I really enjoyed today's class! Though somewhat confusingly tangential, the class as a whole really seemed to dig into this issue and it got the ball rolling in my head.
I think the question needs to be asked: Is punishment unjust? More to the point, is our current penal system morally justifiable; is it a legitimate system?
What justifies the infliction of punishment on people? Today in class, the general consensus seemed to be that to define a human based on a singular action would be a mistake, for an isolated action cannot be reasonably considered a/the summation of the individual. However, punishment occurs in reaction to singular actions nonetheless. Punishing people certainly needs some semblance of justification for it is something almost always harmful or unpleasant for the recipient. Imprisonment, for example, causes physical discomfort, psychological suffering, and general unhappiness along with a variety of other disadvantages (i.e. impairment of employment opportunities and social life). Deliberately inflicting suffering on people is at least prima facie immoral, and needs some special justification. It is true that in some cases the recipient does not find the punishment painful, or even welcomes it – for example, some offenders might find prison a refuge against the intolerable pressures of the outside world. And sometimes when we punish we are not trying to cause suffering: for example, when the punishment is mainly aimed at reforming the offender, or at ensuring that victims are benefited by reparation. But even in these cases, punishment is still something imposed: it is an intrusion on the liberty of the person punished, which also needs to be justified.
If we're working off Dr. King's parameters, I'd say...yes! It is unjust to punish people. Punishment does not have the corrective goal that many people assume it has, and it more likely harms individuals. This is especially true with the "correctional" system here in the United States.
ReplyDeleteI don't think punishment "lifts people up" in the way King wants. However, segregation for safety's sake coupled with rehabilitation can achieve this goal.
Just because our form of modern punishment fails to achieve a goal cannot make it unjust. I concede that people mistakenly presume our system fulfills the goal of "correcting" those that pass through it, but is it unjust because it fails?
DeleteI'm not sure if I'm being clear.
See my comment to Helena's post this week.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea and the pursuance of the goal of correcting people would make imprisonment a just thing to do if it worked. In my opinion, people are summations of their individual actions, and must therefore be held accountable for each of the actions they take. However, to say that prison reforms everyone that it detains would be an overstatement of the highest order, making it to some degree unjust I guess. Don't destroy me mentally too much.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I think it is important to separate a systems efficacy from it's intended goal. I am inclined to agree that our contemporary system of punitive housing seems dysfunctional, but simply because THAT system fails to reform or fails to do whatever is actually intended, does not necessarily mean that all systems of punishment are unjust. I tend to believe that most if not all systems are, but I just can't articulate why.
DeleteTo say that people are summations of individual actions seems to give value to each action. If this is the case you are trying to make then prison seems an entirely horrible idea to correct this "imbalance" of humanity. Say every action were given a 1-10 value on a good and bad scale (i.e. saving a life is a 10 on the good and taking one is a 10 on the bad) and people were evaluated at the end of everyday to make sure they were either neutral or good. If summed up by every action, people would be responsible for involving themselves with more good actions in order to make up for all bad actions taken, to ensure a "good" outcome at the end of the day. Prison, takes capability for meaningful action away and in most cases it seems only presents opportunity for bad actions. Perhaps people are summations of individual actions, but if thats the case, prison cannot be the way to even things out.
I've read through your posts and the comments, and I'll attempt to give some answers to the questions that I think you're still asking...You've stated that the issue is not with the effectiveness of the system; merely, is the method of punishment itself just or unjust. I think you're also asking why one should be punished for one action in particular, as it is indeed, one of very many over the course of time, or even a few hours.
DeleteI would say that it is fully understandable to assert that punishing someone for a single "bad" act is unjust. However, given the fact that our legal society (in the US) has laws written down, and specified, I would say that is perfectly just for a person to be "judged," for lack of a better word, on a single action.
To clarify, I am not saying that punishing someone with jail time based on a single action is a just gesture; I am saying that it is just for a person to go through some type of consequence or corrective action, as collateral for a single action. Hopefully I'm being clear enough haha. It is because the standard of criminal acts are specified in this country that allows a single "criminal" action to carry more weight than other good actions. I think viewing "good" and "bad" decisions, with an equilibrium, or utilitarian spin on the "end of the day, good vs. bad decisions meter" seems to draw a minimal line, and as I think many students can attest to, the minimum line soon becomes the standard. I also think that basing judgement on this type of paradigm would take the focus away from being good, purely in the eyes of what a person views as morally right or just, to becoming a way to mitigate actions of an unjust or unlawful nature.