Justice

That is a difficult question and I like capital punishment, I've not been able to decide what the best justice system would be like.

However, I am inclined to choose reformation over retribution on the following grounds

- Retribution has been proven to be ineffective as a deterrent. Harsher punishments, enforcement of capital punishment etc have had no effect on reducing crime rates.

- Retribution treats the symptoms, while reformation tries to treat the disease. Reformation is actually addressing the cause of the crime and tries to alter criminal behavior, hence actually making society safer.

- Retribution actually lets criminals walk free sometimes. If a case is not strong enough, people feel guilty punishing someone with death or life imprisonment based on the 'what ifs'. Sometimes people also feel bad about circumstances and don't convict because they think the prosecution is too harsh. However, if the punishment is not as severe and complemented with reformation, people are more comfortable handing out the guilty verdict. Reformation also seems fair enough even if people feel bad about the circumstance. So the guilty verdict and punishment will actually be handed out more frequently.

The arguments against reformation and my counters are

- It is not cost effective and invests too much time and money in reforming. I would counter that with the prison overcrowding problem. Prison systems are spending way too much money keeping convicts inside and having to take care of their basic health, education, well being etc. Better people do that outside on their own instead of on tax payer money.

- Some people cannot be reformed and sometimes it is not fair to victims. Perhaps we can have a psychiatric panel to determine if reformation is a viable outcome.

I think everyone deserves a second chance and capital punishment should be the last resort.
A mix of both reformative and retributive punishment is needed.
Singapore canes those charged serious crimes. But it is pretty cruel even though effective in acting as a deterrent.

Giving a second chance is desirable and is indeed a noble thought. However, one must question how effective it is. Going by the experience that we've had so far with the reformative way of punishment, I can confidently say that so far it has proved to be ineffective on both counts that it was supposed to serve - reforming criminals and reducing crime. Now that can mean 2 things:
1. The idea itself is wrong, OR
2. The idea is good but it's implementation has been incorrect, i.e. we need to devise a better way to reform criminals

To some extent I think that yes the idea is wrong but I think an even bigger reason for it's failure is the way the whole thing has been implemented. I feel various machines and organisations in 'modern' society act overzealously to monitor the rights and comforts of criminals. To get the epithet of 'Modern' & 'Progressive' many societies have outlawed several practices when it comes to dealing with crime and criminals. Punishments which are retributive in nature is one such measure that has lost favour and has been replaced by reformative actions. With so many people to look after their rights, to redress their every inconvenience, criminals have become a pampered lot. Some even attaining celebrity status and getting the chance to promote their skewed views and ideologies to gullible public, thanks to various interviews to TV channels and newspapers.

However, in all this, I don't see the victim in the whole wide picture? What is in it for the victim? Why should we care so much about reforming the criminal while ignoring the victim and what s/he wants in return of what s/he had to bear? Who should be the priority, criminal or victim?

P.S. - Talking about India only.

The only thing wrong about capital punishment is its inconsistency. The opposing of capital punishment is not a smart thing to do at all. IF a person is convicted beyond reasonable doubt of a murder, should he be given the right to live till his/her natural death with a possibility of a parole? Oh, and did I mention while in prison, he can read his favorite books, watch some tv, follow his favorite teams, meet his relatives, see his kids grow and some..

Originally posted by: souro

Giving a second chance is desirable and is indeed a noble thought. However, one must question how effective it is. Going by the experience that we've had so far with the reformative way of punishment, I can confidently say that so far it has proved to be ineffective on both counts that it was supposed to serve - reforming criminals and reducing crime. Now that can mean 2 things:
1. The idea itself is wrong, OR
2. The idea is good but it's implementation has been incorrect, i.e. we need to devise a better way to reform criminals

To some extent I think that yes the idea is wrong but I think an even bigger reason for it's failure is the way the whole thing has been implemented. I feel various machines and organisations in 'modern' society act overzealously to monitor the rights and comforts of criminals. To get the epithet of 'Modern' & 'Progressive' many societies have outlawed several practices when it comes to dealing with crime and criminals. Punishments which are retributive in nature is one such measure that has lost favour and has been replaced by reformative actions. With so many people to look after their rights, to redress their every inconvenience, criminals have become a pampered lot. Some even attaining celebrity status and getting the chance to promote their skewed views and ideologies to gullible public, thanks to various interviews to TV channels and newspapers.

However, in all this, I don't see the victim in the whole wide picture? What is in it for the victim? Why should we care so much about reforming the criminal while ignoring the victim and what s/he wants in return of what s/he had to bear? Who should be the priority, criminal or victim?

P.S. - Talking about India only.

I think consistent, effective and fair justice is the major problem in India. The problem is that the choice between retribution and reform is inconsistently applied. Too many high profile cases are not seen as a matter of justice, but a matter of political games. Justice becomes secondary to how a politician can use the case as a platform.

The issue of human rights also is illogically and inconsistently applied. A desperately poor person who broke into a house or robbed a bank at gunpoint maybe a candidate for reform because they may not actually have a criminal mentality but act so because of lack of education and resources. On the other hand a gruesome rapist or a terrorist does not deserve sympathy or reform because they are mentally hardened to think criminally. Unfortunately, most justice systems seem to be spending too much money on keeping the worst bad guys safe while the teenage drug dealer whose life could have been saved is ignored and let to become worse.

Victims are important, but I think long term societal impact should be the most primary concern. Someone who has been robbed or cheated may feel retributive and not want the system to act reformative, but reformation maybe good for society in the long run. But there are other cases like serial killers or terrorists where the societal impact is congruent with the victims – retribution is the only way to make society safer as well as give closure to victims.