Big Think

Joe Tuttle commented on The Preventative State on January 17, 2008, 7:01 PM

SajidM12, You make a valid point in regards to the balance that must take place between civil and criminal security, however your alternative of "educating" would be an exceedingly difficult task. One can make the offer to give clinical support to someone who may commit a crime, but they probably won't take it. They believe their future actions are justified. All actions humans make are done to fulfill a need. If someone makes a criminal act or plan to, they believe that it is justified because the act fulfills one of these needs for them (revenge, venting anger, pleasure). Although I agree that education and clinical help are substantially better justice than locking someone in a cell. I would pose a question to this thread: how can justice through education (transformative justice) be done without force? because you either force them into a place to get this help, which is another form of detainment that can be manipulated like in the statis quo, or you have to appeal to the "future criminal" that their mindset is flawed, which the criminal will argue back is reasonably justified.

Joe Tuttle commented on The Preventative State on January 17, 2008, 2:01 PM

SajidM12, You make a valid point in regards to the balance that must take place between civil and criminal security, however your alternative of "educating" would be an exceedingly difficult task. One can make the offer to give clinical support to someone who may commit a crime, but they probably won't take it. They believe their future actions are justified. All actions humans make are done to fulfill a need. If someone makes a criminal act or plan to, they believe that it is justified because the act fulfills one of these needs for them (revenge, venting anger, pleasure). Although I agree that education and clinical help are substantially better justice than locking someone in a cell. I would pose a question to this thread: how can justice through education (transformative justice) be done without force? because you either force them into a place to get this help, which is another form of detainment that can be manipulated like in the statis quo, or you have to appeal to the "future criminal" that their mindset is flawed, which the criminal will argue back is reasonably justified.

Joe Tuttle commented on The Preventative State on January 16, 2008, 9:51 PM

Perhaps a practical question in regards to preventative justice: Does it still make sense to operate in a system that functions in retributive justice?If your chief concern in preventative jurisprudence is that the offenders have no value to life, then how can ANY level of punishment be of significance? Although detainment may act as a deterrent to prevent future crime, it does not change the individual's ontology to a point where they do not wish to commit the crime, especially when they don't value their own lives.This may be naive, but could restorative be a better framework to work under? I admit it would be hard to do, and many would see this framework as weak, but would it be more just?

Joe Tuttle commented on The Preventative State on January 16, 2008, 4:51 PM

Perhaps a practical question in regards to preventative justice: Does it still make sense to operate in a system that functions in retributive justice? If your chief concern in preventative jurisprudence is that the offenders have no value to life, then how can ANY level of punishment be of significance? Although detainment may act as a deterrent to prevent future crime, it does not change the individual's ontology to a point where they do not wish to commit the crime, especially when they don't value their own lives. This may be naive, but could restorative be a better framework to work under? I admit it would be hard to do, and many would see this framework as weak, but would it be more just?