An Eye for an Eye....

[Darth Onasi]

I would further argue that 'permanent' justice (such as capital punishment, or permanent blinding or castration) should never be embarked upon by a society, if only because of the dehumanizing philosophy that this implies.

But then I'd argue that it's not capital punishment that dehumanizes them, if someone chooses to permenantly harm another why do they deserve any rights?
Furthermore, it isn't "society" they have harmed. It's their victim. Surely the victim has the right to know the perpetrator has been dealth with, permenantly.

[Aranfan]

But then I'd argue that it's not capital punishment that dehumanizes them, if someone chooses to permenantly harm another why do they deserve any rights?

You are therefore of the opinion that soldiers, who have chosen a job with killing and death and worse in the job description, don't deserve any rights? I find such an outlook flawed and simplistic.

[Darth Onasi]

But then I'd argue that it's not capital punishment that dehumanizes them, if someone chooses to permenantly harm another why do they deserve any rights?

You are therefore of the opinion that soldiers, who have chosen a job with killing and death and worse in the job description, don't deserve any rights? I find such an outlook flawed and simplistic.

Because a soldier fighting for their country in a war is clearly the same as a sociopath throwing acid an an innocent woman's face and permenantly blinding her.

[Aranfan]

But then I'd argue that it's not capital punishment that dehumanizes them, if someone chooses to permenantly harm another why do they deserve any rights?

You are therefore of the opinion that soldiers, who have chosen a job with killing and death and worse in the job description, don't deserve any rights? I find such an outlook flawed and simplistic.

Because a soldier fighting for their country in a war is clearly the same as a sociopath throwing acid an an innocent woman's face and permenantly blinding her.

Of course they aren't, that's my point. You can't generalize that causing permanent harm to another person, even with planning and malice aforethought, is always evil and of itself sufficient to strip someone of their rights. In this case, it's pretty clear cut that the stalker got what was coming to him, but it was still a waste of resources to remove him from the work force forever.

[Darth Onasi]

Of course they aren't, that's my point. You can't generalize that causing permanent harm to another person, even with planning and malice aforethought, is always evil and of itself sufficient to strip someone of their rights. In this case, it's pretty clear cut that the stalker got what was coming to him, but it was still a waste of resources to remove him from the work force forever.

I can say that when it comes to premeditated murder or mutilation of an innocent.
There are enough workers, and enough people clogging up prisons. There comes a time when society has to stand up and say no more.

[Stuart]

In this case, it's pretty clear cut that the stalker got what was coming to him, but it was still a waste of resources to remove him from the work force forever.

For the record, Iran has a 30 percent unemployment rate; there are plenty of unemployed people who can fill any hole left by this sadistic creep. In the words of the Khmer Rouge, "destroying his life brings no penalty, not destroying him brings no benefit". If, on the other hand, blinding him and leaving him to starve in the gutter while begging for scraps stops like-minded people from making free with the acid, then his miserable existance actually serves a useful purpose. And, by detering others, we preserve the women they maim from being "removed from the workforce."

In any case, why should we worry about stripping him of his rights (if he has any which I would dispute)? He showed no compunction about stripping his victim of hers in just about the most horrible way imaginable. You ought to have a little more concern for the victims and a lot less for the criminals

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

But then I'd argue that it's not capital punishment that dehumanizes them, if someone chooses to permenantly harm another why do they deserve any rights?

Not to equivocate, but we permanently harm others all the time. Nearly any act of harm is irreperable in some way. Is is then a matter of degrees? At what level of a criminal's cruelty does pure sadism become justice?

Further, the idea that one can be stripped of any and all rights for a grievous act is exactly the de-humanisation I was referring to. To my mind, any morality system which assumes that there is such a thing as 'justice' and that grievous harm to people is bad simply because it is harm to people must assume that thinking, feeling human beings have some inherent worth before their actions are taken into account. A permanent punishment is an absolute denial that this person will ever become better or somehow repay his debt to society. That is what I find de-humanizing, and the philosphy behind it is dangerous.

Furthermore, it isn't "society" they have harmed. It's their victim. Surely the victim has the right to know the perpetrator has been dealth with, permenantly.

Sure it's society that's been harmed. The security and rules of the State have been undermined, and a functioning member of it has been grievously wounded. It's the implicit assumption that harming part of society harms society as a whole that allows institutionalised justice. Otherwise, why shouldn't the victim (or the victim's executor, in the case of murder) dispense the punishment as they see fit in every case?

And sure the victim has the right to know that a perpetrator has been dealt with. What she doesn't have a right to is revenge, which is what this is. Now, in Islamic countries, where honour disputes and blood feuds are still common, it's a little different, but a justice system based on 'We will hurt the bad guys worse to sate your sadistic desire for personal satisfaction' is what places like Guantanamo are built on. In fact, the whole Neo-Con philosphy is built on the idea of being 'Tough on the bad guys' and locking up all the pimps and dealers and terrorists and general scum, in what I can only describe as the Travis Bickle School of Law.

To sum up: I am not arguing that this man is not scum - for all evidence shows that he indeed is - but I, as any who would style him or herself a Humanist or Utilitarian should, object to the base philosphy behind this sort of punishment. Rye's 'Murder him and carve up his corpse' suggestion has more merit, and that's not saying much.

[Formless]

Wait wait wait... how exactly does the removal of rights de-humanize people now? I mean, here in the "civilized" world, we remove peoples fundamental rights all the time, and there are good reasons out there for which to remove them all at once, ie the death penalty. Furthermore, deterrence is one of the main objectives of the law, and other countries using similar means of deterrence to this one have shown it to be practical (re; Stewart's example of people forced to drink the stuff who are caught with acid).

Lastly, your comparison to Guantanamo seems flawed to me because the purpose of the two are totally different; deterrence/punishment as compared to intelligence gathering. And the fact that this guy has verified that he did a crime, while most of the Guantanimo detainees haven't even been charged with anything, one of the principal wrongdoings of the program.

[Darth Onasi]

Not to equivocate, but we permanently harm others all the time. Nearly any act of harm is irreperable in some way. Is is then a matter of degrees? At what level of a criminal's cruelty does pure sadism become justice?

That would be the level where they kill or permanently cripple an innocent human being in a premeditated fashion.
In my opinion to rob someone of their sight is in some ways worse than death, because now this woman will have to live with this for the rest of her life.

Further, the idea that one can be stripped of any and all rights for a grievous act is exactly the de-humanisation I was referring to. To my mind, any morality system which assumes that there is such a thing as 'justice' and that grievous harm to people is bad simply because it is harm to people must assume that thinking, feeling human beings have some inherent worth before their actions are taken into account.

I simply subscribe to the belief that those who would so brazenly take the rights away of others should not expect to keep them for themselves.

A permanent punishment is an absolute denial that this person will ever become better or somehow repay his debt to society. That is what I find de-humanizing, and the philosphy behind it is dangerous.

I'm not sure it's a denial or just lack of caring.
I don't care whether Acid Spilling Scumbag could ever potentially contribute to society. Maybe he should've thought of that before permenantly crippling an innocent woman. What about the future of the victim is what I ask.

Sure it's society that's been harmed. The security and rules of the State have been undermined, and a functioning member of it has been grievously wounded. It's the implicit assumption that harming part of society harms society as a whole that allows institutionalised justice. Otherwise, why shouldn't the victim (or the victim's executor, in the case of murder) dispense the punishment as they see fit in every case?

In that sense, yes. But in these cases, society's needs shouldn't superceed the victim's.

And sure the victim has the right to know that a perpetrator has been dealt with. What she doesn't have a right to is revenge, which is what this is. Now, in Islamic countries, where honour disputes and blood feuds are still common, it's a little different, but a justice system based on 'We will hurt the bad guys worse to sate your sadistic desire for personal satisfaction' is what places like Guantanamo are built on. In fact, the whole Neo-Con philosphy is built on the idea of being 'Tough on the bad guys' and locking up all the pimps and dealers and terrorists and general scum, in what I can only describe as the Travis Bickle School of Law.

And in that sense I don't advocate state-sanctioned retribution in this manner.
I don't consider execution to be retribution in this sense, merely removal of a dangerous criminal. The future of said criminal is again, not something to be concerned about.
Regardless of the fact that very few sociopaths (which I have to assume this stalker is) ever come to regret their actions.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

That would be the level where they kill or permanently cripple an innocent human being in a premeditated fashion.
In my opinion to rob someone of their sight is in some ways worse than death, because now this woman will have to live with this for the rest of her life.

