PDA

View Full Version : Poll: What is the most important form of Justice?



TheJoker
20-11-2009, 04:22 PM
With all the threads debating the death penalty I thought it might be interesting to gauge people's opinions on which of the following three forms of justice is most important in the sentencing of a criminal:

Retributive Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retributive_justice)

Restorative Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice)

Utilitarian Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism)

Basil
20-11-2009, 08:52 PM
Most important to whom? Me? Victim? Dispassionate intelligentsia (which reminds me of other people telling me I shouldn't have the right to sue a doctor for negligence that caused cerebral palsy, but I digress)?

I was reading a story today of a woman who was raped and left for dead, immediately after watching her boyfriend executed. She asserts she only received partial mental relief upon the perp's execution (her visual ID and his DNA convicted - he was a serial killer). This assertion was incidental to the story of life rebuilding (and written for a 'housewife' audience) and not a DP article.

My vote? I'm undecided, although I have given this very little thought and not (yet) followed your links.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-11-2009, 10:16 PM
Those options appear neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive.

Kevin Bonham
20-11-2009, 11:26 PM
Those options appear neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive.

Indeed. I am personally up for a combination of deterrence and restoration, naturally with a strong emphasis on the former in cases where the latter is impractical (as it alas often is). Rehabilitation is a valid goal too but one I see as less important than the other two I've mentioned.

I am familiar with the retributivism vs utilitarianism debate and regard it as a nil-all draw.

Spiny Norman
21-11-2009, 05:58 AM
Those options appear neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive.
I lean towards a mix of options #1 and #2, but I don't think either one qualifies as preeminent. I struggle with the idea of utilitarian justice. Not surprising perhaps, given my religious and moral beliefs.

Desmond
21-11-2009, 07:17 AM
Hard question. I lean towards utilitarian.

Restorative would also be covered by civil law wouldn't it?

Redmond Barry
21-11-2009, 08:30 AM
restorative justice.......

which I imagine would include instances of retribution for the restoration of an aggrieved parties demands.

retributive justice is generally unecessary and utilitarianism is too restrictive towards the victims needs as the victim in question would have their autonomy curtailed, being obliged to undertake proscribed justice that satisfys the wellbeing of the entire community. a community which may not be privy to the perceptual fundamentals of the victims situation.

utilitarianism is for me another concept for the 'superfluous basket' along with hope and sympathy.

Capablanca-Fan
21-11-2009, 01:39 PM
As others have stated, they are not mutually exclusive. Deterrence is a strong point; restorative justice is important for property crimes but not possible for murder; retributive justice is the important one for murderers.

Goughfather
21-11-2009, 05:42 PM
Yes, Jono's certainly on the right track. I'd point out though that deterrence takes two forms - specific deterrence, which especially relates to discouraging repeat offenders from committing the same offences again, and general deterrence, which aims to convey a message to the would-be offenders that they will be dealt with harshly if they commit the same type of offence.

With low level offending and a lot of offending committed by young individuals, such as cannabis possession, rehabilitation is almost the exclusive consideration, whereas deterrence tends to be the most important consideration in supply and trafficking offences, given the potential for quick profit and the difficulty in detecting this behaviour.

TheJoker
21-11-2009, 07:41 PM
Those options appear neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive.

That's correct they were never intended to be exhaustive (if that even possible) nor exclusive but rather between those options which would assign more importance if any.

TheJoker
21-11-2009, 07:45 PM
Most important to whom? Me? Victim? Dispassionate intelligentsia (which reminds me of other people telling me I shouldn't have the right to sue a doctor for negligence that caused cerebral palsy, but I digress)?.

You personally. I don't think we can speak for others. Unless of course your part of the "Dispassionate Intelligensia" ;)

TheJoker
21-11-2009, 07:49 PM
As others have stated, they are not mutually exclusive. Deterrence is a strong point; restorative justice is important for property crimes but not possible for murder; retributive justice is the important one for murderers.

So you'd say retributive justice is important for murder because restoration isn't possible?

Where restoration is possible do you still think there should be some level of retribution?

Personally I don't believe in retributive justice, or at least I don't think I do, but given a situation where I was of victim of a serious crime, perhaps that opinion would change. I do understand however that it is important for a lot of people's overall concept of justice.