Eye for an Eye

[SeVeR]

...

 

A more violent punishment is a more effective deterrent. A more proportional punishment (eye for an eye) tends to be a more violent punishment. An unproportional punishment on the side of extreme violence is morally wrong, and an unproportional punishment on the side of not enough violence is a less effective deterrent.

[Simulacrum]

Why is "an eye for an eye" the magic point where it would be morally wrong to go any further? Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate what punishment would result in the least total abuse (the strength of the punishment offset by its deterrent effects)?

 

Edit: I mean, you clearly recognize that punishment can be immorally severe. Why do you think that punishment is automatically OK as long as it doesn't cross the eye-for-an-eye line?

Edited January 10, 2010 by Simulacrum

[kid]

My problem with the concept of "an eye for an eye" is that it has no natural limit. Group A attacks Group B because it think Group B deserves to be attacked. Group B retaliates. Group A thinks that group B didn't deserve to attack them back because Group B deserved the attack in the first place. Wash, rinse, repeat. Edited January 10, 2010 by Courage

[SeVeR]

Why is "an eye for an eye" the magic point where it would be morally wrong to go any further? Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate what punishment would result in the least total abuse (the strength of the punishment offset by its deterrent effects)?

 

Edit: I mean, you clearly recognize that punishment can be immorally severe. Why do you think that punishment is automatically OK as long as it doesn't cross the eye-for-an-eye line?

Crossing the eye-for-an-eye line requires you to punish the offender to an extent beyond the crime committed. In effect you are adding to the crime of the perpetrator and passing it off as extra punishment. Less abuse tends to be less deterrent. Define "strength of the punishment" as something independent of deterrent then. Otherwise, I am sure an eye for an eye is a better deterrent than any less severe punishment.

[Simulacrum]

Crossing the eye-for-an-eye line requires you to punish the offender to an extent beyond the crime committed. In effect you are adding to the crime of the perpetrator and passing it off as extra punishment.

And punishing him/her less would be... what... subtracting from the crime? Of course not. You're adding on anyway, so why is an-eye-for-an-eye the balance point?

 

Otherwise, I am sure an eye for an eye is a better deterrent than any less severe punishment.

And worse than any more severe punishment, of course. Again, my point is that you already acknowledge that there are moral considerations beyond deterrence. You have yet to address those considerations directly.

[SeVeR]

An eye-for-an-eye is a punishment exactly equal in "wrong-doing" to the original crime. You are wronging the criminal as much as they wronged someone else. Thus, any lesser punishment is an encouragement to commit the crime. You have the maximum deterrent, beyond which is immoral.

 

there are moral considerations beyond deterrence.

In my opinion, the moral considerations kick-in when you consider punishment greater in severity than the crime. As I said, you are adding punishment that no-one can judge to be deserved. I don't see how any punishment less severe than the original crime incurs moral considerations. In other words, a punishment equal in severity to the crime is no less moral in my opinion than a slap on the wrist. You say I have yet to address moral considerations, well then, ask me what you want me to address. Edited January 12, 2010 by SeVeR

[Simulacrum]

Thus, any lesser punishment is an encouragement to commit the crime.

Uhh, what? If you kill someone and I send you to jail for 20 years, I'm encouraging you to kill more people?

 

In my opinion, the moral considerations kick-in when you consider punishment greater in severity than the crime.

No. You're already weighing moral considerations when you say "this far, but no more." Clearly we both agree that it's wrong to cut off someone's nose. What I'm asking is why it becomes un-wrong when your victim is also guilty.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Simulacrum

[NBVegita]

I can only post quick so here are just some points:

 

Very well. But you have said that retribution is justice;

 

I have stated that some forms of retribution can be justice, not: All retribution is justice.

 

again in that quote we see that you like "eye-for-an-eye" because it is retribution

 

Lol, in the previous sentence you noted I bolded the fair, not the retribution. I like 'eye for an eye' because under my definition(s), it is fair. How many times do I have to say that? One step further I would state that in my opinion, fair retribution would be justice. Unfair retribution (either too light a punishment or too harsh) is not justice.

 

Since then, you've been trying to get me to admit that retribution is fair, according to some unclear definition of fairness. Considering that you've done some (accidental or otherwise) considerable work toward building an argument around fairness, you ought to explain why you value the fairness which you ascribe to retribution.

