ohwilleke

Is collective punishment every justified and if so why?

There is certainly a lot of it, even in the U.S. and Western Europe. It isn't just platoons in the military forced to do push-ups because one guy messes up.

Take Arthur Anderson. Half a dozen people in an organization of thousands of people misbehave, and almost all of them are out of work. Most of those people probably didn't even know Enron was a company client. Yet, they lose their jobs.

When a father or mother is sent to prison, that person's kids grow up without a parent for critical years. Often, this tips the balance and causes the kid to get in trouble. Obviously, we can't just let everyone with kids off the hook for crimes. You can say, honestly, that the parent did this to the kids, but, society doesn't come in and provide a helping hand.

I was involved, hands on in assisting a landlord in carrying stuff from a family that was being evicted once. There was no dispute that the rent wasn't being paid, and I didn't feel much sympathy for the parents who had ignored notice after notice after notice until the sheriff showed up with the movers including me. But, as I'm carrying a totally innocent teenage daughter's rock star posters and SAT application out to the street in a box, you think to yourself that there has to be a better way. There's a good chance that the rent problem will prevent that kid from ever going to college. There is a good chance that the move will tear that kid away from high school friends and bring her to someplace where she knows no one.

What about the family that comes to the U.S. because someone in the family has a job, then, maybe that person gets in a bar room fight? This leads to deportation for that family member and in turn causes the whole family to be deported.

What about all the people who predictably suffer when the West embargos Iraq? Sure, it is justifable to take action when one country invades another and, for sake of argument, when they threaten to kill lots of other people with really nasty weapons. It may even be totally the responsiblity of Iraq's leadership and not at all the responsiblity of any other country. But, is that kind of collective punishment of the people of the nation in an attempt to change the regime's policies appropriate?

I suppose that, in all of these cases, you can say that by being part of a group, you have agreed to rise and fall with the group, and that the downsides come with benefitting from the upsides when they happen.

But, what distinguishes these cases from trying to deport the families of Arab Israeli suicide bombers? (Something even Israel's pro-authority Supreme Court disallowed). Is losing a job or a home qualitatively different from making one member of a family take lashes for another's misdeeds, or is it just a matter of degree? Is there a social obligation to help innocents when we harm the guilty and by association harm innocents as well?

Samhain

*bump*

Samhain

I think it's meant to be there as a hinderence, as sort of a way to prevent crime before it happens, unfortunately it doesn't always work that way, and the law is forced to carry out what they said they would in order to attempt to prevent more crime in the future. It's circle of people being made examples of in order to hinder future crime.

echidna

Yes, in general when there is no alternative to punishing the individual.

Yes, harsh. I suspect the action was to make an example to other corporations. Or alternatively conspiracy theorists could suggest that the action was politically motivated or made for the financial gain of those who made the decision …

The trouble is, what’s the alternative ? Misbehaving parents cannot go unpunished (imagine the baby-boom if they could !!), so unfortunately their families also suffer for their actions. Forcible removal isn’t going to work & I can’t think of an alternative.

(wince) Just let’s not bring up Australia’s detention centres.

Political embargos in the name of human rights are not punishments, but they are a double edged sword. The argument is obviously, that by a short-term embargo, the “evil” administration will be weakened to more quickly give way to a better one in the longterm, in the longterm interest of the people who suffer. They also weaken the “evil” administration so their foreign influence is lessened. Personally I have no clear opinion on their “rightness” or “wrongness”.

As usual I cringe at Middle East scenarios, the latest Israeli move is quite different, in that there is no way anymore to punish the individual, so the punishment falls onto the family. Maybe it’s justifiable in a utilitarian sense of deterrence, that the move is meant to deter would-be suicide bombers by the knowledge that their family will suffer.

As such the Israeli government are holding the families hostage, not in the sense that they will be executed, but that they will be punished for the crime of the father. But arguably it also counters the Iraqi “reward” of $20,000 for the family of a suicide bomber.

While such punishment is abhorrent, Middle East circumstances are thankfully unique & my standard right and wrong pretty well goes out the window …

ohwilleke

Wouldn't the alternative be to punish the guilty parties while compensating the innocent parties for the detriment they suffered?

This is what we do when everybody is innocent (e.g. we have to build a bridge over your house, so you have to move, but we will pay you for moving expenses and the house).