetrator in my hypothetical should be given a very lenient sentence then?

Basically that the Brock Turner sentencing was correct, inasmuch as my hypo was essentially a rephrasing of that case.

I don't think mere statements of remorse or even testimony from a psychologist or w.e saying as much is sufficiently indicative of rehabilitation to warrant leniency. If restitution payments or community service were involved along with statements of remorse, I could potentially see it.

KILBOTz posted...

So you would be ok living in a society with a lot of crime so long as the individual doesn't repeat? Have 1 rape on uncle sam?

I don't see how my lower ranking indicates that it's apparently unimportant. Should I have added some extra >'s after general deterrence for clarity's sake?
---

nicklebro posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

KILBOTz posted...

I go

deterrence > rehabilitation > punishment

i want low crime
i want offenders to be able to reintegrate into lawful society
once those are accomplished, I want there the sentence to carry a sense of justice. many white collar criminals it seems like there is a lack of justice with the sentencing.

So you think the rehabilitation of a criminal should outweigh the concerns of the family and society in seeing an evil deed punished?

Clearly. You think its worth that criminal committing another crime just so the family can get their revenge porn?

Not at all. Deterrence, rehabilitation, and retributivism are not all completely at odds. It's a matter of priorities.

I wouldn't call for retribution, while leaving deterrence off the table, of course.

KhanJohnny posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

deterrence and if possible rehabilitation is what matters. vengeance is pure emotion and useless for society

Why is it useless? Isn't the entire purpose of a criminal justice system to cede the power of vengeance to the state in order to prevent endless bloodfeuds?

If the state will categorically refuse to seek retribution against criminals, then won't this encourage private parties to seek vengeance for themselves?

Its useless compared to the other two. And not to mention deterrence helps with retribution anyways.
---

KhanJohnny posted...

KILBOTz posted...

I go

deterrence > rehabilitation > punishment

i want low crime
i want offenders to be able to reintegrate into lawful society
once those are accomplished, I want there the sentence to carry a sense of justice. many white collar criminals it seems like there is a lack of justice with the sentencing.

So you think the rehabilitation of a criminal should outweigh the concerns of the family and society in seeing an evil deed punished?

yes. i think the order i listed provide the point where stability and productivity meet at the maximum which.
---

KhanJohnny posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

deterrence and if possible rehabilitation is what matters. vengeance is pure emotion and useless for society

Why is it useless? Isn't the entire purpose of a criminal justice system to cede the power of vengeance to the state in order to prevent endless bloodfeuds?

If the state will categorically refuse to seek retribution against criminals, then won't this encourage private parties to seek vengeance for themselves?

them being locked away from society for a length appropriate for the crime they committed should be vengeance enough. their lives are disrupted or completely taken away from them. when they do get out, if they get out, they'll have most likely lost their jobs, and any relationships they were in will most likely be gone or extremely strained. for some incredibly heinous crimes they probably won't even leave prison. for more minor ones, what exactly do you want? aside from some sort of death penalty argument you want to try and start, I'm not sure where you're going with the whole vengeance thing
---

I don't necessarily think that one takes precedence over another.
---

nicklebro posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

deterrence and if possible rehabilitation is what matters. vengeance is pure emotion and useless for society

Why is it useless? Isn't the entire purpose of a criminal justice system to cede the power of vengeance to the state in order to prevent endless bloodfeuds?

If the state will categorically refuse to seek retribution against criminals, then won't this encourage private parties to seek vengeance for themselves?

Its useless compared to the other two. And not to mention deterrence helps with retribution anyways.

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?

ThyCorndog posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

deterrence and if possible rehabilitation is what matters. vengeance is pure emotion and useless for society

Why is it useless? Isn't the entire purpose of a criminal justice system to cede the power of vengeance to the state in order to prevent endless bloodfeuds?

If the state will categorically refuse to seek retribution against criminals, then won't this encourage private parties to seek vengeance for themselves?

them being locked away from society for a length appropriate for the crime they committed should be vengeance enough. their lives are disrupted or completely taken away from them. when they do get out, if they get out, they'll have most likely lost their jobs, and any relationships they were in will most likely be gone or extremely strained. for some incredibly heinous crimes they probably won't even leave prison. for more minor ones, what exactly do you want? aside from some sort of death penalty argument you want to try and start, I'm not sure where you're going with the whole vengeance thing

I am not really trying to enter a capital punishment argument at all. I think the Brock Turner case is a lot more interesting .