 

Before I answer another question you pose I want you to answer just a few of mine. These would do:

 

I now ask you if you believe that fairness, justice, morals and ethics are interchangeable synonyms, as I do not believe they are.

Now I propose to you, why does fairness not suffice for justification?

(note that retribution != unfair)

I will even go as far to elaborate on this:

 

Please tell me why, in accordance to your definition of fairness why 'eye for an eye' is an unfair form of justice and elaborate on your reasoning.

Edited January 12, 2010 by NBVegita

[Simulacrum]

I have stated that some forms of retribution can be justice, not: All retribution is justice.

Fine. You have said that fair retribution is justice. Does this have any bearing on my argument?

 

I now ask you if you believe that fairness, justice, morals and ethics are interchangeable synonyms, as I do not believe they are.

It should be pretty clear by now that I not think that these words are interchangeable synonyms. Remember when I said that fairness is not sufficient for justice? Would you like a dictionary?

 

Please tell me why, in accordance to your definition of fairness why 'eye for an eye' is an unfair form of justice and elaborate on your reasoning.

I never said that it was unfair. In fact, I have specifically stated that an eye for an eye satisfies certain definitions of fairness. It does not satisfy certain others, but that is beside the point, as none of those definitions are "mine." I am not saying that retribution is necessarily unfair; I am saying that fair retribution is still not justified.

[NBVegita]

Does this have any bearing on my argument?

 

It has a great bearing on the definition of what I'm saying. Saying all retribution is justice is nothing like saying fair retribution is justice. I am simply elaborating that I never made the initial claim you stated.

 

It should be pretty clear by now that...

 

Nothing with you is clear. You never answer a question directly, if you answer it at all. I asked for a simple answer to a question. Yes or no would have done just fine.

 

I never said that it was unfair. In fact, I have specifically stated that an eye for an eye satisfies certain definitions of fairness.

 

I asked why it is or isn't fair based on YOUR definition of fairness. Stating that it is fair under certain definitions, most notably that I've stated that I define it as fair, is simply restating the obvious.

 

I am saying that fair retribution is still not justified.

 

For the third time:

 

Can you please tell me why, in accordance to your definition of fairness why 'eye for an eye' is an unfair or fair form of justice and elaborate on your reasoning.

Can you please elaborate why you believe that fair retribution is not justified?

[SeVeR]

Thus, any lesser punishment is an encouragement to commit the crime.

Uhh, what? If you kill someone and I send you to jail for 20 years, I'm encouraging you to kill more people?

You're doing more to encourage the initial crime if the punishment is prison rather than eye-for-an-eye execution. And also, don't try to twist my words when you know full well what I am saying.

 

In my opinion, the moral considerations kick-in when you consider punishment greater in severity than the crime.

No. You're already weighing moral considerations when you say "this far, but no more." Clearly we both agree that it's wrong to cut off someone's nose. What I'm asking is why it becomes un-wrong when your victim is also guilty.

It is moral to cut off the nose of someone who cuts off people's noses. Are you trying to tell me that all punishment is immoral? If not, where is your line drawn?

 

What I'm asking is why it becomes un-wrong when your victim is also guilty.

To ask this question you have to think retributive justice is wrong. Regardless of the severity of the punishment, your question implies that all punishment is wrong. If you want to rehabilitate criminals with no real punishment then how do you think criminals will react to your justice system? Edited January 13, 2010 by SeVeR

[Simulacrum]

Does this have any bearing on my argument?

 

It has a great bearing on the definition of what I'm saying. Saying all retribution is justice is nothing like saying fair retribution is justice. I am simply elaborating that I never made the initial claim you stated.

Right, but my argument is exactly the same if you add the word fair to it (or if you understand "retribution" as referring to "eye-for-an-eye" "fair" retribution in this context, as I have).

 

Can you please tell me why, in accordance to your definition of fairness why 'eye for an eye' is an unfair or fair form of justice and elaborate on your reasoning.

Once again: the fact that there are multiple definitions of "fairness" does not mean that I have to pick one to be mine. Your question is meaningless.

 

Can you please elaborate why you believe that fair retribution is not justified?

Same reason ordinary violence isn't justified. Punishment can be justified where it will prevent further harm. Doing violence to someone just because they're a Bad Person™ who Deserves It™, however, doesn't even claim to prevent future harm.

