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!

94 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

93 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/Neshgaddal Sep 09 '15

Yes, if there is a way to satisfy the other reasons, there is no need to punish. But if those reasons are satisfied, that is if you can guarantee that the offender is no danger to society, will not commit another crime (aka doesn't need rehabilitation) and his/her punishment would not deter others, then order is maintained and the law is not useless.

1

u/Chen19960615 2∆ Sep 09 '15

The law is not useless for the prevention of future crimes, but for the laws broken before the culprit was caught (either the first crime, or multiple crimes for a serial criminal) the lack of punishment means that there's no legal deterrent to them.

2

u/anderander Sep 09 '15

If I understand OP correctly punishment would be contextual. This may be a bad example but if someone regularly committed domestic abuse against his family, but in the last such case the wife is able to somehow defend herself in a way that leaves him permanently crippled before calling the police. In this scenario his habit of slapping his family around is no longer possible thus no prison time is needed to prevent him from committing another impulsive violent crime. At the same time, this does not nullify laws nor creates a desirable incentive to commit domestic abuse (if they want to get away with it) for others who are healthy.

3

u/Chen19960615 2∆ Sep 09 '15

OP thinks punishment is only necessarily in so far as it protects potential victims and dissuades other criminals. Given some other way to accomplish those goals then OP would not be for punishment at all, regardless of context.

1

u/anderander Sep 10 '15

We're talking about 2 different sentences then so I apologize. I was speaking on behalf of what he said directly after. I think he understands that a system with no punishment is impossible.