The Lockerbie Bomber and revenge

[Caliga]

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!

[Ed Anger]

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!

     No. No, you can't get away. From hell's heart, I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.

[DGuller]

I think Western democracies should learn some game theory.  Tit for tat, with an occasional but rare act of forgiveness, is the most effective method of discouraging actions detrimental to society.

[The Minsky Moment]

The premise is not entirely accurate because retibution is one of the accepted purposes of criminal punishment in Western legal systems.  It simply is not the sole purpose.  But it is there, if for no other reason than to recognize the reality of its emotional pull and therefore to safeguard the perceived legitimacy of the criminal justice system.

Even the most crude forms of criminal justice start from the assumption that although retribution needs to be recognized as a basic human impulse, a fundamental purpose of any system of justice is to control and limit that impulse.  Placing some kind of basic regulation and control on the retributive impulse is a pre-requisite to maintaining any kind of organized society. 

[The Minsky Moment]

I think Western democracies should learn some game theory.  Tit for tat, with an occasional but rare act of forgiveness, is the most effective method of discouraging actions detrimental to society.

That is a deterrence rationale, not retribution.

[Siege]

I really don't understand.

Why is revenge seen as a bad thing?

I don't mean revenge by the individual, of course. I agree the State should have monopoly on violence. What I am asking is why society at large sees revenge, as in punishment for criminal actions, as something negative. Punishment proportional to the crime committed, of course.

In my mind, reeducation is morally acceptable only for petty criminals.
A murderer should be punished to the maximum any given country's laws allow to, and not waste our time thinking of the reeducation of this murderer. That's what I mean by revenge. "You are a convicted killer, and so we will kill you or put you in jail for the rest of your life without possibility of parole (or whatever you call it)".

[DGuller]

I think Western democracies should learn some game theory.  Tit for tat, with an occasional but rare act of forgiveness, is the most effective method of discouraging actions detrimental to society.

That is a deterrence rationale, not retribution.

Isn't deterrence one of the goals of the legal system?

[Grallon]

One of our legal system primarily functions to prevent the sort of revenge-cycles and blood fueds that have dominated world history, by providing a civilized fair system that people agree to.

An eye for an eye...  so archaic... so middle-eastern!



G.

[Strix]

Isn't deterrence one of the goals of the legal system?

It used to be a major goal of the legal system but that has changed. The legal system is less able to deter behavior because it has reduced the retribution that society seeks for criminal and deviant behavior. Alternatives to punishment and retribution is the new "in" thing. Instead of "punishing" individuals the legal system now identifies the problem, offers education/counseling, and provides the individual with a second chance (or third, fourth, fifth).

[ulmont]

I think Western democracies should learn some game theory.  Tit for tat, with an occasional but rare act of forgiveness, is the most effective method of discouraging actions detrimental to society.

Tit for tat with misunderstandings has a rather obvious failure mode.

[Slargos]

Revenge is not a valid motive.

Revenge does not set anything right and doesn't bring the dead back to life.

Punishment. Punishment is a valid motive. Bringing a cosmic balance back in order.

The proper punishment for the bomber is death.

[DGuller]

I think Western democracies should learn some game theory.  Tit for tat, with an occasional but rare act of forgiveness, is the most effective method of discouraging actions detrimental to society.

Tit for tat with misunderstandings has a rather obvious failure mode.

The random act of forgiveness would take care of it.

[DGuller]

It always annoys me when revenge is regarded to as a completely irrational action.  To me, revenge is a very rational reaction on a social level.  It lets people know that if they wrong someone badly enough, they would invite great wrath unto themselves, so great that it would be self-destructive for the person carrying out the revenge.  That terrorizing prospect tends to deter people from acting in a way that provokes revenge in the first place.

[Grey Fox]

I really don't understand.

Why is revenge seen as a bad thing?

I don't mean revenge by the individual, of course. I agree the State should have monopoly on violence. What I am asking is why society at large sees revenge, as in punishment for criminal actions, as something negative. Punishment proportional to the crime committed, of course.

In my mind, reeducation is morally acceptable only for petty criminals.
A murderer should be punished to the maximum any given country's laws allow to, and not waste our time thinking of the reeducation of this murderer. That's what I mean by revenge. "You are a convicted killer, and so we will kill you or put you in jail for the rest of your life without possibility of parole (or whatever you call it)".

Because it is not enlightened & it doesn't work.

[Strix]

Because it is not enlightened & it doesn't work.

It can be unenlightened but than again so isn't the behavior that is being punished.

And it does work, there is no single greater individual deterrent against repeat offenders than the death penalty with incarceration a close second.