Ah, yes, the “punishment is pointless” argument. Look, no one is arguing against more rehabilitation and safety in prisons, but criminal behavior must incur punishment, especially when it seriously harms other people. Why? Because when people (including the families of those people) are harmed, they expect justice, and part of that justice is knowing that the person responsible for harming you will suffer a consequence. This is not an eye for an eye; we make certain punishments are reasonable, proportionate, and not cruel. But when there’s no punishment, people do not feel justice has been done and some of those people will seek to punish criminals themselves (vigilante justice). Having a neutral third party implement justice is always better than when victims do it.
People who make this “punishment is pointless” argument never really think about the people criminals have made suffer. I know you think you do, but you don’t. You’re caught up in how bad the prison system is, and you’re right to be upset, but not to the exclusion of empathy for victims of crime.
Let me put it to you this way. Say you’re a parent, and you’re pushing your baby in a stroller, when a drunk driver hits you. You’re seriously injured, requiring surgery, months of rehab, and perhaps physical disabilities that will never go away. Your baby is dead. Now, that drunk driver isn’t sent to prison; instead, they’re put in a rehabilitation center, where they receive substance abuse counseling, therapy, etc. The accident makes them realize they have a problem, and within a year, his therapists are convinced he’s safe to be released back into society (with ongoing outpatient treatment and monitoring for five years after that). Their recovery is genuine and they do not reoffend. Within three years, they’re living a happy life. Meanwhile, three years on, you’re still dealing with chronic pain related to the accident and are still in grief counseling over the loss of your child. If you found out how the person who did that to you was doing, how would you feel?
People deserve to suffer for causing the suffering of others. Like it or not, it’s part of the unspoken social contract.
Yes, it is. That’s why we have punishments in the form of prison sentences. You harm other people? You get put in adult time out for a portion of your life.
You know what, the amount of energy you’re putting into defending your misguided position here tells me you’re not very interested in this conversation, and I don’t care to expend any more energy with someone like that. Suffice it to say, my previous statement still stands: people who hold your position have more empathy for criminals than their victims. I’m glad I don’t live in a world where we let criminals off with a slap on the wrist and just tell their victims that punishing them would be cruel and pointless.
Oh, in this case it will. It will stop a corrupt guy who makes money out of distributing drugs of dubious origin under the guise of safe recreational use for recovery purposes, from further putting others at risk. For a drug counselor it should be obvious that you should not distribute drugs to addicts under (almost) no circumstance.
Jail isn’t what’s doing that, revoking his license does. The jail time is just an added slap on the wrist to make the people close to Perry feel better (which is absurd considering a guy literally died, retribution doesn’t change that.) It doesn’t actually solve anything.
That’s ignoring the point. Retributive justice is inherently reactive. It doesn’t improve upon any of the circumstances or motivations leading to someone committing a crime, thereby limiting it to a response only after it happens. Criminals don’t commit crimes simply because they were “born that way”. They do it because their life experiences led them to either a) believing they had to commit the crime to improve their situation, b) believing it’s justifiable in their own warped sense of right and wrong, or c) severe mental illness. There’s nothing in those causes that can’t be accounted for or treated beforehand to prevent the act from occurring at all. All jail time is doing is putting them in a pressure cooker that will inevitably lead to the people sentenced being even further handicapped in their ability to function in society.
Mind you I’m not against separating criminals from society for an appropriate amount of time entirely. It’s just that if the primary motivation with their sentence is punishment, you shouldn’t expect anything greater than a neutral outcome.
Careful there, you are getting dangerously close to pre-crime justifications. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, drug distribution crimes are at the top on risk of re-offending (only bellow financial fraud and related economic crimes, mind you). Now, the other side of the coin is that most people who need mental health care the most, due to risk of violence or harm to self and others, are the ones less likely to willingly seek for it. Now, the US justice system sucks, and isn’t more than a slave making machine. However, in this particular case, the only way to ensure the person is not a danger towards others is to pass them through that faulty system. Because it is the only mechanism the system has at hand. I agree that more activism is necessary for a judicial system reform for humane treatment of convicts, and better access to social protections and mental health care opportunities outside of the system. However, that is the ideal world, this is the real world. And right now, just removing their license does nothing. Statistics tells us that he will just switch to be a life coach and keep distributing drugs to addicts, just illegally. Legality has never stopped anyone from doing something.
It was not a misstep. He gave ketamine to Perry in the first place in order to get him hooked on it while counseling about his addiction with other drugs. He is not a poor repentant fellow who made a honest mistake. He is a corrupt health staff member that, without the proper behavior correctional support, would probably do it again if given the chance.
my point is that jail won’t solve anything.
Ah, yes, the “punishment is pointless” argument. Look, no one is arguing against more rehabilitation and safety in prisons, but criminal behavior must incur punishment, especially when it seriously harms other people. Why? Because when people (including the families of those people) are harmed, they expect justice, and part of that justice is knowing that the person responsible for harming you will suffer a consequence. This is not an eye for an eye; we make certain punishments are reasonable, proportionate, and not cruel. But when there’s no punishment, people do not feel justice has been done and some of those people will seek to punish criminals themselves (vigilante justice). Having a neutral third party implement justice is always better than when victims do it.
People who make this “punishment is pointless” argument never really think about the people criminals have made suffer. I know you think you do, but you don’t. You’re caught up in how bad the prison system is, and you’re right to be upset, but not to the exclusion of empathy for victims of crime.