 

You're doing more to encourage the initial crime if the punishment is prison rather than eye-for-an-eye execution.

Or if the punishment is eye-for-an-eye execution rather than execution by torture. Again, there are moral considerations in inflicting violence, and you have not explained why they are bounded by the eye-for-an-eye line.

 

It is moral to cut off the nose of someone who cuts off people's noses.

So I could cut off the executioner's nose, then?

 

More seriously: Why is it moral?

 

And since you are trying to argue that eye-for-an-eye punishment is just, why are you reasoning from statements like "It is moral to cut off the nose of someone who cuts off people's noses"?

 

Are you trying to tell me that all punishment is immoral? If not, where is your line drawn?

This is not at all what I am saying. Punishment can be immoral, but vengeance is an immoral purpose for punishment.

 

Punishment should be tailored to prevent abuse in the future, whether by the person who is punished or by others who are deterred by it. While this principle may indeed justify eye-for-an-eye punishment in some cases, using the eye-for-an-eye principle as an ends in itself means that the prevention of abuse falls by the wayside. And if preventing abuse is not a goal, why have the law in the first place?

[NBVegita]

Once again: the fact that there are multiple definitions of "fairness" does not mean that I have to pick one to be mine. Your question is meaningless.

 

Once again I'm asking for YOUR definition of fairness. You can try to skirt the question forever but in your mind, you must have some concept of what you believe is fair and that which you don't. I am asking for you to apply your concept of fairness.

 

Punishment can be justified where it will prevent further harm. Doing violence to someone just because they're a Bad Person™ who Deserves It™, however, doesn't even claim to prevent future harm.

 

Can you prove that 'eye for an eye' punishment would not prevent future harm?

 

A second question, "bring to justice" means to bring in front of a court or trial to receive punishment for misdeeds. (paraphrased)

So based on the above, why would justice need to imply prevention of future misdeeds?

 

Or are you saying that your definition of justice is not to exact a punishment for a crime committed, but to enact a non violent punishment in hopes of deterring the future crime?

[Simulacrum]

Once again I'm asking for YOUR definition of fairness. You can try to skirt the question forever but in your mind, you must have some concept of what you believe is fair and that which you don't. I am asking for you to apply your concept of fairness.

Once again: the fact that there are multiple definitions of "fairness" does not mean that I have to pick one to be mine.

 

Can you prove that 'eye for an eye' punishment would not prevent future harm?

Perhaps it would, in some cases. As I said before, I am not in all cases opposed to punishment equal to offense. I am, however, opposed to treating this as an ends in itself.

 

Anyway, the burden of proof ought to be on the person advocating that we mutilate people.

 

A second question, "bring to justice" means to bring in front of a court or trial to receive punishment for misdeeds. (paraphrased)

So based on the above, why would justice need to imply prevention of future misdeeds?

Justice means different things in different contexts. Quit equivocating.

 

Or are you saying that your definition of justice is not to exact a punishment for a crime committed, but to enact a non violent punishment in hopes of deterring the future crime?

That is not how I define justice, but I do think that justice necessitates non-violent punishment. It does, however, necessitate punishment respectful of human rights and aimed toward concrete benefits.

[NBVegita]

lol so basically what you're telling me is that you won't answer my question as to your opinion on what is fair or not. I'm not tying you down to any preexisting concept of what is fair or not. I'm asking what you personally believe to be fair or unfair about this situation.

 

It's a very simple concept. I ask your opinion, you give the opinion. Next we'll try coloring inside the lines.

 

Anyway, the burden of proof ought to be on the person advocating that we mutilate people.

 

Why, because you are morally opposed to it? My argument has been about fairness not as a crime deterrent, you mentioned that it wouldn't deter crime and I'm simply asking you to support that.

 

Justice means different things in different contexts. Quit equivocating.

That is not how I define justice, but I do think that justice necessitates non-violent punishment. It does, however, necessitate punishment respectful of human rights and aimed toward concrete benefits.

 

Where am I stalling or being unclear? If anything you are the one who has done his best to avoid giving answers to very simple questions.

 

Please then give me YOUR definition of justice.

