Which do you feel is the higher justification for punishment?

Question

As an example say you are at a public event and a teenager does something that is considered “wrong”. You can fill in the blank for what you feel is wrong, I will say the teenager stole something and that will be sufficient. Punishment is to follow for the teenager’s actions, but is the *higher* justification of the punishment for:

A. To teach the individual a personal lesson in what is considered right versus wrong.

B. As an act to show the “group” in what is considered right versus wrong?

Note: I realize that this answer can be blended for both purposes, but I wish to know what you, personally, feel is the *higher* justification for the punishment.

Answer 1

As per Darwin the ONLY justification for anything is personal survival.

Since belonging to a group/society is so crucial to survival, violations of the social contract must be punished to promote cohesiveness.

The 'task' at hand is to prevent anti social behavior, so it's hard to define any given aspect as 'higher'.

The transgressing individual must be taught not to transgress.

The individuals transgressed against must feel recompensed/avenged for their wrongs,  

And non involved individuals must feel justice prevails, both as a deterrent to discourage personal misbehavior, and as an incentive to support society because it is looking after their best interest.

I suppose the MOST important aspect is to 'spank' the transgressing individual - but it hard to express how bad things can get if a societies justice system loses it's credibility.

Answer 2

...to establish a working legal justice system applicable to all...injustice committed either petty or severe...

Answer 3

well, (in assuming outside of a religious context) in A, what if the person doesn't learn the lesson or knows right from wrong but simply does not care?  What if the punishment doesn't give them an opportunity to be accepted back into society as a reformed member... the lesson, time, and resources were wasted.

In B, you punish one as a threat to others... again, another person has to care about the consequence and also think he can't get away with it.  Plus you have to make an example of everyone, every time, or it's unfair.

Finally, what of the victim(s)?  They have been wronged, should they not be recompensed?  If they were stolen from, they could be returned the value of the items but what if they were physically harmed or a family member murdered out of cold blood?  The A and B options don't provide anything to the victim unless the punishment is what "they feel" is deserved.  Many people think the murderer of their loved one got off easy after 20 years in prison, getting out, having a job and family...

Just some thoughts...

Answer 4

That's a great question ... thought-provoking and aimed for consideration beyond a knee-jerk response.

It seems reasonable that throughout the course of human nature the concept of "punishment" has been a viable and often troubling issue for the founding and sustaining of all civilizations.  As such, punishment is not something that has been -nor should be now- closed to thought and open discussion -from philosophers to penal systems.

You aptly note that A. and B. can be blended and, in my view, are, purposefully or not, inextricably linked.  As such, my reply is directed at such a blend ... but does not dance around your solicitation of which (of the two) is the "higher" justification for punishment.

For me, the higher justification is always on the individual ... without the individual there is no group.  That is, the crossroad of where right and wrong take separate paths is rooted in the so-called soul of the individual.

To help better illustrate my point-of-view, pause to consider all of history's most heinous and barbaric of acts -from the slaughtering of one another for ethnic purposes (on the grand as well as individual scale) to the unfathomable but quite real madness of Munchausen Syndrome.  

It begins with an individual and spreads (potentially) outward like a ripple to envelope others.  At the crossroads, the individual is charged with making the decision of "right versus wrong" regardless of the path selected by who came before -either a single person or an entire nation.

I believe that John Stuart Mill said it best, way back in the 1850s, when he made a rather profound observation regarding freedom and society, "As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudiciously the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question of whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it becomes open to discussion ...."

Let's hope this nation -which is most assuredly at a crossroads- is open to that particular discussion of freedom, society, and punishment.

Answer 5

B.

If you weren't involved with it that much, you'd be upset.

You didn't take the blame for your friends- kinda sad.

You're friends would be mad at at you for bringing them into it. Plus, you'll get harassment  

Answer 6

If you're talking about the 'justification' for 'punishment', then my answer would lean towards 'A', ie, to make the person realise that what he/she did is wrong. But that is not so much 'justification'. It's more like the 'purpose' of punishment. Just like when a parent punishes a delinquent child. I would think that the 'justification' for punishment is that the wrongdoer must 'suffer' for having caused suffering to someone else. An eye-for-an-eye. 'Justification' is something rather philosophical. Let's take an example. You take a stick and whack me. You are found guilty and sent to jail. The 'justification' for sending you to jail is that you should suffer for having made me suffer (that's philosophical). The 'purpose' of making you suffer is so that you will realise that your act in hitting me is wrong and ought not to be repeated. The desired end-result is that you will thereby become a better person, ie, to reform you. That is the final (and desired) aim of punishment, ie, to reform wrongdoers so that they can become useful members of society. Hope that helps.

Answer 7

Neither.  Punishment doesn't show anyone what is right or wrong.  It merely proves there will be consequences for crimes.  "Right" and "wrong" are not based off of potential consequences, but rather a sense of morality that is viewed in turn as inherent or learned.  That being said, many see it as equally important to prove to people that there will be consequences - morals aside, punishment is a great deterrent.  And I would say it is more important for A, the individual.  (Although it could be argued that both the individual and the group already know that punishments exist without firsthand experience or direct observation, if people go unpunished it would show that, though punishments exist, they can easily be evaded.)  However, unless it is made into a big deal, all the partygoers in your example wouldn't necessarily even have to know of the occurrence (the theft), thus not proving to them one way or the other that consequences can (or can't) be evaded.

Answer 8

Also outside the religious perspective of right and wrong, I think the two go hand in hand. If you don't deal with an individual case of going against the norm of society, then society as a whole will use the individual case as a landmark for their own future behavior. So in that case the individual's punishment is simply a means to curb the behavior of society as a whole.

Answer 9

Punishment is meted out on many levels, many of which aren't commonly accepted as punishment at all. But if we take all varieties of suffering as a punishment, and include that in the question, then I think it would be obvious that punishment is meant for the reform of each individual. After all pain is felt individually. You can't feel my pain and I can't feel yours. We can empathize with the suffering of others when we imagine what it would be like to suffer like them or we can relate to their suffering if we have experienced something similar, but the actually pain itself is felt individually. Therefore punishment is meant for the ultimate rectification of each of us to convince us that this material world is not our real home and is not meant to be a place of peace and happiness.

Answer 10

Something as simple as an admonishment would be sufficient to teach an individual. A parent to a child as an example. We, as a society choose more Drachonian punishment to teach larger groups about right and wrong. The is why we have a "justice" system. The problem is that no matter how Drachonian it becomes, it has never shown to be a deterent. Perhaps it is because we all have been given a death sentnece that this is true. I believe that even the most sociopathic among us understand the difference between right and wrong.The difference is that acknowledging the difference and feeling constrained by it are two very polar things.