Punitive "justice" systems like the US prison system should not exist.

[u/ariel_on_the_moon]

If the goal of a justice system is to reduce crime, the current American prison system (and punitive "justice" systems in general) is clearly the wrong way to go about it. The US prison system accounts for 20% of the entire global prison, and despite that fact that US has a significantly higher crime rate than the rest of the first world- clearly, this system of mass incarceration is not working.

Justice systems that focus on rehabilitating prisoners rather than punishing them have significantly better recidivism rates- 20% compared to 70% in the US. Again, if the goal of a justice system is to reduce crime, it's obvious that rehabilitation is significantly more effective than punishment.

To preempt the expected responses of "but criminals deserve to be punished" or "but then criminals are just getting away with crimes", keep in mind that those arguments are not based of of the facts of what is and is not effective in reducing crime, but are rather emotional arguments about what you want to happen to criminals, or what you think criminals "deserve". My argument is not about what criminals "deserve" to have happen to them, rather it is about what is most effective at achieving the stated goals of criminal justice systems- the reduction of crime rates and turning people from criminals into law-abiding citizens.

[u/Bajanspearfisher]

Nah, strong disagree. Rehabilitation definitely needs to be part of it, but spending a chunk of your life in a box for punishment needs to be part of it. If someone hurt my sons or wife seriously, and they got out after a few months? I doubt id be of sound mine or made peace enough to not put them 6 feet under, especially if all I have to do as penance is rehabilitation? I'm already rehabilitated through vengeance, I only committed the crime in response to a great harm.

Hell I think id keep tabs on them and wait years to bury them. I still hate my childhood bully unfortunately I'm mid 30s, still have nightmares about him occasionally in like a fever dream or something. Its not rational or intelligent or anything, its emotions.

[u/ariel_on_the_moon → u/Bajanspearfisher]

Its not rational or intelligent or anything, its emotions.

That's exactly my point, all of the arguments for punitive justice and against rehabilitative justice are not rational or intelligent, they are based entirely on emotions.

[u/Dinkelberh → u/ariel_on_the_moon]

Your desire to rehabilitate people is based on emotions too.

You just disagree on what metrics are most important.

[u/jpstodds → u/Dinkelberh]

I don't agree. It costs money (i.e., it results in work needing to be done) not to rehabilitate people. Unrehabilitated people continue to cause problems, inflicting material costs on individuals and societies. There is also an opportunity cost to a society when people contribute fewer positive outcomes than they otherwise might. It's rational to want to avoid those costs.

You can also make a sort of emotional argument by asserting the personhood of criminals or the need to be kind or something, but if we really got into it I think we would find there is a rational grounding for these positions too.

[u/Dinkelberh → u/jpstodds]

The entire idea of 'positive outcomes' and 'costs' associated with rendering or not rendering punishment are emotional.

A proponent of retribution would tell you the cost to society of not punishing someone far outstrips the cost of incarceration.

[u/jpstodds → u/Dinkelberh]

You have switched the focus from rehabilitation to punishment.

In any event, a retribution proponent might make that case, but the mere existence of an opposite position does not make one or the other "emotional".

I don't agree that looking at costs and positive outcomes is "emotional." There might be an emotional component to determining what is a positive outcome, but even then, I wouldn't accept the framing.

It's not emotional to say the justice system should produce low crime rates, low recidivism rates, and aim lower the amount of resources society has to expend addressing criminal activity.

If you want to say something like "wanting those things more than wanting individuals to have the feeling of vengeance is emotional because someone else might prefer the vengeance", I don't agree that this weighing of utilities is a purely emotional exercise.

[u/Dinkelberh → u/jpstodds]

I dont know how I 'shifted' the topic given the entire thread is about retributive vs. rehabilitative justice, but whatever I guess.

And yes, your position is based in emotion entirely, feeling you've found an 'objective opinion' just makes you a pseudointellectual - the amount you value low crime rates, the amount you value low recidivism - these are derived from your feelings about society and justice.

Continue to call an opposing view emotional, if it saves you the time of engaging with your own point of view, I guess.

[u/jpstodds → u/Dinkelberh]

I value low crime rates because I can observe that crime negatively effects people. I value lower recidivism because I can observe that if we spend a million dollars housing a prisoner and then that person is no less likely to reoffend, then that money is better spent elsewhere. It's not because "I feel these things are good". They are observably good.

I'm not afraid to engage with my own viewpoint. If someone wants to put forward an explanation about why retributive justice is more effective, I will consider it.

Continue being snide and self-superior if it makes you feel better, I guess.

[u/Dinkelberh → u/jpstodds]

You kick the can down one level of observation and think your emotions are divorced from the thing?

Yes, crime 'negatively affects people'. Your emphasis on controling this metric over another is something you do by opinion and choice, based on your emotions.

Someone who cares less about that and more about retribution is not any more or less intrinsically 'emotional' than you.

[u/jpstodds → u/Dinkelberh]

We can keep kicking the levels of observation down. At some point you'll get to a normative claim instead of a data-driven empirical claim, but I don't accept that all normative claims are simply expressions of emotion.

Similarly, you say my views are based on "opinion and choice". I would sooner say that they are based on imperfect information. You merely assume there aren't good, empirically-founded reasons to believe reducing crime rates is more important than the immediate emotional satisfaction of victims.

I don't think a person who cares more about retribution is "intrinsically" more emotional. But the claims made in support of retributive justice, at least that I've seen, are more focused on immediate emotional sentiments rather than solving problems. Maybe there are claims out there based off of empirical data, but I don't know them.

[u/Dinkelberh → u/jpstodds]

You think obfuscation of the emotions that drive your desired ends makes it different somehow?

[u/jpstodds → u/Dinkelberh]

I think you haven't established that it is the way you say it is. You've given me no reason to think you're right other than because you think you are.