I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I've come to the conclusion that prisoners should be allowed luxury in their cells, as long as they pay for it themselves. I also think criminals should pay for their own imprisonment, for example by working in the prison.
I think protecting society from criminals should be the only aim of a punishment. Not revenge. Not discouragment. Only Protection. Even murderers should be allowed to live as free as possible as long as they're behind bars.
What do you think?
alimentarius: I think protecting society from criminals should be the only aim of a punishment.
I think protecting society from criminals should be the only aim of a punishment.
Then it is not a punishment is it? For it to be punishment there has to be an element of retribution.
Otherwise your post otherwise basically reeks of collectivism.
If the only purpose of imprisonment is protection of society (which was not injured by the criminal) then you have no justification to make the criminal pay for his own imprisonment. A society can not force someone else to pay for its protection. If I want protection I must pay for it myself. The same then with society. They should pay up. The only way to justify it is via collectivism, that is claiming that different standards apply to an individual and different to a collective.And in any case there is collectivism already in that anybody should be locked up for the sake of society (which is not an injured party) at all. It is also a slippery slope. Why limit yourself to the criminals? Why not also lock some people up preemptively? Hey, it is for the sake of society.
alimentarius:What do you think?
As long as there are uncivilized people you still need deterrents, and deterrents are only effective if there are serious consequences. Now being "protected from society" probably must entail being locked up, so there is an unavoidable element of severe punishment there. The question is whether that loss of freedom is enough of a deterrent, even with luxury. No matter how much luxury you give most people, they won't want to be locked up. However, there have been homeless people who committed crimes just to get into jail, so luxury might exacerbate that problem. Most likely prisons need to be significantly unpleasant (above and beyond the mere loss of freedom) even to people used to hard living in order to avoid such problems.
Anyway, whatever can be done to make criminals into better, more responsible people (and I think there is a lot that could be done) will more likely be pursued by prisons on a free market than now, once people realize that this lowers the future crime rate. Having them pay for their own luxuries sounds fine
Why anarchy fails
AJ: As long as there are uncivilized people you still need deterrents, and deterrents are only effective if there are serious consequences.
As long as there are uncivilized people you still need deterrents, and deterrents are only effective if there are serious consequences.
Consequentialism. Judiciary should be about justice for the injured individual. Not about deterrents for society. Society does not get a say.
Marko:Then it is not a punishment is it?
Good point. Let's call it defense
Marko:Otherwise your post otherwise basically reeks of collectivism.
I'm sorry, leg's call it self-defense.
Marko:If I want protection I must pay for it myself.
Criminals don't have the right to other people's services, do they? They too should pay for their housing, food etc.
alimentarius: Criminals don't have the right to other people's services, do they? They too should pay for their housing, food etc.
Yeah, but he would be able to provide all of this for himself had you not locked him up. You are justifying locking him up with nothing but self-defense, jet you are making him pay for your self-defense. You are turning him into a slave.
This by your own logic, if you only argued that this is something that he deserves by the virtue of what he has done then all of this could be avoided. But I assume you want to feel good about yourself how you only lock up people for protection, not for retribution and thus you can not.
Justice can only be based on compensation or where not possible on retribution.You can have a personal moral code that tells you to forgo retribution for the sake of forgiveness. However you can not justly make this into a law for everyone. And you can not then count on 'society' locking up the criminal anyway after you had left him off the hook.
Marko:eah, but he would be able to provide all of this for himself had you not locked him up.
Locking him in is not initiation of force. The criminal is the one initiating force.
Marko:You are justifying locking him up with nothing but self-defense, jet you are making him pay for your self-defense. You are turning him into a slave.
Slavery is initiation of force. I want him to keep the money he earns, as long as he spends them behind bars.
I agree that people should pay for their own protection by buying alarms, building prisons etc, but not for keeping criminals alive.
alimentarius: Locking him in is not initiation of force. The criminal is the one initiating force.
No he isn't. Society is. He did indeed initiate force against someone, a certain individual. But seeing how you are locking him up not as a form of punishment, but for protection of society then this has nothing to do with his initiation of force. It is not retribution by the injured individual who the only one has the standing to press charges. It is merely 'society' pursuing its self-interest.
Society can not claim to be carrying out retaliatory force when no force was initiated against society (which is impossible anyways).
Marko:He did indeed initiate force against someone, a certain individual. But seeing how you are locking him up not as a form of punishment, but for protection of society then this has nothing to do with his initiation of force.
that's why I changed to "protection of individuals".
Marko:. It is not retribution by the injured individual who the only one has the standing to press charges
When a murderer kills an individual, the individual has no interest in charging the murderer. Are you saying that other individuals aren't legitimated to lock him in?
