"I understand that's your preferred model. But consider mine as well. Reparations need to be made and society needs to be protected. Malice does not necessarily need to be punished."
A point which does not seem to seat well with the opposition to your idea, is that suffering is an endemic element of human experience.
The groundless idea seems to be that punishment, focused on a desired degree of suffering, has justification in and of it self.
Even in relation to the greatest joys of life there exists the constant struggle to be well. Though we seek optimal conditions, few if any of us ever claim perfection in the condition known as "well being." The worst of times always coexist with the best of times. In the midst of particularly unsuccessful episodes of life (such as being found guilty of crime) the balance to the dance of life weighs most heavily on suffering and least towards the notion of well being. Suffering will find its own level, given any condition of experience. Work to create the conditions for the optimal and the adjustments that result carry their own measure of suffering, without malice. The notion that we need to exact a measure of flesh, equivelant to some crime having been committed is barbarously unnecessary, ineffective, and a cruel idea, IMO.
The natural flow of reconciliation demands adjustment involving natural trama and tragedy with a focus on the constructive. The suffering is not externally derived but an internal struggle of ripping assunder and reconstructing. It is naive and arrogant to think that you can exact a measure of suffering from one using the same tools to the same degree that would cause an equivelant measure of distress in another. Rewards and punishments are quite individual to the extent of actually representing the opposite in individual instances and circumstances. It is deficient to attempt to inflict a measured degree of suffering to drive a calculated amount and direction of restoration.
Reconstruction and resolution always involve adjustment; and suffering in the midst of adjustment is always present. The degree of suffering is correlated to the degree of adjustment that is occuring related to the specific experience. Focus on the reconstruction and you force adjustment, adjustment exacts its own natural level of suffering that is perfect for the task. The problem is resolved when reconstruction is accomplished and a satisfactory level of well being is reclaimed.
On the other hand you can focus on the exact degree of suffering you want to inflict on another. You are guaranteed to miss your mark but don't let that deter you. The suffering you inflict is likely to generate new anymosities toward targets that were irrelevant to the initial problem. So do it any way because tradition has held this as a standard for countless generations.
The system is working very well after all...isn't it? No??Well build more cells then what are you waiting for? Isn't this the way we've done it for all our lives, and our fathers have done it, and theirs too? Isn't that enough reason to resist change at all costs? Seems to be.
Above all don't change things....because that might change things...gasp.
I can add another five paragraphs and repeat over and over what I've said in each of the above paragraphs...and I might later... |