I don't disagree that his act was despicable. But you do say that people who commit acts of a certain calibre should be punished by, say, drawing and quartering or being choked to death on their own severed genitalia?

I simply subscribe to the belief that those who would so brazenly take the rights away of others should not expect to keep them for themselves.

Wouldn't that apply to the justicars of your society?

I'm not sure it's a denial or just lack of caring.

There we go. This is exactly what I was referring to by calling this kind of punishment indicative of de-humanisation. You are completely apathetic regarding the potential of this individual and his power to reform, enough that you would prevent him from ever doing so. I'm no criticizing you here, but this is the fundamental point where our moralities diverge; I cannot endorse a system that does not allow for the changing of circumstances, or simply doesn't care about them.

I don't care whether Acid Spilling Scumbag could ever potentially contribute to society. Maybe he should've thought of that before permenantly crippling an innocent woman. What about the future of the victim is what I ask.

What about her? Destroying his eyes does not help her. It only feeds her most base desires for vengeful satisfaction.

In that sense, yes. But in these cases, society's needs shouldn't superceed the victim's.

Yes, it should, as it should in all cases. I'm not allowed to shoot the man who molested my daughter, you're not allowed to chop off the hand of the man who stole your car. The idea of buying into society is that its needs will always supercede our own. Besides, if personal needs are more important than society's, what about the criminals' and scumbags' needs?

And in that sense I don't advocate state-sanctioned retribution in this manner.
I don't consider execution to be retribution in this sense, merely removal of a dangerous criminal.

You can isolate a person without crippling or killing him. I believe it's referred to as 'prison'. (Not that I agree with imprisonment as a punishment, but perhaps my advocacy of the use of humane gulags to build a neo-industrial first-world nation is for another debate...) The only case where execution really has any moral grounding, in my opinion, is when it will clearly prevent further harm to society, ex, the concept of a 'just war'.

The future of said criminal is again, not something to be concerned about.

What the fuck? We're talking about justice, and apparently the actual consequences for the offender are considered to be totally irrelevant to the justice process? Yours is truly a strange morality.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Wait wait wait... how exactly does the removal of rights de-humanize people now? I mean, here in the "civilized" world, we remove peoples fundamental rights all the time, and there are good reasons out there for which to remove them all at once, ie the death penalty. Furthermore, deterrence is one of the main objectives of the law, and other countries using similar means of deterrence to this one have shown it to be practical (re; Stewart's example of people forced to drink the stuff who are caught with acid).

Thanks for not reading my post. I object to the permanent punishments, ie, the death penalty. As far as deterrence, I'm sure you'll show me the statistics wherein it's been shown that countries with the death penalty have higher violent crime rates than countries without capital punishment.

Oh wait! The statistics show just the opposite! Well, fancy that.

Lastly, your comparison to Guantanamo seems flawed to me because the purpose of the two are totally different; deterrence/punishment as compared to intelligence gathering. And the fact that this guy has verified that he did a crime, while most of the Guantanimo detainees haven't even been charged with anything, one of the principal wrongdoings of the program.

Thanks for not reading my post again. First, I'm assuming guilt in the case of both this mand and the Guantanamo detainees. They are perfectly comparable because the feelings behind supporters of both (ie, that bad guys don't have rights and need to be dealt with with extreme prejudice) is the same, and both are dumb.

[Formless]

Wouldn't the criminal have to prove or have a history to suggest that they are capable of reform before your moral system applies to them, NUA? In which case, we lack the information to make judgments based on it in this case.

[Formless]

Thanks for not reading my post. I object to the permanent punishments, ie, the death penalty.

Further, the idea that one can be stripped of any and all rights for a grievous act is exactly the de-humanisation I was referring to. To my mind, any morality system which assumes that there is such a thing as 'justice' and that grievous harm to people is bad simply because it is harm to people must assume that thinking, feeling human beings have some inherent worth before their actions are taken into account. A permanent punishment is an absolute denial that this person will ever become better or somehow repay his debt to society. That is what I find de-humanizing, and the philosphy behind it is dangerous.

Way to back-track. I objected to the idea that the removal of rights by itself causes de-humanization, especially since it is the philosophy the people that say that rights can be stripped that you object to.The philosophy and the action are not one in the same.

