Should justice be fair or effective?

[PainRack]

Let's assume that due to advances in science, we are now able to accurately devise means of punishment that will correct criminal behaviour in the future..

For example, for individual A, we are now able to know that just sending him for counselling him will wean him off rape, whereas for Individual B, hard time in prison will be required along with some pyschological torture, and for individual C, nothing short of chemical castration will be required to prevent him from potentially raping another person.


The question now is:

Assume that we now have the option to utterly remove the "punishment" in a corrective sentence. We can correct criminal behaviour with the approiate means and methods, however, since individuals are unique, some people will get off lightly whereas others will be sentenced to heavily undesirable and cruel treatments.

Should punishment then follow our current justice method of being tailored to the crime, or will you advocate that a corrective sentence, even though it may not be "fair" to other criminals who require more harsher methods be used?

[Velthuijsen]

Let the criminal decide.
It would be in the best interest of society to perform this corrective treatment if it always (or close to 100%) stops repeats. For society this would be fair since it would give exactly the amount of treatment needed without spending more then needed to stop it from happening again. For the criminal it would be fair because the criminal would get treated instead of punished for what happened.

Why then let the criminal decide?
What if the treatment is something like in A Clockwork Orange or worse? As a criminal you might want to decide to take the 20 years and see if you can rebuild your life afterwards.

And then there are other ethical implications of this. For example what if the crime is disagreeing with the current ruling party? Especially if this kind of crime is combined with enforced treatment.

[PainRack]

Let the criminal decide.
It would be in the best interest of society to perform this corrective treatment if it always (or close to 100%) stops repeats. For society this would be fair since it would give exactly the amount of treatment needed without spending more then needed to stop it from happening again. For the criminal it would be fair because the criminal would get treated instead of punished for what happened.

Why then let the criminal decide?
What if the treatment is something like in A Clockwork Orange or worse? As a criminal you might want to decide to take the 20 years and see if you can rebuild your life afterwards.

And then there are other ethical implications of this. For example what if the crime is disagreeing with the current ruling party? Especially if this kind of crime is combined with enforced treatment.

Can I ask if this is what you have in mind? Your argument is that two sentences should exist and the criminal can choose between both? A "standard" form of punishment such as jail and etc similar to that now and one meant to correct the behaviour?

Also, we assume that this "science" is not applicable for political crimes and minor offences like speeding. Its only applicable for the "serious" crimes like violent crime, rape, murder and the like.

[Surlethe]

For the sake of clarification, is there any reason we can't saddle the offenders with the standard punishment simultaneously with the corrective treatment?

[ArmorPierce]

So someone can go kill someone that they don't like knowing that they are going to get off pretty much scot free?

Unless the "corrective treatment" is a lobotomy or something... I don't think so.

[petesampras]

Let's assume that due to advances in science, we are now able to accurately devise means of punishment that will correct criminal behaviour in the future..

For example, for individual A, we are now able to know that just sending him for counselling him will wean him off rape, whereas for Individual B, hard time in prison will be required along with some pyschological torture, and for individual C, nothing short of chemical castration will be required to prevent him from potentially raping another person.


The question now is:

Assume that we now have the option to utterly remove the "punishment" in a corrective sentence. We can correct criminal behaviour with the approiate means and methods, however, since individuals are unique, some people will get off lightly whereas others will be sentenced to heavily undesirable and cruel treatments.

Should punishment then follow our current justice method of being tailored to the crime, or will you advocate that a corrective sentence, even though it may not be "fair" to other criminals who require more harsher methods be used?

This argument ignores the deterrant side of punishment. It may be necessary that a criminal is punished to serve as a deterrant to other would-be criminals, hence punishment is a necessity for effectiveness.

[Velthuijsen]

Can I ask if this is what you have in mind? Your argument is that two sentences should exist and the criminal can choose between both? A "standard" form of punishment such as jail and etc similar to that now and one meant to correct the behaviour?

Yes. It should be up to the convict. It is not much of a choice, X years in jail or treatment but if they perceive the treatment to be worse then jail time they should be able to go to jail.

[General Zod]

Can I ask if this is what you have in mind? Your argument is that two sentences should exist and the criminal can choose between both? A "standard" form of punishment such as jail and etc similar to that now and one meant to correct the behaviour?

Yes. It should be up to the convict. It is not much of a choice, X years in jail or treatment but if they perceive the treatment to be worse then jail time they should be able to go to jail.

Since the idea of punishing someone is supposed to make them regret what they've done, you won't be accomplishing much if you give convicts the choice between which one makes them regret their crimes the least. For some spending a couple years in bars is not a big deal at all.

[Velthuijsen]

Since the idea of punishing someone is supposed to make them regret what they've done, you won't be accomplishing much if you give convicts the choice between which one makes them regret their crimes the least. For some spending a couple years in bars is not a big deal at all.