There you have a young man who will likely not reoffend, but the community was so upset by the lack of retribution for his reprehensible actions that they literally voted the judge out of office.

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.
---

Plus another thing, even if Brock doesn't reoffend, his light sentence might lead to someone else committing the same crime because they won't be as afraid of the punishment. So its actually a lack of deterrence and retribution in that case, and the lack of deterrence is far more damaging than the lack of retribution.
---

Theres actually four categories of the criminal justice system:

(1) Retribution
(2) Deterrence
(3) Rehabilitation
(4) Public Safety

Different crimes fall under different categories.
---

That highly depends on what you think benefits society. The many victims of rape, murder, theft don't think that mere deterrence are beneficial to society. They want to see wrongdoers punished.

That is why there are always recurring calls for lengthier sentencing in the United States, much of it far exceeding the necessities of deterrence.

And we actually have very little idea whether deterrence as a sole guiding principle is truly beneficial to society without some measure of retribution intervening, as people will seek revenge themselves or put those into power who will seek revenge for them. Case in point is the Brock Turner case yet again, where the judge who likely deterred Brock with the sentence he was given (this is of course speculation, but most sex offenders do not reoffend, and he as not as of our knowledge in 2018) was voted out of office for failing to implement the retribution which the community believed it was owed.

Again, the Brock case doesn't help your argument because even if your 100% baseless speculation that he won't reoffend is true (I'll restate it here, you're trying to pass off a guess as a fact, stop it) its also true that his light sentence is going to lead to other people committing the same crime because the deterrence of a lengthy sentence wasn't given. You're also claiming to be able to read the minds of the people who voted that judge out.

Basically there's just way too much wrong with your entire argument for it to be accepted as possible, let alone plausible. You're making too many baseless assertions and actually go so far as to act as if there's a chance retribution benefits society more than deterrence. You know what those rape victims want more than lengthy sentences for their attackers? To not have been raped in the first place. Deterrence actually does that, retribution does not.
---

also brock getting off easy isn't an argument for retribution imo. his light sentence means it wasn't very effective as a deterrent and also I highly doubt he's been rehabilitated
---

nicklebro posted...

Again, the Brock case doesn't help your argument because even if your 100% baseless speculation that he won't reoffend is true (I'll restate it here, you're trying to pass off a guess as a fact, stop it) its also true that his light sentence is going to lead to other people committing the same crime because the deterrence of a lengthy sentence wasn't given. You're also claiming to be able to read the minds of the people who voted that judge out.

Basically there's just way too much wrong with your entire argument for it to be accepted as possible, let alone plausible. You're making too many baseless assertions and actually go so far as to act as if there's a chance retribution benefits society more than deterrence. You know what those rape victims want more than lengthy sentences for their attackers? To not have been raped in the first place. Deterrence actually does that, retribution does not.

I'm not reading the minds of people who voted the judge out. There was a specific recall campaign to vote him out for that decision.

There is nothing baseless about the claim that Brock is deterred from reoffending. Most sex offenders do not reoffend, and he has not up to this point. There is no good reason to believe that he is different from most sex offenders, unless you can offer one.

You are also offering no evidence that a lengthier sentence would deter him more or that similarly situated criminals are not sufficiently deterred by the threat of a 6 month sentence and years of probation. That is a statement that requires evidence, since you want to raise the bar of evidentiary support in this discussion so high.

Again, retribution and deterrence are not completely at odds. It is impossible to have a retribution focused system, where deterrence is not a primary by-product. So yes, punishing rapists in proportion with their terrible crimes, will be just as deterring as a system where deterrence is the primary goal. The main difference is that will usually punish beyond what is necessary for deterrence.

ThyCorndog posted...

also brock getting off easy isn't an argument for retribution imo. his light sentence means it wasn't very effective as a deterrent and also I highly doubt he's been rehabilitated

There is no reason a 6 month sentence cannot be highly deterring. The US in general has highly punitive sentencing, and yet we still have more crime than Europeans do, even when they punish severe crimes like murder less harshly than we do.

