Just Punishment?

• Hi, Derek-- here are two thoughts: (1) I would've liked to hear more about the significance of us being part of the aristocratic class and having control over the system; (2) You seem to assume in your conclusion that people in the aristocratic class are long-run oriented: the aristocratic class is motivated to make x and y changes to the justice system, because in doing so they increase their future wealth. I thought greed kept the aristocratic class thinking short-run, though... Wouldn't they want to maintain the status quo? -- KalliopeKefallinos - 03 Mar 2010
• I'm playing off your second definition, and thinking about how a community, implicated in the wrong/sinful acts of one of its members, might seek to absolve itself of guilt and thereby make itself righteous before God -- and how such absolution might obtain in a secularized world. This article gets at the basic idea: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2713065?seq=4 -- GloverWright - 02 Mar 2010
• How do you mean, Glover? -- DRussellKraft - 02 Mar 2010

Just Punishment?

• I'm playing off your second definition, and thinking about how a community, implicated in the wrong/sinful acts of one of its members, might seek to absolve itself of guilt and thereby make itself righteous before God -- and how such absolution might obtain in a secularized world. This article gets at the basic idea: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2713065?seq=4 -- GloverWright - 02 Mar 2010
• How do you mean, Glover? -- DRussellKraft - 02 Mar 2010
• I wonder if there might also be a broader cultural point to make about theological justification? -- GloverWright - 02 Mar 2010

Just Punishment?

• My concern isn't so much with thinking both thoughts, but more about making both explicit. The space limitation makes it difficult, but I think a simple sentence might help clarify the point. Maybe something along the lines "While it restricts the vengeance of the harmed, it also justifies, even requires, a certain state response." I agree with your reference to the bible, and I think a link would help support the point. There's a lot you could use, but I think Deuteronomy 19 would work nicely. -- StephenSevero - 28 Feb 2010
  • I've tossed in a link as you suggest, but I think my first sentence under Kant says essentially that, no? Maybe I'm just unclear (/unable to get quite outside of my own writing yet), and something better might still come to me. -- DRussellKraft - 28 Feb 2010

• I also realize now that my conclusion sounds mighty flippant, and that there are much better reasons to suggest what I suggest. Starting from a modified premise might help the next revision of this. -- DRussellKraft - 28 Feb 2010

Just Punishment?

• How do you mean, Glover? -- DRussellKraft - 02 Mar 2010
• I wonder if there might also be a broader cultural point to make about theological justification? -- GloverWright - 02 Mar 2010
• Your paragraph on retributivism seems to suggest it makes our punishments harsher. From my, admittedly cynical, viewpoint - it's really a limiting factor. From what I've read, Lex Talionis and its variations were a way to say 'You can't kill for this, you can only inflict so much harm.' When we used to kill, now we only jail. It does give moral justification for the harm, but it also attempts to reign in our baser instinct to just kill anyone who fucks with us. Maybe that's your point too, but the paragraph seems to be riding the middle. -- StephenSevero - 28 Feb 2010

Just Punishment?

• I wonder if there might also be a broader cultural point to make about theological justification? -- GloverWright - 02 Mar 2010
• Your paragraph on retributivism seems to suggest it makes our punishments harsher. From my, admittedly cynical, viewpoint - it's really a limiting factor. From what I've read, Lex Talionis and its variations were a way to say 'You can't kill for this, you can only inflict so much harm.' When we used to kill, now we only jail. It does give moral justification for the harm, but it also attempts to reign in our baser instinct to just kill anyone who fucks with us. Maybe that's your point too, but the paragraph seems to be riding the middle. -- StephenSevero - 28 Feb 2010
  • Stephen - What I'm trying to say is exactly what you suggest: Retributivism certainly has a built-in limiter in the requirement for guilt. To address your criticism, I'm not sure how to get that point as well as the Retributivism's justification of the infliction of suffering by outsiders without some amount of "riding the middle." Do you have suggestions on how I could make it more clear? Cheers. -- DRussellKraft - 28 Feb 2010