It is not about regret it is about insuring that someone will not become a repeat offender by adding a form of treatment to their punishment, if regret works as treatment then that is to be used.
The people who rather sit in jail then be treated are the least likely to feel regret about what they did. They are like the rapist who needs to be chemically castrated in the OP example. That guy won't regret what he did, he'll regret getting caught.

[General Zod]

Since the idea of punishing someone is supposed to make them regret what they've done, you won't be accomplishing much if you give convicts the choice between which one makes them regret their crimes the least. For some spending a couple years in bars is not a big deal at all.

It is not about regret it is about insuring that someone will not become a repeat offender by adding a form of treatment to their punishment, if regret works as treatment then that is to be used.
The people who rather sit in jail then be treated are the least likely to feel regret about what they did. They are like the rapist who needs to be chemically castrated in the OP example. That guy won't regret what he did, he'll regret getting caught.

So now it's treatment on top of the standard punishment instead of a choice between the two? A little consistency would be nice here.

[darthbob88]

I'm a hard-ass on this sort of thing, so I'd favor effective punishment over fair punishment. If anybody complains "It ain't fair", explain first that "Life ain't fair", then explain the different circumstances. One guy is a hardened criminal, who wouldn't blink an eye at years in jail, so he gets the Mechanical Tangerine treatment. The other guy is a little man, who would wet his pants at going to jail, so he gets a new home for 3 to 5. Circumstances are different, therefore punishments are different.

[Knife]

I've always thought that vengence was a factor in jusitce, so no; I would not like to do away with the 'punishment' part of it if we could 'cure' the criminal too.

If it were possible to 'cure' the person, fine. But above and beyond that they need to be punished.

[Velthuijsen]

So now it's treatment on top of the standard punishment instead of a choice between the two? A little consistency would be nice here.

Uh I never said a choice between pure treatment and just jail. I assumed that people would link up with the OP in which the treatment is included in the punishment.

[General Zod]

So now it's treatment on top of the standard punishment instead of a choice between the two? A little consistency would be nice here.

Uh I never said a choice between pure treatment and just jail. I assumed that people would link up with the OP in which the treatment is included in the punishment.

Yes. It should be up to the convict. It is not much of a choice, X years in jail or treatment but if they perceive the treatment to be worse then jail time they should be able to go to jail.

Ahem.

[PainRack]

For the sake of clarification, is there any reason we can't saddle the offenders with the standard punishment simultaneously with the corrective treatment?

That would defeat the very point of this ethical question, won't it?:D

[Surlethe]

That would defeat the very point of this ethical question, won't it?:D

I don't see the point in bifurcating to create an ethical dilemma if a third solution exists.

[anybody_mcc]

The point of the justice system is not only to prevent criminals from doing it again. It is there also to discourage some potential murderers , ....

So in the scenario in the different thread , we could prevent murderer from doing it again by some "off-switch". Some people argued there that it is all we should do. That would mean everyone gets one murder with the only punishment being not being able to murder again. I bet that would increase homicide rates. And also it somehow doesn't feel like justice ( which is not rational argument ).

[Velthuijsen]

So now it's treatment on top of the standard punishment instead of a choice between the two? A little consistency would be nice here.

Uh I never said a choice between pure treatment and just jail. I assumed that people would link up with the OP in which the treatment is included in the punishment.

Yes. It should be up to the convict. It is not much of a choice, X years in jail or treatment but if they perceive the treatment to be worse then jail time they should be able to go to jail.

Ahem.

Maybe if I repeat what I said it'll get through

Connect this with the OP statement on what treatment means.
Got it? No?
Connect this with the OP statement on what treatment means.
Got it? No?
Connect this with the OP statement on what treatment means.
Got it? No? to bad this is 3 times more then I should have said this clarification.

[drachefly]

You said, effectively,
"choose between A: treatment or B: jail time"
Now you say you said,
"Jail time will be applied. You may choose treatment."
These are quite different and are not the same thing. If you all along meant the latter and it was a mistype, okay; but don't think you can convince us that that was what you actually said.

[General Zod]

Maybe if I repeat what I said it'll get through

Connect this with the OP statement on what treatment means.
Got it? No?
Connect this with the OP statement on what treatment means.
Got it? No?
Connect this with the OP statement on what treatment means.
Got it? No? to bad this is 3 times more then I should have said this clarification.

Ad nausea is a fallacious argument you know. Try again.

[Velthuijsen]

Ad nausea is a fallacious argument you know. Try again.

Sometimes a battering ram approach helps against people who build themselves a wall of ignorance. Apparently here it doesn't work seeing that you can't even admit you were wrong when I clarified my statement.