Philosophically, I don't think Rawls got it right, but I also don't think he got it wrong: It's not so much: There could be no just society if lawbreakers were allowed to go unpunished, he argued,...
Philosophically, I don't think Rawls got it right, but I also don't think he got it wrong:
It's not so much:
There could be no just society if lawbreakers were allowed to go unpunished, he argued, since it is a prerequisite of a just society that every citizen should be held responsible for their conduct.
As it is:
There could be no just society if lawbreakers were allowed to go unpunished, since it is a prerequisite of a functioning society that society punishes those who break its norms to decentivize that norm-breaking (and so society dispences justice, not individuals who take matters into their own hands).
In that way, punishment for crime becomes not so much about punishment as deterrence.
But punishment is still about deterrence: if those who have had their loved one murdered do not feel retribution, what are the moral consequences for how they should act? What moral calculus should they run to see whether they should take things into their own hands?
I completely agree with many of the aims of the prison abolition movement, but abolishing prison as punishment is wrong.
Yes, society has failed those who're most typically the ones that are incarcerated for crimes. A number of people who have the exact same upbringings do not resort to crime.
Society has strong moral responsibilities for addressing crime from all different facets: to compensate those who're harmed by crime, to hold criminals to account, to protect society from future crime, to treat those who're judged to punishment fairly.
Part of that last bit concerns what should happen during punishment: Incarceration, the loss of freedom in itself is a strong punishment. There are many situations where force is not justified. Force can clearly be justified in cases of criminal incarceration, also to force those who don't want to change the course of their lives to do so:
Forced decoupling from social environments that hurt them
Forced mental treatment
Forced removal from alcohol/drugs/other addictions
Forced education or other skill training that is rehabilitation.
For many, prison that demands participation in rehabilitation programs will be way more invasive and punishing than the incarceration many parts of the prison abolition movement wants to get rid of. The case for rehabilitation to reduce recidivism, for the sake of society and those who struggle in their own lives seems compelling. Morally speaking, not just in terms of social economy or other civics.
Philosophically, I don't think Rawls got it right, but I also don't think he got it wrong:
It's not so much:
As it is:
In that way, punishment for crime becomes not so much about punishment as deterrence.
But punishment is still about deterrence: if those who have had their loved one murdered do not feel retribution, what are the moral consequences for how they should act? What moral calculus should they run to see whether they should take things into their own hands?
I completely agree with many of the aims of the prison abolition movement, but abolishing prison as punishment is wrong.
Yes, society has failed those who're most typically the ones that are incarcerated for crimes. A number of people who have the exact same upbringings do not resort to crime.
Society has strong moral responsibilities for addressing crime from all different facets: to compensate those who're harmed by crime, to hold criminals to account, to protect society from future crime, to treat those who're judged to punishment fairly.
Part of that last bit concerns what should happen during punishment: Incarceration, the loss of freedom in itself is a strong punishment. There are many situations where force is not justified. Force can clearly be justified in cases of criminal incarceration, also to force those who don't want to change the course of their lives to do so:
For many, prison that demands participation in rehabilitation programs will be way more invasive and punishing than the incarceration many parts of the prison abolition movement wants to get rid of. The case for rehabilitation to reduce recidivism, for the sake of society and those who struggle in their own lives seems compelling. Morally speaking, not just in terms of social economy or other civics.