Hurray, someone on the first page who isn't bat-shit evil-insane ... and who also shares my view of punishment.CrystalShadow said:Punishment is equally meaningless though; It does nothing to prevent crime, and can make criminals act even worse later on if they are actually going to be released.RamirezDoEverything said:A punishment, rehabilitation will do nothing, if someone is a natural born killer/thief, they will continue to do it, you can't change personalities and belief.
I personally support torture for criminals.
It doesn't undo what they did either.
Basically, it's just an excuse for being almost as bad as the criminals.
But whatever. I've long since given up expecting fairness or rational behaviour from people.
(most Punishment is neither in any real sense - It's only practical value is if it functions as an effective deterrent, but the people who would be put off by deterrents can usually be dealt with more effectively by other methods anyway.)
OT: Pain is pain, no matter who it is caused to. Pain, (or punishment/damage/etc) should always be used minimally. If preventing someone from killing someone else only requires a stern talking to, then don't go punching them in the face. sure, both may work, but one is less painful tha the other, and is therefore the better option. As for prison/criminal 'justice[footnote]How I hate that word, it sounds more like people dressing up vengeance to feel better than anything 'just' being done[/footnote]', if the person is a minor offender, it can act as a deterrent for future crimes (and also deters people from doing it in the first place), and if the person is a crazy-arsed serial killer, than prison either keeps them out of society (and therefore prevents them from killing others) until they can be rehabilitated, or it stops them from causing harm to others if they can't be helped.
So yeah, minimal-effective pain/punishment, because justice is just vengeance performed by the law.