To: Dayuhan who wrote (82873 ) 7/7/2000 12:16:04 AM From: Neocon Respond to I thought I would add to my earlier comments on this, now that I have caught up with the discussion. It is correct that I think that retribution is the best reason for punishment, although the other reasons, in most instances, carry a great deal of weight. It is also true that I do not mention self-defense, mainly because we do not lock up people because they are dangerous, but because they have done something wrong. One of the things that some of those here tend to assume is that the notion of "just desserts" makes the administration of justice harsher. Actually, I think it ensures comparative leniency, as well as satisfying society and stifling impulses to vigilantism. In 18th century England, cutpurses could be hanged! The rationale was the the defense of society, both by eliminating "vermin" from decent society, and deterring others. We would say that the punishment was disproportionate, and therefore "cruel and unusual", based not on custom, but on a rough calculus of due retribution. Heck, even the penitential and rehabilitative rationales are too readily abusable: the primary aim of the Spanish Inquisition was to save souls, by rooting out heresy and compelling expiation. Finally, if there is not a general sense that perpetrators are brought to account, confidence in the system of justice falters, and vigilantism rears its head, to mete out more severe punishment in the end. No, a sober assessment of retribution is the best way to uphold social standards, including the idea of responsibility, and to limit the punishment to proportional response....Romans 133
