Excellent guy.. thanks for responding.

I'll tell you a bit about where this came from. I found myself asking that when somebody advocates harsher punishments for XYZ crime, then is it an increase in justice? Or is it just an increase in collective venegance.

Jax i disagree with you. Justice is not supposed to be venegance. it is supposed to be about righting the wrong. And as far as i understand, righting the wrong is an action independent of any punitive measures taken in retribution.

Punishment has the purpose of deterring future criminals. It actually does nothing to right the wrong committed.

And that is essentially why this thought came to my mind. In many judicial systems nowadays, too much stress is put on the punitive aspect of jurisprudence, whereas restitution has taken a back seat. Trials are no longer about who is supposed to get their right.. It has become about who gets punished.

And i think that totally winds up missing the point of a judicial system.

the way many governments tout their harsher punishments as victories of "justice" completely misses the point. Harsher punishments only means that the collective punishes people more (greater venegance) but it has absolutely no affect on restoration of a victim's rights.


I dunno if i mange to make myself clear, but my ontention is this. The importance given to punishment for transgression diverts the attention away from what really matters. What really matters is whether people get what is their right. Once their right is secured, then one may discuss whether punitive actions will change the behavior of the trasgressor. Fact is that the punitive measures installed today are more likely to turn a criminal into a hardened one.