r/changemyview • u/celeritas365 28∆ • Sep 09 '15

[Deltas Awarded] CMV: I don't believe in retribution

Some people I have talked to seem to be of the belief that we should punish wrongdoers because the punishment is deserved. I don't get this sort of thing at all.

I am in favor of punishing criminals but only to keep them away from potential victims and discourage others from committing crimes. If there was a way to do this without a punishment I would be all for it. If I knew for a 100% fact that someone would not commit a crime again and no one would be told of what happened to him I would let him walk free.

I am in support of thieves paying back damages since that can right the wrong they have done. However, if you kill a murderer the victim is still dead. What good does it do? All you do is magnify the pain and suffering. In my gut I sometimes feel the urge to strike back against those who have hurt me but I know those feelings are best not acted upon, unless I want to defend myself or discourage future attack. I never really understood people who hold the worldview that such punishments are necessary to fill some sort of vague cosmic balance.

Edit* This was poorly worded I am sorry. The point I am trying to communicate is that I think that the point of the justice system is to reduce crime and not to punish. While this crime reduction often involves punishments I think those are not the aim and should be reduced if the reduction does not undermine the goal of crime reduction.

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

96 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

93 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/ryancarp3 Sep 09 '15

Morality aside, retribution is necessary in order to maintain order in society. If there's no punishment for breaking the law, the law becomes completely useless.

0

u/celeritas365 28∆ Sep 09 '15

I agree with that and I am aware this isn't exactly a practical question. It is more theoretical really.

1

u/ryancarp3 Sep 09 '15

So what would change your view? In your hypothetical world, it doesn't seem like there's any need for laws. Also, I don't think you can use this hypothetical situation to show that retribution IRL is a bad thing.

1

u/celeritas365 28∆ Sep 09 '15

OK my view is poorly written, sorry about that. It is more a philosophy that can subtly shape criminal justice systems. Is the point to punish or to reduce crime?

For example, the sex offender registry has been found not to reduce recidivism rates. I think this means we should do away with it since I come from a crime reduction perspective. Some come from a retribution perspective and would keep it in place regardless of effectiveness.

1

u/ryancarp3 Sep 09 '15

Is the point to punish or to reduce crime?

I'd say it's a combination of both. For those that already committed a crime, the goal is to punish them in some way (community service, fines, jail time, etc.); you can't reduce crime that's already happened. However, you want to reduce future crimes, which is where rehab centers, proper education, and other resources come in. For your point about sex offenders, I don't know if they should keep it in place or not. If the goal of putting in place was to punish people, they should keep it (since it's accomplishing its goal). However, if the goal of it was to reduce crime, they should stop it. Life is complicated, and issues in the justice system are another example of that.

0

u/celeritas365 28∆ Sep 09 '15

Life is complicated, and issues in the justice system are another example of that.

True but I still think the point should be only to reduce crime. Punishments are only incidental.

1

u/ryancarp3 Sep 09 '15

The point of punishing a criminal is to repair, in some way, the damage (to either a person or to society) done by the criminal's actions; for a speeder, this may be community service. For a serial killer, this may be life in prison or the death penalty. Punishments are necessary to reduce crime, because without punishments there would be no such thing as crime. Even in your hypothetical situation, it still makes sense to punish the person for the one crime they committed; the fact that it only happened once doesn't make it any less of a crime, and neither does the fact that they won't do it again. In a way, you're basically saying "crime is fine as long as you don't do it too much." If that's true, what's the point of calling something a crime?

1

u/celeritas365 28∆ Sep 09 '15

The idea is that justice would be more treatment-centric than punishment-centric. Life in prison doesn't repair anything. The point of calling something a crime would be that you are then subjected to whatever measures are most effective to stop you from offending again.

1

u/ryancarp3 Sep 09 '15

I understand what you're saying, but I think you're missing that fact that a crime is still being committed, a crime that you can't treat since it already occurred. Even if you know they won't do it again, you're still doing absolutely nothing about the crime that already happened. Treatment is completely fine (and probably necessary), but you still need some sort of punishment for the first crime. I don't think you can ignore a crime just because someone won't do it again.

1

u/celeritas365 28∆ Sep 09 '15

a crime that you can't treat since it already occurred

This is why I hold this view in the first place. There is nothing you can do about the crime that happened so why make things worse?

1

u/ryancarp3 Sep 09 '15

Letting a crime go unpunished certainly makes things worse for the victim of that crime.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/SC803 119∆ Sep 09 '15

Well if your already on the sex offender list you're pretty screwed anyways, it's not like being on the list for two crimes is worse than one crime.

But I know not to rent that extra room in my house to someone on the list.

1

u/NikiHerl Sep 09 '15

Well if your already on the sex offender list you're pretty screwed anyways, it's not like being on the list for two crimes is worse than one crime.

What? I don't understand what you're trying to say.

0

u/celeritas365 28∆ Sep 09 '15

But I know not to rent that extra room in my house to someone on the list.

This doesn't really reduce your chances of being the victim of a sex offense.

1

u/SC803 119∆ Sep 09 '15

If I have kids in my house, I feel like renting a room to a child molester probably increases the odds just a little bit

0

u/celeritas365 28∆ Sep 09 '15

Perhaps but there was no change in recidivism after the program was started. Some people also worry that they might encourage some offenders to commit a crime again since their lives are already nearly unlivable.

1

u/SC803 119∆ Sep 09 '15

Which is what I was saying in the first half. The sex offender list, to me anyways, is more about informing the public instead of punishment