If individuals have committed crimes, they’ve clearly broken the social contract. Your mention of retribution is especially interesting when we consider the Code of Hammurabi, one of the earliest known sets of laws, which introduced ‘lex talionis’ or ‘the principle of retribution’—likely the origin of the ‘an eye for an eye’ concept.
The idea of retribution does seem to tap into something intrinsic in our sense of justice. However, it’s important to note that during Hammurabi’s era, resources were much scarcer than today, making the sustained imprisonment of criminals impractical.
So, what is the underlying purpose of modern incarceration? In no particular order, it seems to be: isolating individuals from the public to prevent further crimes, serving as punishment to deter criminal behavior, and rehabilitation.
Torture, I believe, doesn’t make us safer nor does it contribute to rehabilitation. This leaves punishment to deter criminal activity. This can be seen either as a warning to potential criminals or, for those not facing life imprisonment, as a means to reduce recidivism.
Therefore, we’re left to balance the human rights of the individual against the potential deterrent effect of torture in preventing future crimes. Even in this simplified scenario, discounting the message sent by tacitly accepting state-sponsored torture and the diminishing impact of additional punishment on those who act irrationally, torture seems to serve only to satisfy a base desire for vengeance. We should not lower ourselves to such methods, aligning us closer to those who commit these heinous crimes.
If individuals have committed crimes, they’ve clearly broken the social contract. Your mention of retribution is especially interesting when we consider the Code of Hammurabi, one of the earliest known sets of laws, which introduced ‘lex talionis’ or ‘the principle of retribution’—likely the origin of the ‘an eye for an eye’ concept.
The idea of retribution does seem to tap into something intrinsic in our sense of justice. However, it’s important to note that during Hammurabi’s era, resources were much scarcer than today, making the sustained imprisonment of criminals impractical.
So, what is the underlying purpose of modern incarceration? In no particular order, it seems to be: isolating individuals from the public to prevent further crimes, serving as punishment to deter criminal behavior, and rehabilitation.
Torture, I believe, doesn’t make us safer nor does it contribute to rehabilitation. This leaves punishment to deter criminal activity. This can be seen either as a warning to potential criminals or, for those not facing life imprisonment, as a means to reduce recidivism.
Therefore, we’re left to balance the human rights of the individual against the potential deterrent effect of torture in preventing future crimes. Even in this simplified scenario, discounting the message sent by tacitly accepting state-sponsored torture and the diminishing impact of additional punishment on those who act irrationally, torture seems to serve only to satisfy a base desire for vengeance. We should not lower ourselves to such methods, aligning us closer to those who commit these heinous crimes.