• Benj96
    2.2k
    To “punish” and to “harm” are somewhat synonymous. They are both negative afflictions set upon a person either by another or by themselves.

    This is confusing for me. This is why; we generally accept the legal system as a system of punishment for those who harm (commit a violation, offence or heinous crime). But if we apply the logic that those who harm are guilty/ deserving of punishment then what is to be said of the institution that goes out to seek revenge/ to afflict harm/ pain or other punishment on the perpetrator?

    If a person goes out and holds someone captive in their basement for years on end against their will they are considered a kidnapper - a criminal and then face something essentially equal as their punishment for the offence - to be held captive for years in a prison against their will. Is this supposed to be what we consider justice? How does it fix anything in the end it results in two peoples lives being ruined as well as those of the people surrounding them which are all likely innocent/ uninvolved: the families of the victim and the criminal.

    If we consider a spectrum where one end is a psychopath - someone with absolutely no empathy or regard for the well-being of others, only out to serve their own interests, then the other end would have to be someone of pure unadulterated empathy for all (including the criminal) which means they would likely not resort to punishment as a means to reprimand a criminal. They would probably offer “rehabilitation” instead - an idea that in some way the criminal is perhaps “ill” or “mentally unwell/ deluded or misled” and require some form of therapy and rewiring of their cognition so they can appreciate the wrongness of their crime as a good citizen would.

    This dilemma is faced in the circumstances of “self harm”. The legal system fails to justify punishing he who punishes himself. Because it paints the justice system as criminal. The self harmer is a victim after all. And to punish a victim is pretty wrong. It doesn’t sit well in the minds of the good citizen which will naturally object to it. So the legal system has no other choice but to adopt the “rehabilitation” method with self destructive people - the mentally ill.

    So my question is why is this method not extended to those who harm others? If violence and harm of any kind is intolerable and universally frowned upon ... then why is violence/ aggression and harm to others not considered as illogical/ irrational therefore deluded/ psychotic or delirious and therefore some form of mental illness. Then with the idea that you cannot punish the ill for being ill... the only way to deal with them is to preserve their dignity/ the belief that they can be good citizens while treating their mind for its unhealthy state.
  • Pfhorrest
    4.6k
    This is a good argument against retributive justice.

    True justice is making sure that the harm that someone does is contained to themselves, i.e. it's only okay to harm someone to the minimal extent necessary to prevent them from harming others (e.g. fighting off an attacker) and to undo as much as possible the harm they've already done to others (e.g. taking from them to replace what they've cost others).

    Harming anyone beyond that is worse than useless, doing bad to no good.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.1k

    Your question as to why the rehabilitation model which is adopted with people who self harm is not applied to those who harm others touches upon debate within forensic psychiatry. I have worked in the mental health system and it is a complex matter differentiating between whether a person has harmed others as a result of underlying mental illness or not.

    In many cases, it is clear that a person who has killed another has done so on account of being unwell mentally. In particular, if there are obvious signs of psychosis, such as the person hearing voices. The person may have command hallucinations to kill someone. Or, they might have paranoid delusions which lead to the person to attack and kill another.

    In some cases, the signs of mental illness may not be picked up initially. For this reason, there is usually some input from psychiatrists within prisons to try to ensure that the underlying signs of mental illness are not missed. This is about looking for psychosis but other mental illnesses too.

    One important area within psychiatry relevant to your question is the whole idea of personality disorders,The label is in itself contentious and can be analyzed critically from a sociological or philosophical angle. However, for the current purpose I am speaking of the idea of personality disorders as depicted within the psychiatric model. There are various recognised personalities disorders or traits, and it could be seen as a spectrum. However, two differences are between the idea of borderline personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder.

    The main difference between the borderline personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder is based on the extent to which the person has difficulty with the self or others. The individual with a borderline personality disorder often has difficulty with emotional regulation, suicidal and self harm intentions, and difficulties with impulsive behaviour. These people are often the ones who present in acute psychiatric admissions.

    The people with antisocial personality disorder are often those within the forensic psychiatric institutions, such as Broadmoor. I have a little experience of working within forensic psychiatry, but more in step down services for individuals at a later stage of recovery but I would not feel that I have sufficient knowledge to speak with any authority on the subject of antisocial personality disorder. The one thing which I would say is that even within forensic psychiatry is that there is a lot of overlap between recognised disorders in the persons who present. Some people have a history of self harm and harming others. Also, some people have a mixture of psychosis, alongside other difficulties.

    One main element which is of critical importance in determining whether a person should be in prison or in a mental health establishment is whether or not they are seen as suffering from a treatable mental illness. Usually, this involves medication alongside psychological therapies. I do not think that the differentiation between mental illness, or lack of it, in a person who harms others is absolute and I have simply tried to sketch an outline of this very complex area within psychiatry.
  • Tzeentch
    3.3k
    While rational thought may lead us to conclude that retributive justice is no justice at all, reality forces the legal system to take into account the victim's experience of justice.

    If the system cannot provide a solution that appeases the victims (and their close relations), the risk will be very high for them to take matters into their own hands.

    And of course, punishment is also thought to function as a deterrent.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.