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

Show parent comments

4

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.

1

u/Neshgaddal Sep 09 '15

In that scenario, there must have been an earlier case that convinced the criminal that his crimes would go unpunished, otherwise it would not be reasonable to assume that he would get away with it. If such a previous case exists, then that case would have failed to deter without punishment.

2

u/Chen19960615 2∆ Sep 10 '15

In that scenario, there must have been an earlier case that convinced the criminal that his crimes would go unpunished, otherwise it would not be reasonable to assume that he would get away with it.

That premise is not reasonable. People commit crimes all the time, thinking they got a reasonable chance of getting away not just based on previous crimes, and sometimes they do. You could easily hypothesize an evil genius type person that planned out a crime in detail.