Hacker News Reader

Comment by csallen | Hacker News Reader

> Some crime victims would rather have their perpetrators “rot in hell” than see them have these kinds of privileges, said Randall Liberty, commissioner of the Maine Department of Corrections, and victims are notified, and their concerns considered, when offenders line up remote jobs.

I can understand those very human feelings. But the state justice system should not be retributive, no matter how much victims want it to be.

It should focus on protection (keeping criminals off the streets and the rest of us safe), deterrence, rehabilitation, and restitution. And its constraints should be fairness, transparency, and speed/efficiency.

View on HN

The official US Federal Government position (and sentencing law) is that promoting correction and rehabilitation are prohibited from sentencing considerations when it comes to imprisonment (and any imprisonment sentence that includes such considerations will be challenged and reversed for resentencing). A prison sentence is a punishment, not a means for correction and/or rehabilitation:

18 U.S. Code § 3582 - Imposition of a sentence of imprisonment....

(a)Factors To Be Considered in Imposing a Term of Imprisonment.— The court, in determining whether to impose a term of imprisonment, and, if a term of imprisonment is to be imposed, in determining the length of the term, shall consider the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, recognizing that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation

That's about the term, not the conditions and resulting impact on the prisoner.

Of course, people seem to prefer inhumane, brutal conditions, regardless of the impact.

Yet another reason why, if I somehow magically found myself on a US jury (given I'm not American, that's not an actual concern), would find it morally impossible to vote to convict anyone.

Satisfying the desire for retribution has to be one of the system's goals, otherwise people would take matters into their own hands. However, you are correct that it shouldn't be the main goal, or even a major one.

Many things make people want to take justice into their hands without us yielding to those who are prepared to commit crimes to punish others.

We have to push the "do not push button" otherwise other people might want to push it.

It blows my mind to see you downvoted for this most simple and straightforward ethical statement — justice and retribution are not the same, and the state should be in the business of justice.

From Plato to the Tao, Christianity and Buddhism, Reverend King and Gandhi, most careful thinkers about ethics, philosophy, and government over thousands of years have come to the same conclusion. The purposes of punishment are to remove a dangerous person from circulation, to make amends to victims, and to deter other potential offenders. Revenge does not enter into it.

Replies here are talking about how good revenge feels, and threatening mob violence if revenge isn’t granted, but consider that those responses are in a context where there is little justice already. We know in our society that injustice is not often punished, and that revenge (e.g., shooting a healthcare CEO) feels great. That is further proof of the importance of justice, not an argument for retribution.

Retribution contributes to deterrence, as well as benefiting the society as a whole by promoting justice.

> Retribution contributes to deterrence,

the actual data on this refutes that. rehabilitation focused countries overhelmingly have less recidivism.

increasing access and quality of education, early intervention like head start, wicc and other "wellfare" programs as well as free healthcare are much more likely to reduce crime rates by a significant amount.

Only if a leading entity emerges and keeps power, but history doesn't show that a single entity can keep power for very long in the grand timeline of humanity.

And that fact--constant threat/change of power--makes the following difficult:

- Having an idea of societal benefit or justice that does not align with a person's feelings (leader of the ruling party)

- Owning land or real property with conveniences like electricity or water - your territory is always under threat and unless you have large numbers of allies you will eventually get swallowed or forced to obey directives of the ruling party.

Furthermore:

- Having large numbers of allies, or being part of or strongly affiliated with the ruling entity just puts you in the same situation as ruling entity which is causing the first 2 things so it can survive.

That's why you have no recidivism in the US?

Retribution is not justice. It does not promote it.

Punishment for misdeeds is a component of justice.

> But the state justice system should not be retributive, no matter how much victims want it to be.

Perhaps you're looking for a form of government other than democracy?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com