 

As for your human rights, I believe that if one man takes another man's human rights away from him, he has forfeited his own rights in the same capacity. (To be clear, he forfeits his rights in the manner that he took the rights from another being. I'm not saying that all human rights are lost once one singular right is trod upon)

 

So through all of this pandering, all you're basically saying is that you don't believe in 'eye for an eye' because it goes against your morals? If that is not correct, please feel free to correct me.

Edited January 13, 2010 by NBVegita

[SeVeR]

Look at it this way. Punishment is justified because criminals must be deterred from their crimes. It then becomes a matter of how much punishment. Severe crimes would deserve a more severe punishment. Would you execute someone for stealing an apple and confiscate the possessions of someone who killed? Of course not. So what is the limit for how much punishment you inflict? Any punishment up to and including the crime is morally acceptable because it is what the criminal believes is acceptable behaviour. He committed the crime, therefore he thinks it is acceptable to act in that way to an innocent person. It is the criminal who indicates the depth of his own immorality. Any punishment in excess of the crime could be morally acceptable, but it could also be immoral, because you have become the judge of what the criminal deserves, as opposed to the actions of the criminal. Your actions could be disproportionately violent. However, if you act too lightly, justice may not be served.

 

It is moral to cut off the nose of someone who cuts off people's noses.

So I could cut off the executioner's nose, then?

 

More seriously: Why is it moral?

 

And since you are trying to argue that eye-for-an-eye punishment is just, why are you reasoning from statements like "It is moral to cut off the nose of someone who cuts off people's noses"?

Firstly no, the justice system is the dictate of society, and society condones retributive justice for a crime, not retributive justice for retributive justice. Secondly, it's moral because criminals must pay for their crimes, otherwise there would be no deterrent for those crimes. Perhaps you should explain why it is immoral first, although I doubt you will. The last question, I don't understand what you're saying, it was a statement, not an argument.

 

Are you trying to tell me that all punishment is immoral? If not, where is your line drawn?

This is not at all what I am saying. Punishment can be immoral, but vengeance is an immoral purpose for punishment.

 

Punishment should be tailored to prevent abuse in the future, whether by the person who is punished or by others who are deterred by it. While this principle may indeed justify eye-for-an-eye punishment in some cases, using the eye-for-an-eye principle as an ends in itself means that the prevention of abuse falls by the wayside. And if preventing abuse is not a goal, why have the law in the first place?

All punishment is a form of vengeance. If vengeance is immoral then so is punishment. I stand by what I said, you think all punishment is immoral.

 

You admit that eye-for-an-eye punishment can prevent abuse. I will argue that it always prevents abuse if it is used in addition to prison sentences (as the protection of the public is another tenet of our justice system). The eye-for-an-eye part is merely an added deterrent that goes further to prevent abuse.

Edited January 13, 2010 by SeVeR

[Simulacrum]

(Ignoring NBVegita. Not that anyone should be surprised.)

(Internet ate the first edition of this post. Color me upset.)

 

So what is the limit for how much punishment you inflict? Any punishment up to and including the crime is morally acceptable because it is what the criminal believes is acceptable behaviour. He committed the crime, therefore he thinks it is acceptable to act in that way to an innocent person. It is the criminal who indicates the depth of his own immorality.

This is absurd. People commit violent crimes not because they judge them to be ethical, but because they are considering practical rather than ethical interests. If you really want to take a convict's opinion on his punishment, just ask him. I suspect, however, that you won't find so much support for your position.

 

Secondly, it's moral because criminals must pay for their crimes, otherwise there would be no deterrent for those crimes.

You know as well as I do that an eye for an eye is not necessary for there to be any deterrence, unless you really believe that states without the death penalty have no deterrents against murder.

 

Also, it's misleading to portray retribution as payment. Payment, in the example case, would be for the attackers to pay for their victim's medical treatment, counseling, etc. Retribution, on the other hand, would hurt the criminal worse and help the victim less.

 

The last question, I don't understand what you're saying, it was a statement, not an argument.

I never said that it was anything but a statement:

 

And since you are trying to argue that eye-for-an-eye punishment is just, why are you reasoning from statements like "It is moral to cut off the nose of someone who cuts off people's noses"?

But, since this statement is obviously part of an argument, it should not assume that the conclusion of the argument is correct. Otherwise, you end up in Circular Logic Land, which has short summers and nasty winters.

