M

[Sothis]

Originally Posted by The Man in Black

Indeed this is a difficult subject to debate about, because, frankly, I can't take a side. For a society that's so screwed up sometimes, it's ironic that we feel it necessary to rid ourselves of those not worthy of living in it. That's the thing though...it shouldn't be about what the affected family wants for the person, they're just as biased as the killer himself. Of course the natural reaction for the affected is going to be punishment, but I'm not sure about punishing someone when it really isn't their fault. Damn...this is one of the tougher debates I've been involved in, lol.

I think the difficulty is that this question -- like many ethical questions -- has no solution that is "universally" just. There is no outcome that is fair to ALL parties in ALL dimensions.

Faced with this reality, I don't think it's possible to deal rationally with such problems by relying solely on your innate sense of justice and morality. Each alternative will "feel wrong" depending how you look at it. Instead, I think you have to turn to ethical theory for guiding principles. Of course, different ethical principles may produce different recommendations, so you have to decide for yourself which principles you think should take precedence, independently of the specific problem at hand.

One example of a principle from ethical theory is utilitarianism, often summarized as "the greatest good for the greatest number." From Wikipedia:

Utilitarianism (also: utilism) is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its usefulness in maximizing utility and minimizing negative utility (utility can be defined as pleasure, preference satisfaction, knowledge or other things) as summed among all sentient beings. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. The most influential contributors to this theory are considered to be Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

A simple utilitarian argument might say that the killer should be permanently jailed (or perhaps even executed, if he is an escape risk). Even if what he does is not his fault, the decision to jail/execute him is ethical under utilitarianism because it creates the greatest utility for society as a whole.

Of course, other schools of thought may disagree; the "criticism and defense" section of the article is worth a read. I'm still trying to work through it all.

I will say that I don't believe any ethical institution of justice should make "punishment" part of its reason for existence, per se. I'm not saying criminals shouldn't suffer... I'm just saying their suffering shouldn't be the point of the system. In my opinion, the point should be to protect the rest of society from harm and to discourage criminal behavior. Suffering might turn out to be an unavoidable side-effect of these goals at times, but I do think suffering should be minimized where possible.