> commonly seen as retribution and punishment, or more generally some kind of revenge
That's not the purpose of the justice system per se, though I don't see any problem with someone offering criminals, in the spirit of charity, opportunities and help in turning away from criminality toward good ways of living. (Obviously, they must be willing, and we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking criminals are victims.) However, justice implies that retribution and punishment are merited, and if merited, then legitimately inflicted. If it didn't, mercy and forgiveness would be meaningless. Indeed, crime and evil actions would cease to have any substance. A justice system that does not punish in a manner that is commensurate with crimes committed is no justice system at all. The word "retribution" for some reason offends modern sensibilities. Part of that stems from what appears to be the false belief that retribution entails hatred, which it does not.
If there are flaws in the justice system because either the punishments for some crimes are excessive, or innocent people are being convicted at high rates and possibly because of perverse incentives, or whatever, then those things need to be addressed. But I do not support a generally lenient attitude toward crime in the spirit of Norway's treatment of Breivik. That that unrepentant criminal is alive and in relative comfort is a sickening insult to his victims.
I think this depends very much on what you consider the intention of a justice system to be. If it is to strive towards balance between individuals, then you are correct. If a person causes suffering, then they should experience suffering themselves. Balance attained.
However, if the intention of a justice system is to reduce the total amount of injustice done in the world, then punishment is surprisingly ineffective.
Being a criminal does not _preclude_ a person from also being a victim. People who inflict violence have very, very often experienced a great deal of violence against themselves. In these cases, punishment is going to do far more harm than good in society. Harsh punishment, especially incarceration, makes pre-existing issues much worse. It creates recidivism, and increases the total amount of injustice over the long term. Compassion, support, empathy, education, and carefully guided opportunity to improve would, in many of these cases, improve that person's circumstance to a point where they no longer have cause to harm others. The original victims may not have received the recompense that they deserve, but the likelihood of more people experiencing pain at the criminal's hand in the future is reduced.
So it's not quite as simple as all one way or all the other. I think that is why the raw concept of 'retribution' is a less desirable idea these days than it has been in the past. It makes the demands of individual balance at the expense of community balance.
Don't get me wrong, I think that ignoring individual balance outright in favour of community balance is equally flawed. The trick is providing lots of options, so that someone like a judge can make the call as to where that balancing point should be and be confident that it is played out.
> If a person causes suffering, then they should experience suffering themselves. Balance attained.
> However, if the intention of a justice system is to reduce the total amount of injustice done in the world, then punishment is surprisingly ineffective.
This.
Retribution is a terrible way to run things. "The law is reason free from passion."
"One of the first victim impact statements made outside a civil courtroom was that of the mother of actress Sharon Tate, who was murdered in 1969 by Charles Manson and his family. At the time of Manson’s 1978 parole hearing in California no state specifically allowed victim statements in criminal cases—those brought by government and “We the People.” Today, however, they are a routine part of the sentencing and parole process in every state. According to advocates, they allow victims to personalize the crime and elevate the status of the victim by describing the effect the crime has had on them or their families. Some laud the courtroom ritual as an aid in the emotional recovery of the victim, with the criminal proceeding envisioned as part of a larger therapeutic process. A few legal scholars suggest that the well-intentioned personalization of a crime can blur the line between public justice and private retribution. Conversely, does a criminal deserve a more lenient sentence if his victim was someone of so little charm or social worth that he had no one to testify movingly for him? Of course, rape charges used to be mitigated on just such grounds, that the victim had so little virtue or sexual morals that the crime against her didn’t mean as much."
Retribution is a strongly rational choice for a society aiming to minimize the total amount of injustice, since it interferes with the incentives structure of those perpetrating injustices. The majority of criminals make an intentional choice and know they are harming others, they are not irrational victims of circumstance or of their upbringing.
So, to the extent that the justice sistem can identify truly antisocial crime (and not ridiculous offenses like 5y mandatory minimums for weed), making the criminals suffer sets a strong social example: if you perpetrate this particularly heinous crime, you will a pay a price so high that it will not be worth it.
And since, by definition, only a fraction of criminals will be caught, those that are caught must suffer extra to asymptotically balance the risk/reward ratio - if I get caught stealing I don't just compensate the victim for the stolen good, thereby "paying my dues", that will just motivate me to get better at stealing. Rather, the penalty should completely obliterate any gains I could hope to make in a successful thieving career, and then some, to dissuade me to go down that path in the first place.
Rehabilitation is an important concern, but it's only secondary to the primary goal of the justice system, making crime not worthwhile. If all I get for running over people while drunk is an obligation to go to AA meetings, then the drunk driving law becomes irrelevant, you might as well leave it to the individual conscience.
I believe you can safely entrust the evaluation of the Breivik case to the Norwegians, who - judicially - came through the thing with absolutely flying colors as a civilized and rational society, not as a religiously infused flashmob baying for blood.
That's not the purpose of the justice system per se, though I don't see any problem with someone offering criminals, in the spirit of charity, opportunities and help in turning away from criminality toward good ways of living. (Obviously, they must be willing, and we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking criminals are victims.) However, justice implies that retribution and punishment are merited, and if merited, then legitimately inflicted. If it didn't, mercy and forgiveness would be meaningless. Indeed, crime and evil actions would cease to have any substance. A justice system that does not punish in a manner that is commensurate with crimes committed is no justice system at all. The word "retribution" for some reason offends modern sensibilities. Part of that stems from what appears to be the false belief that retribution entails hatred, which it does not.
If there are flaws in the justice system because either the punishments for some crimes are excessive, or innocent people are being convicted at high rates and possibly because of perverse incentives, or whatever, then those things need to be addressed. But I do not support a generally lenient attitude toward crime in the spirit of Norway's treatment of Breivik. That that unrepentant criminal is alive and in relative comfort is a sickening insult to his victims.