[lbo-talk] Re: law/retributivism

[andie nachgeborenen]

Sounds to me like you are retributivist too. That "pay
your debt" language you use is purely retributivist.
We think that wrongdoers owe society some suffering to
make up for the harm they have caused. We also think
that the suffering must be socially imposed by due
process, and that the harm to society matters as much
as the harm to the individual.  Moreover, every
thoughful retributivist will tell you that punishment
should be proportionate.  One musn't confuse
rertributivism, as Shane does,  with 'an arm for an
eye" howls of bloodthirtsy revenge. 

Btw, the liberal reformers with their condescending
theraputic interventionism are creatures of the 1960s;
there are none today. Your average liberal (no me, I'm
a wierdo leftist liberal) is all for longer sentences
and harsher penalties for more offenses, at least as 
mater of public policy.

--- james at communistbanker.com wrote:


> 
> Andie wrote:" you're not going to change the impulse
> to
> harm those that harm you, the best you can do is
> channel it. Arguments don't help. It's too deeply
> rooted. Ignoring that leaves it unchanneled and
> liable
> to burst into mere revenge of the sort you decry
> here.
> So from a utilitarian standpoint, you ought to be a
> moderate retributivist. "
> 
> This is rather pessimistic for me. No doubt we all
> have plenty of backward impulses, but socialisation
> means that we learn to control them. Leave the
> utilitarian standpoint to the people who run
> society.  I think that we can make arguments that do
> help.
> 
> The point of law was that it socialised justice;
> instead of mob vengence, there was public
> punishment.  For me, the underlying principle is
> that crime is treated as an offence against society,
> not against an individual victim. It is in the
> interest of society that people who hold society in
> contempt should be punished.  But at risk of being a
> bit perverse, I'd say that the offenders benefit
> too, because they can repay their debt and re-enter
> society.
> 
> The lock-them-up-forever school of conservative
> nastiness shares more with the liberal therapeutic
> ethos than it admits in that it generally focuses on
> the harm done to victims - e.g. having relatives of
> the victime present at executions. And liberal
> reformism today too often converges with
> conservative nastiness when it espouses never-ending
> therapeutic intervention to change the ways of
> criminal 'types'.
> 
> Andie: "Finally, I have a somewhat novel argument
> for
> retributivism, but I have to work it up some more
> before it is ready for public presentation."
> 
> I look forward to it.
> 
> --James Greenstein
> 
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> 

		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail