| | Matthew H:
I'm not sure that your argument for restitution necessarily follows though: the goal is to uphold the rights of innocent people, so the system ought to retaliate for the violation (on behalf of the innocent victim) in an effort to deter future violators. That would be the deterrent argument. As I said in my post, this automatically follows from protection of the individual, what you call "uphold the rights."
Retribution and retaliation flow automatically from the goal you've stated, i.e., there is no logical way to achieve protection of people and their rights which does not involve measures which are in some way punitive.
Retribution, retaliation and deterrent are not the primary motives: they are the secondary effects which flow from the primary responsibility of a criminal justice system--protecting the individual.
In cases such as petty theft, restitution might work, but surely more serious crimes require proportionately stronger retaliation.
I consider restitution an important component of justice and of rehabilitation, but as a practical matter criminals are not usually very productive individuals, and the amount of actual wealth they can generate to compensate their victims is quite limited.
Only if a criminal is rehabilitated do they become very productive.
My essential point though, is that none of the options given in the poll are in themselves the goal of criminal justice; but are really means to, or aspects of, that goal. That was more of less the point of my post as well.
Nathan Hawking
|
|