 

All punishment is a form of vengeance. If vengeance is immoral then so is punishment. I stand by what I said, you think all punishment is immoral.

The bolded part is patently false, as are the conclusions following from it. Punishment can be a deterrent or involve restitution without being done for revenge. These are legitimate ends of punishment; vengeance is not.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Simulacrum

[SeVeR]

I think this will be my last post on this topic. You cannot argue without deliberately misinterpreting everything I say into implying something ridiculously improbable.

 

Any punishment up to and including the crime is morally acceptable because it is what the criminal believes is acceptable behaviour. He committed the crime, therefore he thinks it is acceptable to act in that way to an innocent person. It is the criminal who indicates the depth of his own immorality.

This is absurd. People commit violent crimes not because they judge them to be ethical, but because they are considering practical rather than ethical interests. If you really want to take a convict's opinion on his punishment, just ask him. I suspect, however, that you won't find so much support for your position.

I never said the criminal is the judge. I said the degree of the criminal's unethical behaviour is what you use to judge how unethical his punishment can be. It doesn't matter what the criminal thinks of his crime. The criminal's actions determine his punishment, not his opinions. The criminal has shown what he considers acceptable behaviour (ethical or not, he thinks he can act that way because he has acted that way), therefore an equal punishment is acceptable behaviour in his case. Once again, it wasn't so hard to understand what I was saying here, yet you still seek to misinterpret for purposes of reductio ad absurdum. So no, I don't think we should take the criminals opinion on what punishment they think they deserve, did you really think I was saying that? I can see why NBV was getting fed up with you now.

 

You know as well as I do that an eye for an eye is not necessary for there to be any deterrence, unless you really believe that states without the death penalty have no deterrents against murder.

 

Also, it's misleading to portray retribution as payment. Payment, in the example case, would be for the attackers to pay for their victim's medical treatment, counseling, etc. Retribution, on the other hand, would hurt the criminal worse and help the victim less.

I have said this multiple times and will have to say it again, eye-for-an-eye gives an added deterrence. Eye-for-an-eye is not necessary for deterrence. Any form of punishment is a deterrent! And look, once again you are doing the reductio ad absurdum routine... so no, I don't think states without the death penalty have no deterrent. Did you really think I was saying that?

 

When I say "pay for their crimes" I obviously mean punishment, the words are synonyms and it is also a common phrase to mean punishment. Once again you are misinterpreting deliberately. I made no mention of payment for medical treatment.

 

The bolded part is patently false, as are the conclusions following from it. Punishment can be a deterrent or involve restitution without being done for revenge. These are legitimate ends of punishment; vengeance is not.

When is restitution punishment? Never. If I steal some money and a court orders me to give it back, have I been punished? No.

 

Yes, punishment can be a deterrent, but it is a vengeful deterrent. You haven't proven anything. All punishment is a form of vengeance.

 

I never said that it was anything but a statement:

You said I was reasoning from a statement, i.e. arguing. Anyway, why dedicate half your post to such an inane argument? Edited January 14, 2010 by SeVeR

[Simulacrum]

Christ, I might as well just duck out and let you argue with yourself:

 

I never said the criminal is the judge.

Any punishment up to and including the crime is morally acceptable because it is what the criminal believes is acceptable behaviour.

 

It doesn't matter what the criminal thinks of his crime.

He committed the crime, therefore he thinks it is acceptable to act in that way to an innocent person.

 

Or, looking within your post rather than between them:

 

It doesn't matter what the criminal thinks of his crime. The criminal's actions determine his punishment, not his opinions.

The criminal has shown what he considers acceptable behaviour ... therefore an equal punishment is acceptable behaviour in his case.

 

I have said this multiple times and will have to say it again, eye-for-an-eye gives an added deterrence. Eye-for-an-eye is not necessary for deterrence. Any form of punishment is a deterrent! And look, once again you are doing the reductio ad absurdum routine... so no, I don't think states without the death penalty have no deterrent. Did you really think I was saying that?

When you say "it's moral ... otherwise there would be no deterrent for those crimes," "it" referring to eye-for-an-eye punishment, what else am I to infer? Granted, I think it's a silly thing to say, but when your argument plainly states that equal retribution is necessary for deterrence, what else do I have to respond to? Your secret inner thoughts?

