Why do we punish criminals?

Why do we punish criminals?

To feel better after being criminalized

To make them stop wanting to be criminals.

Not that it actually works but that's the idea anyway.

>piss off tribe
>tribe tortures you

To make other criminals fearful of doing the same.

So why we don't punish non-criminals, as they are also potential criminals?

Because that'd make non-criminals needlessly afraid of potential punishment for no reason. That doesn't set a good example.

- revenge
- removal
- reformation
- dissuasion

These four goals are contradictory and prevent each other from being implemented efficiently.

But this irrational, counterproductive situation is more popular than any alternative.

>These four goals are contradictory and prevent each other from being implemented efficiently.
How so?

Is there a reason for punishing criminals tho? Because "preventing crime" can be applied to criminals and potential criminals

Revenge becomes a cycle and excludes dissuasion, whereas dissuasion would preclude the need for revenge.

Removal also negates the need for reformation as how do you reform a nonentity? Whereas if you managed to reform a criminal to a satisfactory degree, why remove him?

Revenge and removal can go together. They prevent reeducation because they antagonize the people who committed crimes and create a criminal class.
They also are surprisingly not very well associated with dissuasion, as it turns out that people get accustomed to violence and tend to reproduce it (look for example at urban blacks in the US).
Dissuasion and reeducation are antithetical because effective education requires cooperation and thus an alleviated sort of punishment.

Yes, so potential criminals won't become criminals. I don't understand your conmection to punishing non-crimimals, that makes no sense

this guy is probably psychotic, don't bother

because ooga booga muh moral responsibility

>Yes, so potential criminals won't become criminals.
Well what about people that didn't commited a crime? They are also potential criminals, so they deserve to be punished.
yeah m8 fok of my thred

Probably because it works in stopping crime and removes criminals from society?
>The autism ITT

>They are also potential criminals, so they deserve to be punished.
No, the action is the issue not the thought

Depends on the punishment. It may be.
1. To stop them from doing it again.
2. To make the cost/risk of committing the crime outweigh potential benefits of committing the crime.
Punishment only exists for those two reasons, really. It add a variable into the cost assessment of shitty actions. This way, people who are on the fence about doing shitty things decide to be good, well behaved children instead of shitheads.
Let's pull a Kant for a moment. Imagine all the shit you would do if it wasn't illegal, and there was no punishment for it. Now imagine everyone did that. For a lot of you, you'd probably skimp on your taxes. But sadly we actually need the bureaucratic nightmares that are our respective governments. Society is harder without them.

Instead of letting them laze around in government complexes, we create factories run exclusively by sl--prisoner labour, the need for sl--free prisoner labour will make the government go for harsher punishments, without the need to create more complex and unecessary laws, this will also greatly limit activism and syndicate movement, since, work conditions will be much better than in sl--prisoner factories.
This is what I think is best.

You've just invented slavery.

>Probably because it works in stopping crime
Well, people are punished AFTER they commit a crime.
> removes criminals from society?
What is the point in removing criminals tho?
So you are saying that crimr leads to more crime?
>1. To stop them from doing it again.
We can also punish non-criminals to stop them from doing it for the first time
>2. To make the cost/risk of committing the crime outweigh potential benefits of committing the crime.
That sounds reasonable

desu I think I'd unironically prefer Roman slavery in the Empire to the American prison system.
At least there's a chance for social rehabilitation and learning useful skills, plus you can buy your way out of it.

He just invented the American justice system.

That's what i said.

> They are also potential criminals, so they deserve to be punished.
Face it user, you just want somebody to punish you. And you know what? You deserve to be punished, you naughty, naughty boy.

I didn't say potential criminals should be punished, ever. I said criminals should be punished, so potential criminals won't become criminals (and thus need to be punished). Why the fuck would someone punish a potential criminal?

So you're saying that punishment prevents crime?

That's the idea, yes. That punishing someone will stop other people from doing what they did, and stop them from doing it again.

> pseudo-intellectuals

>hehehehe for me reddit and rick and morty have all the answers to life
>#metoo
>burps

The most logical answer is to disincentivise others from commiting said crimes. It is supposed to work on both the criminal and the rest of society.

In American the effects on the criminal are inverse, but the effects on society at large seems to work, but it is hard to say.

>punish
>being a retributist pleb

You don't 'punish' criminals you remove them to maximize utility/ minimize disutility.

Death

Because Justice for the sake of Justice is ingrained in our being and necessary for us to maintain our humanity. Human values should not be deconstructed.

You cant stop crime until you genetically prevent low empathy.

cause fuck em

>Human values should not be deconstructed
Says you.

...

wannabe socrates OP getting btfo as usual

Oh okay you're redpilled, nevermind.

So that other people do not commit crimes in fear of the same punishment.

It's so easy to punish people for crimes in 1st world countries that the only people who commit them are the extremely stupid or the suicidal. This has dropped the crime rate massively.

Let the ones they hurt hurt them accordingly. For example if person X kills person Y's son, let person Y do what they want with the murderer.

boner nooo

People commit crime unless they fear punishment. If you're in a position to commit a crime and get away with it, you'll probably do it.
See: people chimping out in riots despite having no previous criminal record.

For whatever they did.
/thread

>What is the point in removing criminals tho?
Well I hate to use the cliche people say in the form of hypocrisy but "every killer we kill can never kill again" is true

If a capital crime, public hanging.

