>>> <JKSCHW at aol.com> 01/23/00 02:41PM >>>
In a message dated 00-01-23 11:07:08 EST, you write:
<< Even bourgeois jurisprudence teaches that of the three bases for punishment - deterrence, rehabilitation and retribution - only the first two are valid. >>
If bourgeois jurisprudence teaches that--and whom did you have in mind?
&&&&&&&
CB: Professor Israel at U of Mich.
&&&&&&&
That covers a lot of ground--it is wrong. I think that retributivism is correct. Otherwise, among other things,you cannot explain why it is wrong to punish the innocent.
&&&&&&&&&
CB: It would be explained as sort of be a side aspect of deterrence. It weakens deterrence. Also, there is a general affirmative legal principle of making a good life for people, the General Welfare. So, this would go up against that.
&&&&&&&&
Besides, you yourself do not believe otherwise. You would like to see the capitalsit slimebags strug up because you thing that they have done evil,
&&&&&&&&
CB: When have I said that ? No, capitalist punishment comes under deterrence, and even rehabilitation. Some capitalists have skills that can be used to build socialism. See for example , Lenin's NEP.
&&&&&&
not because you think it would deter others. In the world where they could be strung up, others would have no opportunity to engage in that sort of evil.
&&&&&&&
CB: Well, Lenin did say the capitalists will sell us the rope we hang them with, but I don't think the Bolsheviks hanged all the capitalists. Some were involved in the NEP. Also, in that world where the Russian capitalists could have been strung up, there was plenty of opportunity for others to engage in capitalism elsewhere, so your speculative generalization above is contradicted by that particular historical example, one of the main historical examples so far.
CB