 

While "payment" can refer to punishment, it was you who placed it specifically in a context of eye-for-an-eye punishment. If it is not payment in an economic sense, then it is not a justification for the eye-for-an-eye principle.

 

When is restitution punishment? Never. If I steal some money and a court orders me to give it back, have I been punished? No.

Fair.

 

Yes, punishment can be a deterrent, but it is a vengeful deterrent. You haven't proven anything. All punishment is a form of vengeance.

Ironic that you would accuse me of not proving anything right in the midst of merely asserting that all punishment is vengeance. Care to elaborate?

Edited January 14, 2010 by Simulacrum

[SeVeR]

You mean you actually believe your own misinterpretations? OK, well I'll reply for your benefit then.

 

Look it's simple. Criminal commits crime. The severity of his crime dictates the severity of his punishment. This punishment is moral because the criminal thinks he can act that way towards other people. BUT THIS PUNISHMENT IS NOT THE PUNISHMENT THE CRIMINAL THINKS HE DESERVES. DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND YET?

 

How the hell can you think I was saying the criminal should determine his own punishment? To think I am saying this is not only ridiculously stupid on your part, or annoying trollish, but it shows an immense lack of respect for me to think I would be saying that. And you wonder why I am annoyed with you?

 

but when your argument plainly states that equal retribution is necessary for deterrence

WTF............. this was never my argument, and I even said so in my last post! You are a troll. Get lost.

 

-EDIT- Ok I looked back to where you got this from. You got it from this statement "Secondly, it's moral because criminals must pay for their crimes, otherwise there would be no deterrent for those crimes." So tell me, what does this say:

 

(1) One reason for eye-for-an-eye punishment being moral is because criminals must be punished (pay for their crimes), otherwise there is no deterrent.

(2) Criminals must be punished with eye-for-an-eye punishment, because without eye-for-an-eye punishment there is no deterrent.

 

I don't see where (2) appears in the quote Simulacrum. Stop trolling, stop deliberately misinterpreting. To know that you are trolling, here is a quote of mine from the very same post "The eye-for-an-eye part is merely an added deterrent that goes further to prevent abuse." So, what, you didn't read this because it contradicted your ridiculous interpretation of what I was saying?

 

While "payment" can refer to punishment, it was you who placed it specifically in a context of eye-for-an-eye punishment. If it is not payment in an economic sense, then it is not a justification for the eye-for-an-eye principle.

I placed it specifically in that context, yet you somehow misunderstood it? Right. You are just being a troll. You quoted "payment" yet I actually said "pay for their crimes" which is a very common phrase meaning punishment. All punishment is a deterrence, and therefore if eye-for-an-eye gives added deterrence then this is some justification for the eye-for-an-eye principle. First, note that I did not say "necessary for deterrence", that is something you made up. Refer to the WTF statement above. Secondly, read it before instantly disagreeing with it.

 

Ironic that you would accuse me of not proving anything right in the midst of merely asserting that all punishment is vengeance. Care to elaborate?

You need to give an example of a punishment that isn't a form of vengeance. Otherwise my argument stands. You need to contribute to this discussion. As far as I can tell, you haven't given a single alternate theory to anything I've said yet. Edited January 14, 2010 by SeVeR

[SeVeR]

Double post. Edited January 14, 2010 by SeVeR

[Simulacrum]

 

This punishment is moral because the criminal thinks he can act that way towards other people.

You say this like it is self-evident, and yet it is pretty clearly not. What is your justification for it?

 

So tell me, what does this say:

 

(1) One reason for eye-for-an-eye punishment being moral is because criminals must be punished (pay for their crimes), otherwise there is no deterrent.

(2) Criminals must be punished with eye-for-an-eye punishment, because without eye-for-an-eye punishment there is no deterrent.

There may be a minor difference, but (1) is still deeply flawed; you say that eye-for-an-eye punishment is moral because punishment is necessary, and offer no justification. And since you justify punishment (which you practically conflate with eye-for-an-eye punishment) by saying that it is necessary for deterrence, it's not hard to see where my interpretation comes from.

 

I placed it specifically in that context, yet you somehow misunderstood it? Right. You are just being a troll. You quoted "payment" yet I actually said "pay for their crimes" which is a very common phrase meaning punishment.