If we're largely talking about crime. If you do a crime you are either fined or imprisoned for whatever time deemed worthy of the crime. After you pay up that's it you should be able to go back out into the real world and continue living your life.

The USA is particular has the issue where felons don't really get a 2nd chance so they just basically end up back at prison because often they find it hard to get a job or a house which only ends up leaving them resorting to crime to get by. And there's also the issue of people who are falsely accused of a crime or declared guilty and later found incident often have these problems as well.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

If we're largely talking about crime. If you do a crime you are either fined or imprisoned for whatever time deemed worthy of the crime. After you pay up that's it you should be able to go back out into the real world and continue living your life.

The USA is particular has the issue where felons don't really get a 2nd chance so they just basically end up back at prison because often they find it hard to get a job or a house which only ends up leaving them resorting to crime to get by. And there's also the issue of people who are falsely accused of a crime or declared guilty and later found incident often have these problems as well.

Yeah, but the question at hand is determining the "whatever the time deemed worthy of the crime" part.

KhanJohnny posted...

I'm not reading the minds of people who voted the judge out. There was a specific recall campaign to vote him out for that decision.

Yes, and you're saying you know exactly why they didn't like that decision.

I've proved my point. you can keep denying it if you want, but that won't do you any good.
---

nicklebro posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

I'm not reading the minds of people who voted the judge out. There was a specific recall campaign to vote him out for that decision.

Yes, and you're saying you know exactly why they didn't like that decision.

I've proved my point. you can keep denying it if you want, but that won't do you any good.

I mean it's very rare that a recall campaign is initiated to vote a particular judge out of office lol

In fact, that was the first successful recall of a judge in California in 90 years. I can't tell you why each individual voter voted the way he did, but it's clear the movement as a whole stemmed from his decision in that case.

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/6/6/17434694/persky-brock-turner-recall-california-stanford-rape-sentencing

KhanJohnny posted...

I can't tell you why each individual voter voted the way he did

exactly.

Next
---

nicklebro posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

I can't tell you why each individual voter voted the way he did

exactly.

Next

I don't know why you think that is a decisive point lol

I don't know why individuals voted for Donald Trump, but we can be pretty sure it's not because the vast majority of them individually want to support black nationalism or massive Hispanic immigration. We can make pretty good guesses about why people voted for Trump in the aggregate without making claims about why individuals did so.

The same logic applies in this case, except even more strongly. Judges are almost never recalled in the state of California. This judge was recalled after a specific ruling that received national media reporting because of its perceived lenience, and was followed by calls of many people that the judge should be voted out.

If you want to ignore the overwhelming evidence at your fingertips to make a silly point that I can't read the minds of individual voters, feel free lol

KhanJohnny posted...

I don't know

That's pretty clear at this point lol.
---

Retribution.
---

nicklebro posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

I don't know

That's pretty clear at this point lol.

Some lame trolling bro

I read a pretty good, simply written essay on the topic awhile back that argues in favor of retribution, and I'm inclined to agree with the author. Here it is

http://www.jamesrachels.org/punanddes.pdf

I think the most relevant point he makes against deterrence, in the context of this topic, is that a system focused on deterrence does not care if someone is really guilty or not, but that someone, anyone, is punished for the crime because it's better for an innocent person to be punished than for a crime to go unsolved and people see that it's possible to get away with breaking the law (diminishing the deterrence effect)

Pitlord_Special posted...

I read a pretty good, simply written essay on the topic awhile back that argues in favor of retribution, and I'm inclined to agree with the author. Here it is

http://www.jamesrachels.org/punanddes.pdf

I think the most relevant point he makes against deterrence, in the context of this topic, is that a system focused on deterrence does not care if someone is really guilty or not, but that someone, anyone, is punished for the crime because it's better for an innocent person to be punished than for a crime to go unsolved and people see that it's possible to get away with breaking the law (diminishing the deterrence effect)

Thanks for sharing. I do think the author oversimplifies at times. I mean, sure, you could justify punishing anyone under a deterrence rationale because this would achieve the endgoal of a deterrence based system, but I doubt you will find anyone ever advocating such a system (even if this happens in practice which it no doubt certainly does) because it would defeat the foundational goal of the criminal justice system.