You're at it *AGAIN*
So what justice system *DO* you approve of, or are you anti punishment by imprisonment altogether? I don't think I have ever read a thread on here where punishment is discussed and you haven't trotted out various opinions on it being too harsh, inappropriate, broken system, etcetera.
I watched an interesting programme many years ago on the theories of Crime & Punishment and your comment here relates to it. It'll relieve you to know I'm no expert on the subject
and have only done a little reading, but the basics are there are two general philosophies on Crime & Punishment; Utilitarian & Retributive
Theories of punishment can be divided into two general philosophies: utilitarian and retributive. The utilitarian theory of punishment seeks to punish offenders to discourage, or "deter," future wrongdoing. The retributive theory seeks to punish offenders because they deserve to be punished.
Under the utilitarian philosophy, laws should be used to maximize the happiness of society. Because crime and punishment are inconsistent with happiness, they should be kept to a minimum. Utilitarians understand that a crime-free society does not exist, but they endeavor to inflict only as much punishment as is required to prevent future crimes.
The counterpart to the utilitarian theory of punishment is the retributive theory. Under this theory, offenders are punished for criminal behavior because they deserve punishment. Criminal behavior upsets the peaceful balance of society, and punishment helps to restore the balance.
The retributive theory focuses on the crime itself as the reason for imposing punishment. Where the utilitarian theory looks forward by basing punishment on social benefits, the retributive theory looks backward at the transgression as the basis for punishment.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/9576/Punishment-THEORIES-PUNISHMENT.html
Now most societies have a combination of both philosophies and in the main the two overlap anyway and have a similar view on the punishment for most crimes, it's just at the extremes where it can diverge immensely.
Now you are firmly in the Retributive camp and Vincent and myself are more into the Utilitarian camp, and since most of the discussions on here are about extreme examples, it's why we never sem to meet in our views
But it's not that he's "soft" on crime, he just has a different end result in mind with the reason of the punishment.
I do remember two good hypothetical examples in the lecture years ago to make the point (These are extreme positions and not to be taken literally) :-
Double Yellow Parking :
The Retributive camp would say this is a minor crime and is suitably dealt with by way of a fine or points.
The Utilitarian Camp say that double yellow parking costs lives each year, because emergency services are delayed by cars blocking their way, so the punishment should be the Death Penalty. This would stop most people committing such a minor offence in the first place and thus bring an overall benefit to society by saving lives.
At the other end you have Terrorism :
The Retributive camp would say this is a major crime that causes a lot of suffering so the punishment should be extreme to mirror the suffering given.
The Utilitarian Camp say that locking a Terrorist up and treating them harshly does nothing to stop future Terrorist acts from happening, as the next person will just come along and take their place, so the resources of the state should be used to tackle the ideology of Terrorism to stop future people being recruited and no severe punishment to the individual.
I stress to add these are extreme positions to make a point and mostly the two camps are in broad agreement and in the real world we have a medium point between the two philosophies.