Yet you were speaking not of punishment in general, but of eye-for-an-eye punishment. In spite of your insistence on telling me what my opinion is, we both agree that punishment is justifiable. Our difference is that you think punishment should be eye-for-an-eye. So, let's look at a simpler example. What if you had said "Eye-for-an-eye punishment is necessary because criminals must pay for their crimes"? If I interpret "pay for their crimes" as "be punished," I'm left with "Eye-for-an-eye punishment is necessary because criminals must be punished," which sounds silly because it does nothing to establish the "eye-for-an-eye" part. Now, there is another way of interpreting "pay," and, while it may not be the most natural, it actually manages to account for the full claim being made and therefore form a coherent argument.

 

I guess it's up to you which interpretation you were going for. But they're both flawed.

 

Also, I don't fully accept that "payment" in the context of criminal justice does not imply a vengeance model. Where do you think that phrase comes if not from a notion that inflicting punishment repays something to the victim?

 

You need to give an example of a punishment that isn't a form of vengeance. Otherwise my argument stands. You need to contribute to this discussion. As far as I can tell, you haven't given a single alternate theory to anything I've said yet.

Seriously? I've been talking about deterrence and consequentialism since page one. Any punishment geared toward preventing future crime rather than inflicting pain Because It's Just is not vengeance.

 

In fact, although you've been talking about vengeance, you've also been talking about it from the start merely as something that arises naturally from deterrence. It seems to me that we don't disagree at all about the ends of punishment, but I still don't understand why you regard an eye for an eye as the magic formula for the appropriate level of deterrence. Now as before, that's my real question.

[SeVeR]

On your interpretations: You interpret every statement I make to mean something ridiculously implausible because you prefer to argue against something that is ridiculous, it is easier. If you misinterpret something (deliberately or not) I’ll just say no from now on. No, that is not my argument. When you interpret my words as saying something tantamount to “The Earth is flat”, stop, think, and try again.

 

Anyway,

You say this like it is self-evident, and yet it is pretty clearly not.

Why is it pretty clearly not?

There may be a minor difference, but (1) is still deeply flawed

Why is it deeply flawed?

Also, I don't fully accept that "payment" in the context of criminal justice does not imply a vengeance model.

Oh, i agree, since you still haven't managed to prove wrong my statement that all punishment is a form of vengeance. Paying for your crimes means punishment, which means vengeance. You are also still quoting "payment" when that is not what I said.

 

Any punishment geared toward preventing future crime rather than inflicting pain Because It's Just is not vengeance.

Is there any punishment geared to preventing future crime that isn't also vengeance? Give an example. What punishments do not inflict pain of one kind or another? What makes one punishment vengeance and another punishment not?

 

eye for an eye as the magic formula for the appropriate level of deterrence. Now as before, that's my real question.

To exceed eye-for-an-eye is to add severity to a punishment that exceeds what the criminal deems to be acceptable behaviour. The criminal's behaviour is wrong, therefore he needs to learn that for himself by experiencing how it is wrong. This is justification for eye-for-an-eye. He has to learn why his particular behaviour is wrong. Making the punishment exceed the criminals behaviour doesn't teach him a thing because the criminal will just think that what he did wasn't so bad. Alternately, a lesser punishment only reduces the deterrence for a repeat of the crime, or for other criminals to perform the crime knowing the punishment isn't equal to their crime. This is a deterrence in addition to prison-time. Prison serves the purpose of safe-guarding society and is a deterrent in itself. Eye-for-an-eye adds an extra deterrent, and is morally justifiable for the aforementioned reason that the criminal must learn why his crime was wrong. Therefore I recommend it because it increases the deterrent for the crime and is morally sound. Edited January 15, 2010 by SeVeR

[Simulacrum]

To exceed eye-for-an-eye is to add severity to a punishment that exceeds what the criminal deems to be acceptable behaviour.

And now you're talking about the criminal's opinion again. I'm sure you'll accuse me of twisting your words here, though, as at every other turn. Whatever. I'm out.

[SeVeR]

Well you can't seem to tell the difference between what a criminal deems to be acceptable behaviour and what a judge deems to be a suitable punishment for that behaviour. You seem to be hung up on the idea that the criminal's opinion on his punishment is somehow important to my argument. I guess you're a lost cause as you failed to understand the most basic underlying principle of my whole argument.

 

I toned my last post to ask you more questions and got the expected response, a non-response.