this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2025
24 points (81.6% liked)

Explain Like I'm Five

17437 readers
1 users here now

Simplifying Complexity, One Answer at a Time!

Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Engage in constructive discussions.
  4. Share relevant content.
  5. Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
  6. Use appropriate language and tone.
  7. Report violations.
  8. Foster a continuous learning environment.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmynsfw.com 41 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Because rehabilitation is more effective

Punitive justice won't change the way people think, the cycle will just repeat

Things like the death sentence don't work, because people are still murdering, even though they know that they face execution for it

It's a pointless punishment

[–] Makhno@lemmy.world -5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's a pointless punishment

Idk, there are some pieces of shit that just need a bullet to the head. Serial killers/rapists don't need rehabilitation. They need to be erased.

[–] kofe@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago

I want to preempt this by apologizing if you are a victim yourself, or at least say I don't speak for all victims. That said, threatening violence - unless as immediate defense - is not moral within my view. I've been raped and had loved ones violently murdered. I would not wish pain on those responsible. I want them to understand and grow as people. Maybe it will never happen, and I can accept that. I can't accept loosening my moral standards and sinking to their level.

Sequestering them from society is more preferable. Requiring therapy. Community service.

I've been in therapy off and on for years. One piece of advice a therapist gave me that I'll never forget is to never stop being an idealist.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 26 points 2 weeks ago

It doesn't prevent crime

[–] Anomalocaris@lemm.ee 24 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

rehabilitation is better

however, we do have to do something with those billionaires and oligarchs

[–] muusemuuse@lemm.ee 22 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Let’s rehabilitate them with forced poverty.

[–] actionjbone@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Or perhaps we can rehabilitate them with a guillotine.

[–] Makhno@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Relieve them of their heads

[–] teft@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Let's get rid of poverty for everyone. No one deserves to live poor.

We should force the people who were super greedy and became dragons with hoards of cash to work for the public in a service job like janitor or old person care. Maybe that will make them think about other people.

[–] Supervisor194@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Perhaps we can bring out the Dildozer.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

That's what shallow graves are for

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 21 points 2 weeks ago

For me, personal justice almost has to be punitive. But I'm an asshole. And more importantly, I'm not society, just an insubstantial slice of it. Any study on how to deal with crime shows that punitive measures rarely, if ever, increase the wellness of society. Rehabilitation, understanding, hippie dippy shit, has a much greater positive impact on society, as hard as that may be to stomach. Facts are facts, regardless of feelings.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 weeks ago

Well, it isn't that punitive measures serve no purpose. They do. But that purpose doesn't decrease the chances of a given crime occurring by other people, nor does it prevent the same people repeating a crime. To the contrary, the way most prisons work, chances are that anyone going on comes out with less options, and more knowledge of crime, so even if they don't repeat the same offenses, they're put in position to do others out of necessity.

But it does seem to make people feel better when someone else gets punished for doing something wrong. Which, in theory, is going to reduce vigilantism and mob justice. In practice? I dunno, I haven't seen enough data to form an opinion about that specific matter.

Generally, the reason it shouldn't be the main goal of a justice system is lack of efficacy. It just doesn't do what people want it to do. So, what's the point of that?

If your goal is to reduce crime, and reduce recidivism, rehabilitation has shown to do a better job. Prisons should be the last resort for non violent crimes, not the first. Even then if prisons hope to do more than isolate repeat offenders, they would need to have more intensive measures to help people change.

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

The world has had punitive justice systems for hundreds of years. It doesn't work. The countries trying restorative and rehabilitative justice systems are seeing amazing results.

[–] TheBananaKing@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Before we can answer that question usefully, tell us what you think justice is, and what purpose it serves.

[–] Justathroughdaway@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

To punish the wrongdoer in a fair and just way and protect the public.

[–] TheBananaKing@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

That's awfully circular.

Justice is doing what's just? Um.

What defines justice, what goal does it achieve, and how does punishment fit into that?

[–] DonPiano@feddit.org 4 points 2 weeks ago

Because that empirically tends to negatively interfere with rehabilitative functions of justice. If crime is bad, preventing crime is good, and stopping crime prevention therefore is bad.

[–] ratatouille@feddit.org 1 points 2 weeks ago

Because at first you have to find the cause of the behavior. Punitive justice should be the last resort. The problem, the moment justice has to work, a problem was not discovered and solved early enough. I would say every government punishment is a prove about a community and government failure. The moment justice step in you need to punish an incorrect behavior to prove that the rules that exist are valid and enforced. So one part of the punishment is not for the criminal it is for strengthen the existing rules.

In developed countries there should not only be the punishment but also an investigation how this could happen and some form of help to solve the issue. And additional punishment if other people where harmed.

[–] Shanmugha@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

It shouldn't be, period. As long as we keep producing people having no problem with causing more harm than good, they will keep doing just that

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The higher question is why shouldn't society be punitive?

To start with prison/justice, rape/violence being a feature means gang support systems are a feature, and crime university is a feature. Police are empowered by being agents of punishment. Privatization of parts of justice system incentivize kickbacks for punishment, and school to prison pipeline for the structurally oppressed classes.

Structural oppression in society serves oligarchist low hanging fruit of wage suppression. Structural desperation that motivates gang/mafia membership and crime as alternate protection from a punitive society. Importantly, if society isn't hateful, corrupt, and punitive, then why the fuck would you care about a politician who champions putting bandaids on it to make society more hateful and divisive, even if their real agenda is more war and service to Israel? Late stage democracy ensures collapse for zionist oligarchist pillaging.

UBI/freedom dividends is the only democratic idealist function. Not political power. It eliminates structural crime and oppression. Liquid democracy with UBI eliminates corruption and dysfunctional policy. A functional improving sustainable society is impossible when hate is prioritized.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 weeks ago

The question doesn't really make sense as asked. The entire criminal justice system, almost by definition, revolves around punishment.

Punishment has several different purposes such as deterrence, removal, rehabilitation. I suspect you wanted to ask about why some of these purposes are "better" than others…

Here's a comic explaining this: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=60

[–] thirtyfold8625@thebrainbin.org 0 points 2 weeks ago
[–] rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Punishment is part of justice. Seeing that somebody who does wrong intentionally and with malice suffers, proportionally, is part of the lesson that the justice system teaches.

In my opinion, punishment is important for the victim (to see that they are protected, and to satiate any craving for extra judicial revenge), society at large (to demonstrate that there is a governing body that will not let people get away with causing harm), and for the criminal themselves (to show that harmful acts will result in reprisal).

It crucially can't be the whole lesson, though. There has to be guidance, forgiveness (on a legal level), and a corrective path available to people who hurt others. Punishment on its own often just perpetuates systems that produce criminality, and isn't enough to effectively reform people who have done wrong.