This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
The limits of retribution
There can be limits on retribution based on what we can humanely do. We might think a murderer who tortures his victims to death should himself be tortured. But who could take that job and come out of it a decent human being?
"The punishment should fit the crime" is different from "The punishment should be a crime." The concept of "an eye for an eye" was not to dial up criminal sentences but to limit them in a retaliatory social climate. Retribution can be distinguished from retaliation. Torturing the torturer seems to cross the line from justice to retaliation.
4 comments:
But today many deny that it is humane to execute a sadist murderer. Tomorrow, to sentence him to life imprisonment could be deemed inhumane.
So, "humanely do" is insufficient guide because it is subjective.
^ Actually, that "tomorrow" is already here, especialy in Europe, but also here in the US.
"The punishment should fit the crime" is different from "The punishment should be a crime." The concept of "an eye for an eye" was not to dial up criminal sentences but to limit them in a retaliatory social climate. Retribution can be distinguished from retaliation. Torturing the torturer seems to cross the line from justice to retaliation.
"History will judge," and somehow punish I guess, seems to be the current form of justice favored. Whatever that means.
Post a Comment