Anti-statistical arguments definitely don't work here, if anything the opposite. You don't need probabilities, merely the possibiility of harming an innocent.
By contrast, if you attach positive benefits to the act of retribution, and the probability of harming innocents is low enough, you can get a consequential case for retribution. But the desire for retribution is against the spirit of most forms of consequentialism
Agreed, and applied practically, every justice system practiced by mankind has been immoral. That said, there are still reasons to keep highly dangerous people separated from society, just as there is a reason to keep a hungry Grizzly bear separated from people. The separation isn't to show the bear it deserves to suffer, but to prevent people from the nature of the bear, and so it is with someone like a serial killer or sex offender.
Interesting, although I suppose I'm not the intended audience, since I have a strong sense that doing harm to a wrongdoer simply for retribution is, if not necessarily wrong or evil (as long as you have extremely high certainty that you're punishing the right person), still _pointless_. No matter how much you discount the harm being done because it is "just dessert", it's not actually adding anything to the positive side of the ledger. If somebody murders my brother, will murdering the murderer make my brother any less dead? Will throwing him in a tiny cell for twenty years make my brother any less dead? I believe in punishing people for criminal activity, but mainly because I want them to have an expectation of getting punished, and thus not do crimes in the first place. Given that the average criminal is not doing expected value calculations in their head, it is definitely _not_ the case that a 10% chance of getting caught and serving ten months is comparable to a 50% chance of getting caught and serving two months. We simply want to maximize the chance that the would-be criminal thinks, "I won't get away with it." Justice needs to be swift and certain, but not necessarily severe.
I know others' "gut feeling" or "moral intuition" about this doesn't agree with mine. Many believe that it provides some kind of closure or satisfaction to the victim. I basically think they're wrong, and indulging in retribution for its own sake is long-run self-destructive. A justice system that _encourages_ victims of crime to think this way is doing _additional harm_ to the victim. An appetite for vengeance is akin to an appetite for heroin.
Anti-statistical arguments definitely don't work here, if anything the opposite. You don't need probabilities, merely the possibiility of harming an innocent.
By contrast, if you attach positive benefits to the act of retribution, and the probability of harming innocents is low enough, you can get a consequential case for retribution. But the desire for retribution is against the spirit of most forms of consequentialism
Agreed, and applied practically, every justice system practiced by mankind has been immoral. That said, there are still reasons to keep highly dangerous people separated from society, just as there is a reason to keep a hungry Grizzly bear separated from people. The separation isn't to show the bear it deserves to suffer, but to prevent people from the nature of the bear, and so it is with someone like a serial killer or sex offender.
Great read!
Interesting, although I suppose I'm not the intended audience, since I have a strong sense that doing harm to a wrongdoer simply for retribution is, if not necessarily wrong or evil (as long as you have extremely high certainty that you're punishing the right person), still _pointless_. No matter how much you discount the harm being done because it is "just dessert", it's not actually adding anything to the positive side of the ledger. If somebody murders my brother, will murdering the murderer make my brother any less dead? Will throwing him in a tiny cell for twenty years make my brother any less dead? I believe in punishing people for criminal activity, but mainly because I want them to have an expectation of getting punished, and thus not do crimes in the first place. Given that the average criminal is not doing expected value calculations in their head, it is definitely _not_ the case that a 10% chance of getting caught and serving ten months is comparable to a 50% chance of getting caught and serving two months. We simply want to maximize the chance that the would-be criminal thinks, "I won't get away with it." Justice needs to be swift and certain, but not necessarily severe.
I know others' "gut feeling" or "moral intuition" about this doesn't agree with mine. Many believe that it provides some kind of closure or satisfaction to the victim. I basically think they're wrong, and indulging in retribution for its own sake is long-run self-destructive. A justice system that _encourages_ victims of crime to think this way is doing _additional harm_ to the victim. An appetite for vengeance is akin to an appetite for heroin.