Could
rehabilitation be a radical alternative to the current state of
justice in the US? How is it not a continuation of the old justice
and importantly different?
I contend that rehabilitation is just as much a radical alternative to punishment as restitution is. In fact rehabilitation is the natural opposition and has been the long standing alternative to our system of retributive justice, it has simply never been implemented.
Retributive justice assumes the innate morality of punishment proportional to the crime committed. Beyond this theory sounding rather childish in practice ('you hit me I will hit you back'), it obstructs the proper use of a system of justice, which is to regulate human behavior according to the generally accepted ideal of what society should be.
We clearly can not agree on everything, some things need to be deliberated upon, but these things are not the issue here. Murder, rape, and theft are prime examples of things we agree need to be curbed. The retributive system of justice has absolutely no solution except blindly hitting back. A system of rehabilitation dissuades people who have commit crimes from committing them again. It does not propose that the criminally insane, who cannot be rehabilitated, do not exist. These need to be segregated from the population. Rehabilitative justice promises to eliminate criminality to the furthest extent possible.
You may have noticed I have posted about this sort of system of justice about three times now, I think I will make it the subject of paper. I feel like I still have not located why people accept the retributive theory of justice. Without this I don't think I can mount a serious critique, any thoughts?
I think that the appeal of a retributive justice system is its fulfilment of people's wishes for revenge. Regardless of its irrationality, the desire for revenge is a very deeply felt emotion in many, perhaps most, people. A retributive justice system provides people with a way to satisfy this wish without transgressing the bounds of the law, and therefore without risking either personal harm or a guilty conscience. Many people instinctively feel as though those who commit a crime or other harm against someone without justification deserve to have the same thing happen to them. Of course, this leads to an endless cycle of revenge, which in medieval times often went on for generations in the form of blood feuds. A retributive justice system regulates this somewhat, but still satisfies enough of people's wish for retribution that they do not feel wronged as much as they might in a society with a rehabilitative justice system.
ReplyDeleteP.S. I also posted this on my blog if you'd rather read it there.
I agree with you and Avery, naturally. I think that people favor retribution because it makes them feel better, as people who have done a great wrong, apparently deserve the same. We've already pointed out that this is not appropriate, so instead I'll talk about religions.
ReplyDeleteOne of my cousins recently posted something which read something akin to "Don't seek revenge, karma will eventually come back to hurt those who hurt you." I found that to be interesting and pathetic because it is basically saying "don't act in revenge, but hope for it." This still a kind of revenge, which is seemingly contrary to the first message. This cousin identifies as Christian so I tried to identify a genuinely Christian response to that idea. I came up with this "Don't waste your time on revenge. We all deserve to punished for all of eternity; but even those who hurt you can be forgiven and will go to heaven and enjoy paradise and happiness." This message, it seems, is contrary to retribution. Even excluding the historical Jesus, Christians ought to be against retribution.