P.S. I would very much like to see a source for your statistic on the death penalty.

[Broomstick]

I don't care whether Acid Spilling Scumbag could ever potentially contribute to society. Maybe he should've thought of that before permenantly crippling an innocent woman. What about the future of the victim is what I ask.

What about her? Destroying his eyes does not help her. It only feeds her most base desires for vengeful satisfaction.

Actually, it markedly decreases the chances of Acid Throwing Scumbag causing his victim further harm.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Wouldn't the criminal have to prove or have a history to suggest that they are capable of reform before your moral system applies to them, NUA? In which case, we lack the information to make judgments based on it in this case.

No, since any aside from the difficulty of proving that, there is no danger is allowing for reform, but obvious danger is disallowing it.

Way to back-track. I objected to the idea that the removal of rights by itself causes de-humanization, especially since it is the philosophy the people that say that rights can be stripped that you object to.The philosophy and the action are not one in the same.

P.S. I would very much like to see a source for your statistic on the death penalty.

Way to ignore context. Imprisonment is not the removal of rights. It waives certain rights until it considers the prisoner re-habilitated. It still recognises that the prisoner is a person who still has the right to life and liberty and to not suffer inhumane conditions. The temporary abrogation of his right to liberty is a whole other kettle of fish than killing or maiming him for the pleasure of the victim.

As for the statistics, here. Looks like first world status is strangely correlated to abolition of capital punishment. China executes officials who are obviously corrupt, yet corruption remains endemic. The US has 7 times more murders than Canada, and similar numbers to most of the rest of Northern Europe, despite the death penalty, and Texas has one of the highest rates of murder.

Actually, it markedly decreases the chances of Acid Throwing Scumbag causing his victim further harm.

He would do that from within a prison how...?

[Broomstick]

Actually, it markedly decreases the chances of Acid Throwing Scumbag causing his victim further harm.

He would do that from within a prison how...?

I am assuming that eventually he would be released from prison, as even in the US most people who attempt murder or cause grievous bodily harm are not imprisoned for life.

[Formless]

No, since any aside from the difficulty of proving that, there is no danger is allowing for reform, but obvious danger is disallowing it.

Are you going to deny the existence, no prominence, of repeat offenders? There is real danger and pattern of these kinds of criminals resorting to crime again in the future, thus causing more harm. The only way to ensure that they do not is to either prove that this particular criminal is capable of reform, or permenantly remove their ability to commit crimes. The same rational is the reason felons no longer have the right to bear arms.

Way to ignore context. Imprisonment is not the removal of rights. It waives certain rights until it considers the prisoner re-habilitated. It still recognises that the prisoner is a person who still has the right to life and liberty and to not suffer inhumane conditions. The temporary abrogation of his right to liberty is a whole other kettle of fish than killing or maiming him for the pleasure of the victim.

And they also permenantely remove the felon's right to

1. vote
2. bear arms
3. if they are a paedophile they have restrictions put on where they can and cannot live.

And that is without killing them. Clearly the removal of rights de-humanises people!

As for the statistics, here. Looks like first world status is strangely correlated to abolition of capital punishment. China executes officials who are obviously corrupt, yet corruption remains endemic. The US has 7 times more murders than Canada, and similar numbers to most of the rest of Northern Europe, despite the death penalty, and Texas has one of the highest rates of murder.

That source only shows which countries do and do not have capital punishment. It does not show crimes rates in said countries. After all, all US states must be like Texas! China really counts as a first world country now! Did it ever occur to you that there are other cultural reasons that the US has more murders then other countries like Canada that have nothing to do with the effectiveness of the deterrence system? Like the poverty line, the lack of social systems preventing people from having to resort to crimes, etc.? Who is ignoring context now?

He would do that from within a prison how...?

He would do it after he gets out of prison, idiot.

[Formless]

I almost forgot-- you are also dodging the question of how the philosophy held by supporters of rights-removal makes rights-removal bad rather then the philosophy bad. That would seem illogical.

[Singular Intellect]

If this guy had been a non human animal that mauled and permanently crippled a human being, it would've been immediately killed and no one would've thought twice about it.

But since this is a human animal, generally considered much more intelligent, aware and accountable for it's actions, suddenly we're supposed to wring our hands in confusion on what to do?