If anything else, ____ amount of years of forced labor.

I mean, if you do nothing then there's little incentive in society to not do the thing.

itt: op pretending to be aristotle but doesnt have the brain capacity to do it and pucked a stupid topic
humanities continues to be a mistake

Jailing, execution, amputation - to prevent them from committing more crime

Fines - to prevent people from doing it unless they're rich enough of the profits are great enough to justify it

Because God says so.

CASTRATION BY ACID

Revenge or reform 2bh

America tries their schizo method of trying both at the same time with poor results.

Nordicks try their reform method nut that only works on humans, most criminals are animals on human skins.

The true patrician method is that of authoritarian regimes, killing all those who oppose the official order.

I never understood this thing about punishment as life in prison.
Why not just make all criminals work to death in Gulag tier prisons, only pay they receive is food.
Why should law abiding citizens pay taxes to house these neets faggots who sit all life in prison and do nothing?

Because then they start jailing people who pirate vidya because the rich folks that control government need more literal slaves they don't need to pay wages for.

I assume you've never been in a situation where you have absolutely no control of your own life.

That shit is demoralizing in a way that most people don't seem to understand.

Nice observation.
Well i did mean criminals. If you don't want to lose control of your own life, then you shouldn't break the law and become a criminal.
Punishment like this would be even more fearful to potential criminals.

Fear of punishment is of limited use when A) the criminals don't intend to get caught B) the environment they already inhabit offers consequences that are far worse than the state can ever hope to achieve, see all Mexican drug cartels.

But to return to the point of how uncomfortable being denied freedom is. I've been arrested by the police twice due drunken antics and each time the time I spent hungover in jail cell was the worst in my life. They don't tell you anything, they provide the bare minimum of human contact and the constant din of the hangover over all this makes it for a very shitty experience.

The feeling that you can't do anything to change your circumstances for the better is a highly demoralizing one.

Justice

A few reasons:
- Punishing satisfies wronged parties and their families/friends, reducing the chance of them carrying out vigilante justice. This preserves order.
- It (hopefully) deters other potential criminals or repeat offenders. This creates a sense of actions having consequence. Basically a form of conditioning.
- Many punishments have a dual purpose of isolating dangerous people from the wider society. While in isolation, attempts to educate or morally reform criminals can also be made, so they fit back into society.
- It demonstrates the power of the state which gives it stability and discourages potential usurpers or separatists through a monopoly on force. The concept of a social contract and existing authorities are legitimized.
- People can ignore moral codes and common decency but they can't ignore being locked up in jail or executed. In this way, punitive force can facilitate cooperation because those /without the required sense of fairness have a concrete motive for doing good instead of an abstract one.
- In some cases, things like fines help fund the state or community service may undo damage to society directly. In tort law, compensation can directly benefit a plaintiff for what they've lost.

Because being "tough on crime" is no actual guarantee of reduced crime rates? Traumatizing prisoners is not going to make them less fucked up when they reenter society. If anything it will just make criminals more desperate to avoid prison - most of the shitty countries in the world have a similar approach to yours.

>"human values" exist

Because batman can't be everywhere at once.

You see this guy gets it.

Justice. If people who behave well deserve to be treated better, then the opposite is also true.

The only useful form of punishment is forced labour

to remove them as a threat to society, to inflict consequence for actions taken that are counter to the community's welfare, what else?

I'm just glad I don't control a nation's justice system, because I would do shit like take all the criminals and make for them a city in the middle of nowhere, like a desert. They get to live their life their however they want, no restrictions except one. They're all fitted with a bomb collar around their neck, and if they try to leave the city or remove it, it goes off and has just enough explosive to separate the head from the neck.

But if you kill the killer, aren't you the killer?

Yes but humans have always believed that killing is ok under certain circumstances.

Well humans have always been wrong.

because they committed crimes. The goal is to discourage other people from following the criminal's example.

To birth is to kill. Antinatalism is the only way.

The only way for what? To cause all humans to die?

All humans will die anyways

the punishment exists because crime hasn't stopped
and that does not deter other people from committing crime
>jail someone for theft
>he gets out some years later
>he has no job and is probably pretty pissed
>decides to rob another citizen to get some money to get high

WOW this punishment system sure works wonders!

Punishment is necessary, if some paki raped my daughter I would want him to suffer in every way imaginable. Even if it does not help with his "rehabilitation".

we should be rehabilitating them.

To scare other people into not doing crimes. Pretty sociopathic if you think about it.

Punishment should only exist for 3 reasons.

One to physically remove the offending individual from society through execution or exile.
Two to segregate a potentially useful individual from the general public but put them to some use for society.
Three two extract monetary compensation from foreign criminal for damages caused to your society.

"I know you just refuted my point, but I'm going to ignore that there's anybody else in this thread"

Seriously just write this shit in a fucking text file, or at least continue your practices in futility in private

If you are going punish both crimminals and non-crimminals, how does that stop would-be-crimminals?

"What is the point of not doing crime if I will be punished anyway?"

My thinking:

Remove him from general society until such a time as he can be reformed (which might not happen).

If reforming is unlikely (not everyone will be all good, all the time, but they can be good enough, enough of the time) or less practical (can be too expensive to apply to any small infraction), try to dissuade would-be crimminals: fines, surveillance, blacklisting, etc.

Ofc, proper socialization would reduce the need for the above.