Eugene Volokh says it's right for us to derive satisfaction from the suffering of convicted criminals. Volokh outlines six theories of punishment and argues that those of us who believe in retribution, deterrence and what he calls norm-setting "support deliberately inflicting suffering on criminals, and derive benefit and satisfaction from this infliction."
I'm not sure suffering is the right word here, or satisfaction for that matter. Society creates laws and necessarily prescribes punishments for those who break those laws. Else why bother to write laws if breaking them has no consequence? Punishment necessarily means, at a minimum, some inconvenience to the lawbreaker, whether it be a fine, imprisonment or death. When a criminal is convicted and a punishment is imposed, we are not deriving satisfaction at the thought of his suffering. Rather, we are satisfied that justice has been served, that the moral order has been restored.
For earlier posts on this topic, go here and here.
No comments:
Post a Comment