The whole eye for an eye bit is, as far as I'm concerned, pointless. Execute him quickly and humanely like we ideally do with other dangerous animals.

But perhaps someone could kindly explain why I should give a flying fuck about a vicious human animal over, say, a rabid dog. What's wrong with putting both down? What makes the human culprit less deserving than the dog, aside from my afore mentioned greater intelligence, awareness and accountability?

[Darth Onasi]

I don't disagree that his act was despicable. But you do say that people who commit acts of a certain calibre should be punished by, say, drawing and quartering or being choked to death on their own severed genitalia?

No, as I've said I don't advocate state sanctioned torture or unusual punishments. I favour swift executions for those criminals who commit heinous acts such as these.

Wouldn't that apply to the justicars of your society?

No, since that would be anarchy. And remember, no rights would be taken away if the criminal had not commited the crime.
In a case where it's clear who is guilty and what's more they've confessed I see the best course of action is to execute them.

There we go. This is exactly what I was referring to by calling this kind of punishment indicative of de-humanisation. You are completely apathetic regarding the potential of this individual and his power to reform, enough that you would prevent him from ever doing so. I'm no criticizing you here, but this is the fundamental point where our moralities diverge; I cannot endorse a system that does not allow for the changing of circumstances, or simply doesn't care about them.

I can understand a potential for change in a crime of passion or some such. However in this case where the man has been stalking this woman before callously throwing acid in her face, compounded by the fact that many men in the region are so brazenly doing the same thing means we don't have the luxury of caring about their future. Swift justice is needed now to send a message to every other shitstain who thinks it's fun to rinse someone's face in acid.

What about her? Destroying his eyes does not help her. It only feeds her most base desires for vengeful satisfaction.

It prevents him from ever doing it again. It sends a message to others. And in the end, why should he continue normally while his victim is forever scarred?

In that sense, yes. But in these cases, society's needs shouldn't superceed the victim's.

Yes, it should, as it should in all cases. I'm not allowed to shoot the man who molested my daughter, you're not allowed to chop off the hand of the man who stole your car. The idea of buying into society is that its needs will always supercede our own. Besides, if personal needs are more important than society's, what about the criminals' and scumbags' needs?

Ideally, there needs to be a balance. Society has rules, and the criminal broke those rules. He took away the rights of another person. He's actually hurt both in a sense, albiet the victim far more personally.
We follow the rules of society for it's protection, when it fails us the least we can do is make sure the perpetrator can do no more harm, ever.

And in that sense I don't advocate state-sanctioned retribution in this manner.
I don't consider execution to be retribution in this sense, merely removal of a dangerous criminal.

You can isolate a person without crippling or killing him. I believe it's referred to as 'prison'. (Not that I agree with imprisonment as a punishment, but perhaps my advocacy of the use of humane gulags to build a neo-industrial first-world nation is for another debate...) The only case where execution really has any moral grounding, in my opinion, is when it will clearly prevent further harm to society, ex, the concept of a 'just war'.

And in so doing take up resources, let them live out their life among their peers (unless they're something like a pedophile or serial killer they won't have such a tough time in prison) and potentially let them out into society again with only their word that they'll be good this time.
Besides, isn't it every human's right to be free? Prison takes that away too.

What the fuck? We're talking about justice, and apparently the actual consequences for the offender are considered to be totally irrelevant to the justice process? Yours is truly a strange morality.

I believe the point is, again, the criminal has forfeited their own future the moment they chose to commit the crime. We cannot judge people by what they might do under some unknown future circumstance.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

No, as I've said I don't advocate state sanctioned torture or unusual punishments. I favour swift executions for those criminals who commit heinous acts such as these.

Fair enough. To me, that seems draconian, though it is certainly more sensible than 'eye for an eye' bullshit, but this seems to be a simple divergence of philosophy. I could nit-pick about reasonable doubt and the stuff, but I'm sure you understand those concerns. But really, which countries in the world still practice capital punishment for Aggravated Assault. I suspect that you would do well in some early post-Revolution state securing order against the possibility of a second upheaval. I say this without sarcasm or hurt intended.

No, since that would be anarchy. And remember, no rights would be taken away if the criminal had not commited the crime.
In a case where it's clear who is guilty and what's more they've confessed I see the best course of action is to execute them.

