This guy did it multiple times.
Life penalties didn’t prevent these assaults. So the penalty is vengeance rather than deterrence.
Dude come on. I know that you know this is a shit argument, so Im not even going to entertain it.
>So the penalty is vengeance
The "penalty" is not a penalty, its a removal of that person from the rest of society. Like I said, I would be for full reintegration centers. Put that person on LSD/Shroom/MDMA/Ketamine therapy, put him to work, build out reward systems for normal human behavior, and when he has demonstrated that he can hold down a job and resolve conflicts normally, put him back into society.
Like you, I'm also a consequentialist. Not everyone else is!
> So the penalty is vengeance rather than deterrence.
It is neither vengeance nor deterrence. It is (supposed to be) protection of the public from this (supposedly) dangerous individual.
You can also find plenty of examples where in fights, someone got thrown to the ground on their head, and got a concussion. That shit can be life altering.
>Fighting and violence is very normal
Yes, I understand this. People make irrational choices all the time.There are very little things that prevent someone from drinking and getting behind the wheel of a car or a truck. And yet, the support for mandatory breathalyzer devices standard in vehicles to be able to operate them is never going to be high. So people are making the irrational choice to risk getting killed by a drunk driver rather than lose some fake "freedom". And people like the commenters here also make the irrational choice to view fighting in a way less serious light then it should be.
In this case, though the problem is solved - a person who should not be in society is not, and it should remain that way.
Your "cut and dry" philosophy flies in the face of reality.
A kid is raised in the hood, beaten by their parents, watches someone get shot to death in a drive by one day and the next week someone shot in the back by cops. In school they quickly learn that bullies leave you alone if you punch back. On the street doubly so, they learn demonstrating a willingness for violence mostly gets you left alone.
At 17 years old they're at a McDonald's and someone shoulder checks them. Maybe it was an accident, maybe it wasn't, but the kid tosses a "what the fuck?", and the other person had done it by accident but is mad at the reaction so on a whim says "fuck you bitch." Our main character throws a punch, a fight ensues, the cops come, he's arrested.
This person should be jailed forever?
This makes no sense to me from any analysis angle. Ethically, practically, capitalistically, no matter how I slice it I can't square it. If you argued for him to be immediately executed it would at least make a little bit of capitalistic sense and be logical within the context of a fucked up ethical system (a non evidence based one) but no instead you want them locked up for life.
Why? And why not argue instead for summary execution of the undesirables?
The solution in many cases I would say is not punishment / imprisonment, but rather help, in the form of therapy or education or something. Of course some restrictions and some kind of warning and period where you are watched more closely are suitable, but it doesn't have to be hard punishment right away.
Fighting is unethical, but many prisons and law cases are much more unethical than most fights.
Not just a couple fights.
As an example, in Seattle there was a documentary called “Seattle is Dying” that covered the trend of crimes and repeat offenders, due to the city’s lenient restorative justice policies. A person featured in that documentary had been arrested nearly 50 times and convicted more than 35 times. But he was nevertheless released back into the streets, due to progressive restorative justice policies. He ultimately murdered his girlfriend before killing himself, inside the infamous CHAZ/CHOP autonomous zone:
https://komonews.com/news/operation-crime-justice/travis-ber...
Fighting is something that can cause lasting damage, so it should be treated seriously.
When someone is found guilty of an offense, its based on intent, not the outcome. Judging people based on outcome would lead to people thinking they can get away with crime if nobody gets hurt, which you don't want because people make bad choices all the time.
As such, if someone is found guilty of fighting, or otherwise any action that could result in life lasting injury to someone, regardless of outcome, its absolutely reasonable to expect that the punishment should be prison for life, both as a deterrent, and as a way to keep that person permanently out of society.
The solution to not being in that situation is simple, don't assault people. Its not that hard.
There is a saying eye for eye and tooth for tooth. It is just disproportionate to lock someone up 20 years for a brawl and misdemeanour. Also there is a big difference between thinking and saying, saying and doing. What you are talking about is Deterrence Theory. If people escalate violence immediately the outcome will be bad, similarly the state shouldn't escalate violence. I mean to say that if you said something mean to me, I would escalate the situation if I hit you in response. Being mean back to you would keep it down or better yet I don't engage.
Similarly I could argue all car drivers should expect prison for life, because their driving could result in life lasting injury or even death.
If that's the case, we clearly can't trust the justice system, so my question on how we determine whether the State is issuing violence or force is the same.
By locking up Chauvin unjustly, has the State used force, or violence?
So fighting is still the "eye" no matter which way you look at it, and should be punished accordingly, no matter what the actual outcome is. "Tooth" would be yelling and shouting, which is how normal adults should express anger
It doesn't matter if this type of punishment is a deterrent or not, the most important thing is to remove people like that from society, permanently.
Eye for and eye and tooth for a tooth is to say that if you hit my eye black or if I lose a teeth, its not enough to apologise.
I mean on paper it sounds reasonable but in the context of this story its wrong to jail someone infinitelly for a brawl. If it was a serial killer I would agree with you. A murder? Idk maybe it was in self defense. Its complicated and there is no easy solution.