Retributive Justice?

[BlackmarketKraig]

Is retributive justice necessary? Is it just?

Lets imagine that there were a voluntary procedure that could completely change the future behaviors of someone who were convicted of a crime so that you could be 100% certain that he or she would never commit another crime. Would it be necessary then, after they had undergone the procedure, to punish that criminal for the crime they were convicted of?

Is punishment necessary for the victims of the crime to feel vindicated, for society to feel at ease that someone is suffering for what they have done or is it simply needed as a deterrent for crime?

[RubberTrucky]

Personally, I'd say that if it can made 100% sure that the criminal won't do anything illegal again, then there is no need for punishment.

Though, wouldn't it just be effective to just treat everyone to prevent crime forever?

[ChainsawNinjaZX]

Yes, because they may have taken preventiveness measures to never do it again, but they have not paid for what they have done. In the case of rape, which is more than likely what you're preferring to (chemical castration), I would rather personally kill every single one not convicted of statutory rape unless it's a full blown pedophile (don't want a "daddy he raped me" case when the girl gets caught or a 17 year old having sex with an 18 year old).

[Oppugnant]

Such a treatment is punishment enough.

[satanbrain]

They must be punsihed so others wouldn't think they could crime, undergo this procedure and get away with this. Being jailed for some years is more deterrent than some procedure.

[RubberTrucky]

At 2/8/11 09:54 AM, ChainsawNinjaZX wrote: (chemical castration),

Does chemical castration really prevent rape from happening?

[SteveGuzzi]

At 2/8/11 09:47 AM, BlackmarketKraig wrote: Lets imagine that there were a voluntary procedure that could completely change the future behaviors of someone who //

yeeeaaahhh i don't think i'd agree to be lobotomized for life just to avoid some fines or a short stint in jail.

and i think its kinda silly to ask if something is "necessary" in light of some hypothetical procedure that doesn't really exist. why not just use the real world as your context? is retributive justice necessary in absence of made-up magical procedures that prevent people from ever breaking the law? if you don't think it is, then what do you think could take its place instead?

Is punishment necessary for the victims of the crime to feel vindicated...

it isn't necessary for the victims to feel vindicated, but it's a nice bonus for them.

...for society to feel at ease that someone is suffering for what they have done...

welll any resultant sense of ease shouldn't come from the fact that the criminal is suffering, the sense of ease should come from the fact that the criminal is being kept away from further interacting with society (where punishment = jail time) or that the criminal hasn't benefited financially (where punishment = fines, loss of property, etc).

or is it simply needed as a deterrent for crime?

well yeah, knowing what you can be punished-for (and how) can be an effective deterrent also.