As per usual, I was reading a book on the bus today, and I started thinking about the Nazi trials in post-war Germany. If it helps explain why I started thinking about that, the book happens to visit the issue. Then I started thinking about punishment in general.
I turned to my old friend, Wikipedia, for help. This is what it had to say on the issue:
In operant conditioning, punishment is the presentation of a stimulus contingent on a response which results in a decrease in response strength (as evidenced by a decrease in the frequency of response). The effectiveness of punishment in suppressing the response depends on many factors, including the intensity of the stimulus and the consistency with which the stimulus is presented when the response occurs. In parenting, additional factors that increase the effectiveness of punishment include a verbal explanation of the reason for the punishment and a good relationship between the parent and the child. Punishment can be divided into Positive punishment (the application of an aversive stimulus, such as pain) and Negative punishment (the removal or denial of a desired object or condition).
Now, by my translation, that means that punishment is designed to have a reaction, with the main goal being behaviour modification. The outcome relies on several factors, such as how often and how intensly the subject is punished. There is Positive Punishment, which means giving something to the subject that discourages repetition of their behaviour, like a slap. I don't think a slap is really a positive thing, but that's just me. Negative Punishment is when something valuable is taken away from the subject, like food or freedom. What I find interesting reading this is the exact parallel drawn here (and seen in real life) between punishing a dog to stop it crapping on the floor, punishing a child for crapping on the TV and punishing a man for popping a cap in someone's ass.
When it comes to the punishing of criminals, which will be my main focus for at least the rest of the paragraph, I see 5 main forms of punishment. There's appropriation of personal property (be it money, as in a fine, or goods, as in confiscation), limiting of freedoms (restraining orders, loss of the right to vote and so on), physical retribution (community service), incarceration (prison) and death ( ... ). I know that there are technically more (I can still see the wikipedia article), but I think they can be reduced to that. Of course, I'm only talking about the western, legal ones. These can be subdivided further into two groups, Socio-Economic punishment and Physical punishment.
As far as I figure, there are 4 reasons for punishment. The main, most obvious and most common is to discourage repeat activity and can be linked to all forms of punishment (save maybe 2, but I'll let you decide). Related, but independent in its own right, is setting an example, to discourage others from partaking in said activity, which again can be applied to all forms of punishment (including the 2 which I discounted from the last reason). In more severe cases, punishment is put in place to protect society (in whole or in part) from the individual, which applies mainly to restriction of movements and prison sentences. The last is the most severe, to prevent repeat activity, which applies only to life sentences and (gulp) the death penalty, the only two which I discount from the first reason. Of course, there are those who would claim that teaching the fuckers a lesson should be on the list, but for some reason I haven't included it. Maybe it falls under discouraging repeat activity. Who knows?
I'm currently listening to music from Les Miserables (songs are coming on randomly, so don't wag your fingers at me) and it makes me think about poor Jean Valjean. Long-term punishment (ie, life sentencing and the death penalty) are based on the idea that people do not change, and that decisions made perhaps decades before still define the person. Jean Valjean was a theif, but events conspired to turn him into a new man. Mr Javert, the cop, thought different. 'Once a theif, always a theif' were his words, I beleive. To digress from fictional characters, there are many examples of people who evolved over time, to a point where their punishment has, perhaps, expired its purpose. I'm thinking of Stanley 'Tookie' Williams, founder of the infamous Crips gang. He went to jail for murder, but during his time there, he has seen the folly of his youthful ways, and has since written a number of books for children about the dangers of gang-life. He has also been nominated for two Nobel Prizes, and was made the focus of a movie where Jamie Foxx played him. Plus, he negotiated a (at least until now) successful peace plan between the Crips and the Bloods. I don't know which accomplishment is bigger, but there you have it.
Despite what I see to be complete contrition for earlier ways, he has been sentenced to death, and will die on 13 December 2005. Of course, I don't know all the ins and outs, but it seems a little exreme. Then, to go back and mention fictional characters, I think Morgan Freeman deserved to be let out of Shawshank ages before Andy left.
I published the above text as it now is, before I had to go off to dinner. I thought I might add something to it now, though I've lost my thread.
Even if we do include teach those fuckers a lesson as a reason for punishment, there are many cases where the rationale behind the prescribed punishment falls short. The idea of parole, by which a 'reformed' criminal will be let out on probation earlier than expected, seems to try and tackle the idea that lessons can be learned. However, there are some aspects of punishment which do not end with release. The real punishment is that prison will follow you around. Ex-cons have trouble readjusting, not just because they have been institutionalised, but because they are looked down on by society. Even those who haven't gone to prison will feel repurcussions. I know people whose futures are limited simply because they've been caught with a eensy weensy bit of controlled substances. I don't want to get into my whole pro-legalization tirade, but I think it's ridiculous that Marijuana and hashish are restricted. And that's not just because I happen to be a fan of the stuff.
On the other hand (and we've been taught to look at the other hand all the time), can we really be expected to forgive some heinous crimes? Stanley 'Tookie' Williams killed people, yet I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but what about those nasty Nazis? Who can really feel comfortable knowing that people involved with the systematic assasination of 12 million people have served time, yet were released? I don't even know my own opinion on it. Also, in the case of the murder of Jamie Bulger (where two 10ish year olds murdered an infant), can the two murderers be forgiven? Can their crime be forgotten? They were very young when it happened, and if there's any time when a person will go through change, it's before they reach adulthood. The case was a huge deal back in '93, and again in 2001 when they were finally released.
As some people know, I'm currently working hard on my own version of Plato's Republic (which I should really read before I start) and perhaps crime and punishment will have to be seriously looked at in my new view for you and your few. Perhaps, if ever my ideas stop floating around (probably due to the aforementioned restricted substances) I'll jot down some of my ideas for a democratic dictatorship. Not now though.
For now, I'll end this post in the same state of confusion in which I started it. I don't know what the deal is with punishment. These were my ideas. I don't know the perfect answers, and I don't even know any answers. But that's ToK, which is pretty much what this was.