Let me put it to you this way. Say you’re a parent, and you’re pushing your baby in a stroller, when a drunk driver hits you. You’re seriously injured, requiring surgery, months of rehab, and perhaps physical disabilities that will never go away. Your baby is dead. Now, that drunk driver isn’t sent to prison; instead, they’re put in a rehabilitation center, where they receive substance abuse counseling, therapy, etc. The accident makes them realize they have a problem, and within a year, his therapists are convinced he’s safe to be released back into society (with ongoing outpatient treatment and monitoring for five years after that). Their recovery is genuine and they do not reoffend. Within three years, they’re living a happy life. Meanwhile, three years on, you’re still dealing with chronic pain related to the accident and are still in grief counseling over the loss of your child. If you found out how the person who did that to you was doing, how would you feel?
People deserve to suffer for causing the suffering of others. Like it or not, it’s part of the unspoken social contract.
this isn’t how our society operates anyway
Yes, it is. That’s why we have punishments in the form of prison sentences. You harm other people? You get put in adult time out for a portion of your life.
surely you don’t really believe everyone who causes suffering of others sees any consequences
Not always, no. Not everyone feels guilty when they harm others, and even if they do, that’s not nearly enough of a punishment to do justice.
many people are rewarded after causing harm. your description of society is just a fiction
uh… it’s good that people do better for themselves and start making better decisions
How would you feel? Name the feeling.
I can’t know
Lame answer.
it’s true
says who?
You really haven’t studied ethics at all, have you? There’s tons of philosophical literature about this stuff. Do some research.
I have.
Then you should already know the answer to your previous question.
yeah: only bad people
eye for an eye is proportional
But it’s cruel, which is why we don’t do it that way.
locking people in cages is cruel
You know what, the amount of energy you’re putting into defending your misguided position here tells me you’re not very interested in this conversation, and I don’t care to expend any more energy with someone like that. Suffice it to say, my previous statement still stands: people who hold your position have more empathy for criminals than their victims. I’m glad I don’t live in a world where we let criminals off with a slap on the wrist and just tell their victims that punishing them would be cruel and pointless.
I will not be responding to you further.
repeating it doesn’t make it any more true
No, it’s really not.
it’s literally a form of torture.
Oh, in this case it will. It will stop a corrupt guy who makes money out of distributing drugs of dubious origin under the guise of safe recreational use for recovery purposes, from further putting others at risk. For a drug counselor it should be obvious that you should not distribute drugs to addicts under (almost) no circumstance.
Jail isn’t what’s doing that, revoking his license does. The jail time is just an added slap on the wrist to make the people close to Perry feel better (which is absurd considering a guy literally died, retribution doesn’t change that.) It doesn’t actually solve anything.
Which is why we won’t jail any drug dealers anywhere, or any criminal, for that matter, as it doesn’t solve anything.
Of course, drug dealers, famously reticent to distributing drugs without license.
That’s ignoring the point. Retributive justice is inherently reactive. It doesn’t improve upon any of the circumstances or motivations leading to someone committing a crime, thereby limiting it to a response only after it happens. Criminals don’t commit crimes simply because they were “born that way”. They do it because their life experiences led them to either a) believing they had to commit the crime to improve their situation, b) believing it’s justifiable in their own warped sense of right and wrong, or c) severe mental illness. There’s nothing in those causes that can’t be accounted for or treated beforehand to prevent the act from occurring at all. All jail time is doing is putting them in a pressure cooker that will inevitably lead to the people sentenced being even further handicapped in their ability to function in society.
Mind you I’m not against separating criminals from society for an appropriate amount of time entirely. It’s just that if the primary motivation with their sentence is punishment, you shouldn’t expect anything greater than a neutral outcome.
Careful there, you are getting dangerously close to pre-crime justifications. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, drug distribution crimes are at the top on risk of re-offending (only bellow financial fraud and related economic crimes, mind you). Now, the other side of the coin is that most people who need mental health care the most, due to risk of violence or harm to self and others, are the ones less likely to willingly seek for it. Now, the US justice system sucks, and isn’t more than a slave making machine. However, in this particular case, the only way to ensure the person is not a danger towards others is to pass them through that faulty system. Because it is the only mechanism the system has at hand. I agree that more activism is necessary for a judicial system reform for humane treatment of convicts, and better access to social protections and mental health care opportunities outside of the system. However, that is the ideal world, this is the real world. And right now, just removing their license does nothing. Statistics tells us that he will just switch to be a life coach and keep distributing drugs to addicts, just illegally. Legality has never stopped anyone from doing something.
I doubt he’d make this kind of misstep again, jail or no.
It was not a misstep. He gave ketamine to Perry in the first place in order to get him hooked on it while counseling about his addiction with other drugs. He is not a poor repentant fellow who made a honest mistake. He is a corrupt health staff member that, without the proper behavior correctional support, would probably do it again if given the chance.
I wouldn’t call the American prison system correctional support
Neither would I, hence the qualifiers. Doesn’t change the argument though.
so putting this person in jail does no good.
You… Completely ignore why this person wouldn’t do it again. If there is no punishment then why wouldn’t they?
This whole argument is stupid honestly. Stop being disingenuous.
I think most people would feel pretty bad about contributing to someone’s death, and punishing them doesn’t change anything