See above.

I can understand a potential for change in a crime of passion or some such. However in this case where the man has been stalking this woman before callously throwing acid in her face, compounded by the fact that many men in the region are so brazenly doing the same thing means we don't have the luxury of caring about their future. Swift justice is needed now to send a message to every other shitstain who thinks it's fun to rinse someone's face in acid.

Does this 'message' stuff actually work, though? That's the important question. You might be able to argue for the need for brutality to enforce order in some kind of pre-Humanist state (like Iran) but I'd prefer a justice system which moved it out of such a state, and a legal system still based on tribal concepts of reciprocal justice just won't do that.

It prevents him from ever doing it again. It sends a message to others. And in the end, why should he continue normally while his victim is forever scarred?

He wouldn't continue normally. Ideally, he would be forced to labour for the State until his debt was considered paid. There is no perfect solution in cases like these, but I feel that cruel and unusual punishment is hardly the closest thing to it.

Ideally, there needs to be a balance. Society has rules, and the criminal broke those rules. He took away the rights of another person. He's actually hurt both in a sense, albiet the victim far more personally.
We follow the rules of society for it's protection, when it fails us the least we can do is make sure the perpetrator can do no more harm, ever.

Ever. See, I once again want to know, where exactly is the line at which point the offender's life is worthless. When they have killed? When they have killed pre-meditatively? When they merely caused egregious harm? Would sufficient property damage be equal to a life? I want to know what specifically sends a man over the line from criminal to Sade's plaything.

And in so doing take up resources, let them live out their life among their peers (unless they're something like a pedophile or serial killer they won't have such a tough time in prison) and potentially let them out into society again with only their word that they'll be good this time.
Besides, isn't it every human's right to be free? Prison takes that away too.

See my earlier response regarding prison sentences (and I oppose life sentences, since they give no incentives not to offend in prison). I don't want the irritation of debating with a fool like Formless, but I assume you can see where I'm coming from - society must obviously offer some response to criminality, I just believe that this must fit whatever is best for society at large, considering that the purpose of society is to improve the lives of all the people in it.

I believe the point is, again, the criminal has forfeited their own future the moment they chose to commit the crime. We cannot judge people by what they might do under some unknown future circumstance.

In that case, why did you defend acid-in-the-eyes by saying that it would prevent him from re-offending? Can we just judge them by the bad things they do, Minority Report style?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I don't really see this as being a morally appropriate punishment. Just because one guy's an asshole doesn't mean society needs to do the exact same thing back to them.

Why?

They are causing harm, so from a Utilitarian perspective, they need to justify the causation of harm for deterrence and public safety by demonstrating that there are no alternatives to get a similar deterrent or protective effect. Utilitarianism implies we should attempt to minimize the amount of net objective harm in the above goals. Justice as an abstract concept is less important to me. Of course, it also has public utility, but only to an extent as the population under control and not rioting for lack of justice. Is that the case above?

In the interests of public, safety, he certainly ought to be removed, but anything more than that, plus monetary compensation, is bizarre and unnecessarily cruel.

The problem with Lex Talionis is that it merely assumes that in order to have just compensation or a punishment fit the crime, you must execute the exact act again. They haven't presented a good argument for why it's necessary for that to be true in the first place. Must retributive justice always have an identical punishment. How do you balance that against other factors/concerns without entirely negating the concept of identical punishment? If the just punishment (balanced) is eye for an eye, what if that doesn't deter as well? What if that causes more suffering than necessary to make the public safe? Is justice the only thing that matters? If the other concerns warrant a punishment that isn't exactly the same as a the crime, does the punishment suddenly become unjust?

They want to punish someone, regardless of other concerns, merely because it's identical to the crime. This has problems.
For example, if a punishment is only used because it exactly is the same as the crime, do you have someone steal 4 dollars from someone who also stole 4 dollars? That fits the crime exactly. Should the store take only four from him? It's "eye for an eye," but pointless. Eye for an eye is inadequate and can actually lead to imbalance and poor justice. Unless you use other concerns, which would change the punishment, and...not make it identical anyway.

It's based on the notion of fairness: if you treat others poorly, you should expect to be treated as poorly.

