I phrased it badly. I personally wouldn't want retribution just for the sake of it. I do understand that most people do want it, though.

I think "justice" is a legitimate concept, especially in the case you gave in the opening post.

We've had campaign after campaign in recent years educating people on why they shouldn't use their phone while driving, yet he ignored that and people are dead because of it. If I was a family of one of the victims, yes I'd want to feel he'd been made to pay for his stupidity.

Obviously, though, it won't bring anybody back, and it's just going to ruin another life by caging a man like a rabid animal while any sembleance of an "outside world" evaporates... because we wanted to get the good feels.

It's difficult, for me.... to see that as justice. Though I understand why people do, and why they use the term to refer to it as such.

To be frank I think he honestly deserves jail if he was stupid enough to ignore constant warnings about driving safely and killed people as a result. The length of time he got was right, he didn't kill deliberately so I don't think a life sentence would be fair, but I just think if you've killed people you should automatically lose your right to freedom (at least temporarily).

I'm not soft on this at all. I can understand advocating against the death penalty, I agree people shouldn't be killed, but I think concepts of punishment are necessary. Consequences are necessary, otherwise (going into the deterrent argument) you're just going to have a nihilistic society where a) people do what the fuck they want and b) people take the law into their own hands as a response. Maybe I don't trust people enough to have a hippy-dippy society where we don't punish criminals, but eh, that's how I feel.

That being said, I can see the argument about not imprisoning people who do not really hurt others, like drug offenders or for petty theft. Those are often people who just need help being put on the right path, rather than being dangerous people who need locking up.

Presuming there's proof it was a complete accident I think a more suitable punishment would be for him to be legally banned from using cellphones for 10 years instead.

Lol. Or some other idea that's better.

But basically the problem is he shouldn't be using cellphones while driving. That's what caused the accident. Many people do use cellphones when driving and it doesn't always cause an accident but it can... and it this case it did. No one should be using cellphones while driving.

Now, I think the solution would be whatever stopped him from using cellphones while driving so it can never happen again... but if the guy is allowed to use cellphones how are they going to stop him from sneaking them into a car?

In fact, how could the government stop him from buying a cellphone if he wanted to?

In fact... what about a tag? Can the government give him a tag and track him in such a way to detect him to make sure he doesn't use cellphones otherwise further action will be taken? How about no privacy for 10 years instead of no privacy + prison?

I feel really ignorant on this matter lol. I have no idea what would be suitable.

But I think there's only one purpose for prisons really: Mitigating suffering.

I mean, you could say that there's also rehabilitation and detainment.... but ultimately they're just ways to mitigate suffering.

Punishment for its own sake because the wrongdoers 'deserve it' even on occasions when that doesn't mitigate suffering? Nah, that really is stupid and fruitless.

(November 9, 2016 at 2:51 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Presuming there's proof it was a complete accident I think a more suitable punishment would be for him to be legally banned from using cellphones for 10 years instead.

Lol. Or some other idea that's better.

But basically the problem is he shouldn't be using cellphones while driving. That's what caused the accident. Many people do use cellphones when driving and it doesn't always cause an accident but it can... and it this case it did. No one should be using cellphones while driving.

Now, I think the solution would be whatever stopped him from using cellphones while driving so it can never happen again... but if the guy is allowed to use cellphones how are they going to stop him from sneaking them into a car?

In fact, how could the government stop him from buying a cellphone if he wanted to?

In fact... what about a tag? Can the government give him a tag and track him in such a way to detect him to make sure he doesn't use cellphones otherwise further action will be taken? How about no privacy for 10 years instead of no privacy + prison?

I feel really ignorant on this matter lol. I have no idea what would be suitable.

But I think there's only one purpose for prisons really: Mitigating suffering.

I mean, you could say that there's also rehabilitation and detainment.... but ultimately they're just ways to mitigate suffering.

Punishment for its own sake because the wrongdoers 'deserve it' even on occasions when that doesn't mitigate suffering? Nah, that really is stupid and fruitless.

The cell phone didn't kill someone... the multi ton metal object moving and hitting something did. It would make more sense to take away their right to operate such machine.

I have to argue though, how would you go about enforcing a ban from using cellphones, or even cars?

There's ways around that, very easy ones. You could just use someone else's car and use a phone that's on a contract in someone else's name. That's not an effective form of punishment. I actually really like the idea on paper, but it's not very practical.

(November 8, 2016 at 2:00 pm)robvalue Wrote: To me, the primary purpose of prison is to remove dangerous people from society. The secondary purpose, where possible, should be to rehabilitate them. This could sometimes be achieved simply by stopping them doing what they were doing, and giving them a new environment in which to reflect. The third and least important is punishment.

Punishment has four justifications: rehabilitation, deterrence, isolation, and vengeance.  You may be thinking of vengeance when you say "punishment."

We've included the first three in our ideas of punishment, but they're not required to justify punishment nor are they punishment in and of themselves. So we're left with the fourth.

Think of it in terms of a squirrel. You can rehabilitate a squirrel. You can deter a squirrel. You can isolate a squirrel. You will not be punishing the squirel in any of those cases. If, however, you're out to get vengeance on the squirrel..well, now you're punishing the poor thing.....and it;s only in light of that that any of the others -become- punishment.

(November 9, 2016 at 4:31 pm)Rhythm Wrote: We've included the first three in our ideas of punishment, but they're not required to justify punishment nor are they punishment in and of themselves.  So we're left with the fourth.

Think of it in terms of a squirrel.  You can rehabilitate a squirrel.  You can deter a squirrel.  You can isolate a squirrel.  You will not be punishing the squirel in any of those cases.  If, however, you're out to get vengeance on the squirrel..well, now you're punishing the poor thing.....and it;s only in light of that that any of the others -become- punishment.

I don't think vengeance is a proper function of government.  Nor should it be a purpose of parental discipline.  
The legitimate justifications for punishment are isolation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.