The state ordinarily uses no more force than is necessary to subdue alleged perpetrators and bring them to trial, so that is a canard. Additionally, we have determined the normal method of punishment to be confinement, so that, although your rationale is different, the result is much the same. One difference, however, between locking people up because they are prone to cause trouble, versus locking them up after conviction for an offense, is that only one is in a position to mete out proportional deserts, and thus maintain a semblance of justice. The other is open ended, prophylactic, speculative: it does not punish according to clear desert, but in effect punishes because of society's anxiety.
Coercion is an indissoluble element of the situation. People who rob banks do not go into prophylactic detention any more voluntarily than they go into regular prison. Again, you are merely being fatuous.
In any event, justice requires enforcement, or the standard of behavior is not a matter of obligation. It is not good enough to provide restitution, because it does not address the bad act, it only nullifies profit from the act. Punishment should be tempered with mercy, as when there is parole, but mercy is merely a way of achieving the overall best result when one does not think that the rigors of justice will alone suffice.
Punishment is essential to rehabilitation. Just as one will not quit drugs unless one makes up ones mind to, and that requires being impressed with the seriousness of one's situation, and taking responsibility for actively seeking reform, a criminal has to face consequences of his action and be motivated to change.......... |
