Re: Punishment - why?

In message <4a176be3-381f-4c2f-b6c8-7acade7d27ec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, claire.easthope@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes
On 9 Apr, 11:44, Michael J Davis <?...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message
<15f17cf6-4d30-4802-81bb-3cd36e875...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
claire.easth...@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes>On 2 Apr, 22:45, Michael J Davis <?...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> In message
>> <1712d3aa-ef2f-440e-8ddd-1a13a2001...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> claire.easth...@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes

>> because on the whole our natural ability has already
>> limited us. So even when we are tempted, we cannot!

>Errr? The whole concept of temptation presupposes a choice between the
>possible, aside from that .... what on earth are you going on about???

Simply that we don't need laws if we are not tempted or able to
transgress them. Punishment (and all the associated sanctions) is
intended to discourage and reform us.

Not quite sure I understand the point you are trying to make here
sorry.

Let's just backtrack...

I said..
OK - that's fine. You are saying that legal retribution (outside rehabilitation, protection, example, etc..) is to give reason for not 'taking one's own revenge'. I can see that. I can also see that justice
need to be *seen* to be done. But why does that need to be *more* than
rehabilitation, protection, example, etc.?

But I want to know why we *have* to take revenge?

CE:
I guess the scientific answer is that we need to protect our genes and
if we just allowed our "kith and kin" to be killed or endangered our
genes would not last very long!

To which I replied...
Yes, but civilisation doesn't usually admit of "doing what comes
naturally" as an explanation for admissible behaviour. Otherwise,
there'd be no crime of rape, for instance... :-(

You gave me a 'scientific answer' (not sure if it is, but that's what you said) explaining why we 'take revenge' - I understood that you were justifying revenge on the grounds that it was natural.

My point is that we have laws and sanctions to stop people doing 'what comes naturally'; whereas we don't need them to control us doing things we cannot do. Temptations (that we try to stop) are the 'natural things'.

That's all. If you *weren't* justifying revenge, then there's no issue to be discussed. If you *were*, then back to the original question - why do we intend it?

[snips]

>Nope. I was not claiming that at all - just that you were very sure
>that you know the will of God on this issue! ;-)

We have a close relationship! ;-)

Hasn't He told you yet about our relationship? ;-)

;-)

>> >> Or are we (as Christians) saying that punishment is part of >> >>forgiveness?

>> >Repentance is part of forgiveness.

Oh, I missed that first time round! Disagree. Before we can *accept*
forgiveness, we may have to a) acknowledge that we were at fault, b)
recognise our need, and that may take the form of repentance (which
means 'turning around'), but we may just accept it and then repeat the
offence elsewhere.

Elsewhere?

OK - delete 'elsewhere'! (I was thinking that we may learn that stealing in Tesco's is wrong, but we haven't yet been caught in, say, Waitrose!)

However, offering forgiveness is free and doesn't make any demands on
the one who we are forgiving. It is part of freeing ourselves from the
wrong done to us.

That is true, but it is easier where the one who has wronged you is
repentant.

;-) True.

You may have a significant point here, of relevance to this thread, but
I'm not sure if we can handle it in the context of the question I'm
asking.

You're right, I don't think we can. Forgiveness, and who has the
right to forgive, is a whole other issue.

>> >I don't think somebody can be
>> >rehabilitated until they realise that they were wrong and want to
>> >change. Part of the reason for punishment is to make it clear who is
>> >in the wrong.

>> Surely declaring someone guilty, and proposing actions for
>> rehabilitation and restraint is enough for that, why *punish* as well?

>Depends on the offence but using rehabilitation alone would be like
>treating
> the person who has committed the injustice as the victim requiring
>support, attention and resources and ignoring the needs of the victim.

(I hadn't omitted restitution - which means making good in every sense
that which the victim was deprived of - you seem to have done. Mind you
that's difficult in a case of, say, murder!)

EXACTLY! Restitution is OK for civil matters; when your neighbour has
built a wall on land within your boundary or your boiler was installed
wrongly, but how can you restore or "make good" intangible things the
cost of which you could never measure? What is the value of a life?
What could you do to make good for the victim of sexual or physical
abuse for example?

OK - explain to me why the victim *requires*, let's say, "revenge".
(That's what it seems like to me.)

Now you are addressing my original point...

I have been thinking about this in relation to restitution. In a way
the logic of restitution and retribution runs on the same principle,
in the same way that rounding up or down does! In cases where the
victim cannot be raised up the idea is that the perpetrator should be
brought down. Retribution short-changes wrong-doers but restitution
would never pay the wronged their dues

Yes... keep going...
(For instance - is forgiveness a giving up of ones rights to see the wrongdoer punished? If so is that just?)

>That does not seem very fair. Of course the sentence passed as to be
>for the wider public's good (i.e. most likely to protect them and
>reduce reoffending) but just as the offender has a need for personal
>consideration so does the victim.

Given restitution - why does adding more 'pain' to the situation enhance
the 'good'?

I am not sure it does and also of course we must remember that some
situations mean there is not a clear line between victim and
perpetrator.

Can you unpack that a bit more, it could be helpful?

Mike

[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Punishment - why?
    ... probably impssible and arragant to say that God agrees with you. ... forgiveness, we may have to a) acknowledge that we were at fault, b) ... attention and resources and ignoring the needs of the victim. ... Restitution is OK for civil matters; ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: OT - I may be in the minority
    ... forgiveness and social order are two different things. ... victim can forgive, and in our system, it is not ... punishments and conditions of confinement. ... cells here at the local prison, most are approximately four by eight ...
    (sci.med.transcription)
  • Commercial child porn in the USA - mediated by the courts
    ... Attorney For Victim Asks For $3.4 Million ... restitution - which attorneys for Amy claim she is entitled to from ... Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Baldwin, ... resources and information are needed before the restitution issue can ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Punishment - why?
    ... Snip content by all means, ... Punishment is intended to discourage and reform us. ... >> Or are we saying that punishment is part of forgiveness? ... attention and resources and ignoring the needs of the victim. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Defend the French - to the degree it is a communication problem
    ... when responsibility is to close the ... About revenge - I am acknowledging g it first time, ... I was going to analyze their rape cases when they use illegal revenge ... not a rape when you attack the alleging victim). ...
    (soc.culture.polish)
Loading