Kachana

A major factor considered in sentencing is obviously the safety of the public. Thus, the theft of a bicycle may be met with a fine, whereas the rape of a child will be met with an extended jail term.

However, it can't be doubted that another factor that many, or even most people give credence to, is that of revenge, of personal satisfaction in seeing (or thinking about) the suffering of one who has committed a crime. It is very common to see comments about how murderers and rapists, for instance, should be tortured somehow, or actively made to suffer, rather than just held like other prisoners.

Obviously the emotion of revenge is very strong, but should it play a part in what sentence someone is given? The main difference I see between the 2 reasons considered in sentencing above is that sentencing to protect society is a means of damage limitation, a way of preventing future harm to society. In the case of revenge however, the benefit works in the opposite direction. Instead of taking action to reduce future misery of society, you are taking action to increase the present pleasure of society by providing them with the thought that the criminal is suffering.

Is this a moral way to sentence someone? In other words, should what sentence and punishment someone gets be related to how much satisfaction and happiness the public will get, satisfaction and happiness that is not due to them being safe, but grounded merely in their contemplation of the criminal's suffering?

echidna

Purposes of sentencing in no particular order :

1. Revenge from those affected & those who empathise
2. Deterrence to others
3. Protection of the public
4. Rehabilitation of the perpetrators

The last is maybe the most difficult & each case seems to provide its own unique set of circumstances which need to be balanced and compromised. No matter how much investigation is done, the priorities are so personally subjective that it seems unlikely that a perfect solution can ever be reached.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Revenge? Never comes into it, at least so far as I can see. My own concept of revenge rarely lets people get away so light as life imprisonment or the death sentence for grievous crimes--but I'ma sick bastard that way. Torture, long, drawn out, debilitating torture is revenge. Of course, emotional, psychoogical torture factors in as well, in addition to the loss of what they themselves hold dear. All else is simply natural consequences of actions.

So, is revenge part of our system? Nope. If it were, we'd need someone who actually is into revenge to administer it.

rebelnerd

I don't believe that societal satisfaction should be a factor in the sentence. I do however, think the punishment should fit the crime. As the victim of rape or violent crime will bear the scars for life, the rapist or violent criminal should have to think about it while they are breaking rocks or other hard labor. Criminals should also support themselves through whatever industry is appropriate, as it is not my or societies responsibility to support them. They commited the crime, not I or society.

Filo

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Filo Quiggens ]</p>

fando

I'd favor forced rehabilitation via emasculation for violent criminals and sex offenders in addition to the nebulous rehabilitation from confinement and hard labor. I don't find any moral problems with this approach, and it should satisfy the need for vindication while protecting the public from repeat crimes.

Jamie_L

Revenge should never be part of sentencing. The reason is that revenge is driven by emotion, and such instincts rarely are compatible with a system designed to protect the rights of the innocent.

For instance, the ultimate examples of revenge driven justice are lynchings and vigilatyism. We rightly outlaw such acts. Although sentencing is a more narrow arena of law, revenge still has no place in it. Laws should exists to protect society and its members, period.

To paraphrase a quote that I once heard: our laws should always strive to be better than we are.

Jamie

Perchance

If there were some way to make the criminal feel exactly what his victim felt (for example, to make a rapist feel the same pain and violation and psychological scarring, and to make a murderer feel the terror and death agonies of his victim), then I would be all for this. It might leave scars on the mind, but not on the body, and it would- at least hopefully- make sure the criminal knew just what he had done, and that he would never do it again. Forced empathy. Since empathy is a major factor keeping humans from committing crimes in the first place, I think it would work.

But, in the absence of such things, I favor long-term imprisonment and rehabilitation for all violent and sexual criminals. In some cases, this might not be possible, such as with sociopaths. I do think that either life in prison without parole or the death penalty should be a consideration in these cases.

Revenge would be acceptable if:

1) We could be sure the criminal had actually committed the crime he was accused of. Some crimes arouse such outrage (like rape and child sexual abuse) that people react without thinking to accusations of it. There have been innocent people who committed suicide when accused of abusing children, only to have it turn out that the child recanted the story.

2) We could be sure we were taking the exact penalty from the criminal, making him repay what was lost. And for a lot of crimes, I don't see any way to restore, say, lost life or self-esteem from the agonies of a criminal.

This doesn't keep me, of course, from wishing sometimes, in the heat of anger, that I had the power to take revenge on someone who had injured me. But I write the things down instead, or just think about them, and that usually works.

-Perchance.

tronvillain

I do not think that revenge should play any part in sentencing. Once a sentence has satisfied the demands of prevention, deterrence, and rehabilitation, why should it be altered to satisfy someone's desire for revenge? Yes, the additional suffering will give people emotional satisfaction, but I don't really think that is the sort of thing we want to encourage.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

echidna

From our own front pages today.

<a href="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/16/1029114000013.html" target="_blank">http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/16/1029114000013.html</a>

There’s quite a degree of controversy over this, that multiple murderers are not sentenced this heavily. One cannot avoid the feeling that community revenge is playing a part. I mean really, 20 years or 50 years, the deterrence factor seems little different.

The crime is abominable & I am not entirely comfortable with divorcing emotion from the decision-making process. It sniffs of Political Correctness.

tronvillain

echidna:
There is no need to divorce emotion from the decision making process, but there is a need to avoid inflicting punishment simply for the purpose of deriving emotional satisfaction.