An element of justice, whether in a civil case or criminal case, is making the victim whole; or at least coming as close as possible given the circumstances. In the case of crimes against property such as theft or arson etc then the individual ought to be paid to compensate the victim, and pay something extra as a punitive measure. For crimes against person then a concept similar to the Anglo-Saxon weregeld would probably work. Only problem with the weregeld is that not everybody has the same price and this would likely piss off those who believe in equality.
alimentarius: that's why I changed to "protection of individuals".
I don't see where you have done this and in case it does not matter. A group of individuals does not get to get protection for themselves for free. Individuals have no more rights than an individual.
alimentarius: When a murderer kills an individual, the individual has no interest in charging the murderer. Are you saying that other individuals aren't legitimated to lock him in?
No they are not. Not for their own "protection".
They are legitimated to carry out the will of the murdered he left any behind, which may range from letting him go free to executing him. Or else to carry out what the relatives of the murdered deem appropriate.
What about situations where the victim hasn't left a will, or in cases where it's family members who are responsible?
If the murdered was a friendless orphan and thus you do not know what he would have wanted done then you probably end up doing whatever is customary in the region. Probably a clean execution.
In a case when someone has been done in by his whole family it gets complicated as hell as then who the hell even has standing to prosecute them, so this is a bag of worms I am not going to touch with a five foot pole. And if you think about for a moment, if he was done in by his whole family he must had done something.
Maybe he had a lot of money and the rest of the family were just greedy. And what constitues family in this case; what about brothers and cousins that the victim didn't see or have contact with for most of his life?
And about the death penalty; can it be defended given the possibility of error?
CrazyCoot: Maybe he had a lot of money and the rest of the family were just greedy.
Maybe he had a lot of money and the rest of the family were just greedy.
Maybe. But seeing they were his whole family chances are still he would have wanted them let go off the hook, rather than put to the wall.
CrazyCoot: And about the death penalty; can it be defended given the possibility of error?
Given the possibility of error can any sentence be defended? Why single out just the most severe one?
Marko:They are legitimated to carry out the will of the murdered he left any behind, which may range from letting him go free to executing him. Or else to carry out what the relatives of the murdered deem appropriate.
Why are the relavites legitimated to execute the victim's will more than other people? And are you serious when you say that the victim of a crime has the right to determine the penalty?
alimentarius: And are you serious when you say that the victim of a crime has the right to determine the penalty?
And are you serious when you say that the victim of a crime has the right to determine the penalty?
Penalty is determined by the severity of the crime. However the victim can waive a part or the whole of his right for retribution resulting in a lower penalty than would otherwise be the case.
alimentarius: [Why are the relavites legitimated to execute the victim's will more than other people?
[Why are the relavites legitimated to execute the victim's will more than other people?
They are not. If there is a will, then you consult the will. However where there is no will, relatives are a good source to get, lets call it, 'oral will' from. They can tell you what would have the murdered wanted, if he was the forgiving type or not.
CrazyCoot:An element of justice, whether in a civil case or criminal case, is making the victim whole; or at least coming as close as possible given the circumstances.
So if I'm raped, I'm being made whole if the rapist is being raped?
Marko:Penalty is determined by the severity of the crime. However the victim can waive a part or the whole of his right for retribution resulting in a lower penalty than would otherwise be the case.
So if the victim was tortured to death and the victim wanted the murderer to be tortured by me, to death it'd be ok if I did so?
And who should pay for the penalty? The victim?
alimentarius: CrazyCoot:An element of justice, whether in a civil case or criminal case, is making the victim whole; or at least coming as close as possible given the circumstances. So if I'm raped, I'm being made whole if the rapist is being raped?
Yes.
Lol, ok. That strikes me as a religious assertion. I don't agree.
alimentarius: So if the victim was tortured to death and the victim wanted the murderer to be tortured by me, to death it'd be ok if I did so?
It wouldn't just be OK. It would be the only way to have justice. Anything else and you are letting an injustice go unpunished.
alimentarius: And who should pay for the penalty? The victim?
The criminal obviously. Seeing how he lost the trial.
alimentarius: So if I'm raped, I'm being made whole if the rapist is being raped?
We can only speculate what punishment would eventually emerge as the most common one for various types of crimes. And even then there would be regional differences and the like. But I very much doubt rape would be prescribed in any case. It would probably be some other form of torture, or forced labour.
First you say that the society should pay for the penalty, now you're saying that the criminal should?
And should today's socialists be punished for their theft in tomorrow's libertarian society?
And how about drunk drivers who kill? Should the family of the victim be allowed to reproduce the car crash and kill him?
I'm confused.
How does torture or rape or forced labor or any other nonsense equate to making the victim whole?