Fairness, yes, but why should that be the most important or overriding goal of a corrections system? If indeed it is the case, since really, that's all they're talking about. Personally, I value utility more over pure fairness. But fairness can have some utility, obviously. What do you think?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Bah. Could someone please delete the above post. I fucked it up. ;Z Hit preview twice, then back up, then undid a quote.


Edit: This is in response to Surelethe. I messed it up, I know. I used the wrong tool to quote it, so I ended up quoting the whole block.

why

They are causing harm, so from a Utilitarian perspective, they need to justify the causation of harm for deterrence and public safety by demonstrating that there are no alternatives to get a similar deterrent or protective effect. Utilitarianism implies we should attempt to minimize the amount of net objective harm in the above goals. Justice as an abstract concept is less important to me. Of course, it also has public utility, but only to an extent as the population under control and not rioting for lack of justice. Is that the case above?

The problem with Lex Talionis is that it merely assumes that in order to have just compensation or a punishment fit the crime, you must execute the exact act again. They haven't presented a good argument for why it's necessary for that to be true in the first place. Must retributive justice always have an identical punishment. How do you balance that against other factors/concerns without entirely negating the concept of identical punishment? If the just punishment (balanced) is eye for an eye, what if that doesn't deter as well? What if that causes more suffering than necessary to make the public safe? Is justice the only thing that matters? If the other concerns warrant a punishment that isn't exactly the same as a the crime, does the punishment suddenly become unjust?

why

They want to punish someone, regardless of other concerns, merely because it's identical to the crime. This has problems.
For example, if a punishment is only used because it exactly is the same as the crime, what if the other factors would change the crime based on other needs? If you maintain the punishment, merely for Eye for an Eye, it's quite possible that you must sacrifice other correctional needs and then get an inadequate punishment. If you take into consideration a plurality of concerns, and if they would modify the punishment such that it's not actually eye for an eye, then it would be never be just and you would never actually be adhering to the punishments.

ON the one hand, it can lead to extreme added institutional suffering and violence, and on the other, become ineffectual unless the justice system is myopic in its concerns.

It's based on the notion of fairness: if you treat others poorly, you should expect to be treated as poorly.

Assuming fairness, that's only one concern of ethics, and not even the mst important one, depending on the ethical theory.
But more importantly, why should that be the most important or overriding goal of a corrections system? If indeed it is the case, since really, that's all they're talking about: eye for an eye. That allows for nothing else, or else it's not really eye for an eye. Personally, I value utility more over pure fairness. But fairness can have some utility, obviously. What do you think?

Also, do you think that to be fair, you must treat everyone physically identically? Can you imagine any case where you could be treating two people fairly, but not absolutely the same? Accommodations in special education are based on this idea and the idea of equal consideration of interests, but not necessarily treatment.

[Broomstick]

If this guy had been a non human animal that mauled and permanently crippled a human being, it would've been immediately killed and no one would've thought twice about it.

Actually... that's not always automatic. There have instances of dangerous animals mauling or killing humans where the animal was not killed. The tiger that mauled Roy Horn, for example, was not killed or harmed in any way. Tigers are dangerous animals that can hurt or kill people unintentionally, that's their nature, you can't train or punish them into being less inherently dangerous. It's not a matter of morality for tigers, it's instinct.

[Singular Intellect]

If this guy had been a non human animal that mauled and permanently crippled a human being, it would've been immediately killed and no one would've thought twice about it.

Actually... that's not always automatic. There have instances of dangerous animals mauling or killing humans where the animal was not killed. The tiger that mauled Roy Horn, for example, was not killed or harmed in any way. Tigers are dangerous animals that can hurt or kill people unintentionally, that's their nature, you can't train or punish them into being less inherently dangerous. It's not a matter of morality for tigers, it's instinct.

Hence my point that humans are typically more intelligent, aware and accountable for their actions, therefore why the hell do we have a problem making the consequences increase accordingly?

Obviously there will be exceptions to the rule; but in this case it's a unprovoked attack where the animal in question stalked and viciously attacked the woman for no reason.

If this had been a tiger that had stalked and mauled a woman minding her own business, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't have been killed.

Human predators are vastly more dangerous and cunning than your average non human predator; I want to hear a good reason why we should treat human predators as 'special'. And no, I don't consider "because they're human" a valid answer.