Why Should We Punish? Theories of Punishment

When we punish people, we're harming them. So what makes it okay for us to do that? There are three main theories of punishment that answer this question in different ways. Retribution and Retributive theories say that wrongdoers simply deserve to suffer. Deterrence theories say that punishment is justified because it prevents future wrongdoing. And rehabilitation theories say that we're justified in punishing when we do it in an effort to reform the wrongdoers.
Further reading:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Entry on "Punishment":
(plato.stanford...)
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "Punishment": (iep.utm.edu/pu...)
Media Sources:
Illustrations: www.freepik.com (macrovector and starline)
Video Clips: www.pixabay.com
Music: www.purple-pla...
Sound Effects: www.zapsplat.com

[@catbread5832]

i dont like doing homework

[@oreomilkshake_5]

same

[@erikbridge7740]

Bruh same.

[@TheRealZxchxr]

Same.

[@khai-tamnguyen169]

Same.

[@glosza]

sameeeee

[@KnowArt]

I don't understand why rehabilitation has to involve punishment. Of course forcing someone to do anything could maybe be seen as a restriction on their freedom and therefore a punishment, but putting someone back into school, with as place to live and with a mental help professional for example wouldn't really seem a punishment to me. I would expect that the only rehabilitating factor in a punishment, (just of what I feel is a punishment, since it's not defined here) is actually the deterring factor, but instead of deterring other people, you're deterring that one person from committing the same crime again. But then rehabilitation shouldn't be on the list, since it's actually deterrence in disguise.

[@ThinkingAboutStuff]

Ugh! I had written a long-ish response, but for some reason it's didn't save it properly?! Anyway, I'll just summarize by saying these two things: (1) You said, "Of course forcing someone to do anything could maybe be seen as a restriction on their freedom and therefore a punishment..." I think that's the key. If it's done by force or against their will, I'd still count it as punishment--even if it's for their own good. (2) You're also right that rehabilitation *could* be seen as a subset of deterrence. In fact, they're both forms of "consequentialist" justification because they both focus on the benefit of the punishment. But I think there's still a subtle, important difference in terms of the justification behind it and in terms of which particular forms of punishments we might use. If our justification is pure deterrence, then we might pick very scary cruel punishments to accomplish that. If our justification is rehabilitation, then simply scaring them out of recidivism doesn't seem sufficient to accomplish the goal of rehabilitation.

[@ThinkingAboutStuff]

Another distinction that's important (and that I didn't explicitly state in the video) is that there are two kinds of deterrence: specific deterrence (i.e. reducing recidivism--deterring the punished person from offending again) vs. general deterrence (i.e. deterring others from committing similar offenses).

[@KnowArt]

@@ThinkingAboutStuff Good points. Thanks for the elaborate reply. I hope you'll get the views you deserve sometime soon!

[@chrislynamisola5063]

B

[@neuronneuron3645]

You can think of it as being weened off their sin. Like a hamster put in a wheel to run and exhaust themselves

[@ulrek54321]

Working on my criminal law final, thank you!

[@jimbojackson4045]

You could also mention Incapacitation.

[@shaungorham1871]

Thank You, Massachusetts.

[@hovosukiasyan7657]

Thank you for helping me to write my paper of Philosophy

[@Eternalised]

Very interesting video! Do you have Twitter by any chance? I'm trying to build a small YT philosophy group for likeminded individuals! So we can support each other if your interested.

[@KnowArt]

stellar video!

[@GODemon13]

Punishment doesn't make people better. It makes people worse. Education and understanding is the only way of making people better.

[@zer0edgy952]

I don't know man. I like to believe that people can change, but you can never force change. And if a person doesn't themselves recognise that they need to change after they've been in prison then no amount of education can save them.

[@313-e4g]

Wrong, "A friend covers the cost of my dinner one night when I forgot my wallet and so I pay him back the next day. So punishment of criminals under retribution would be a natural extension of a natural relation in society to those harmful acts with malicious intent."

[@zuutlmna]

@@zer0edgy952 Change need not be forced. Sometimes simple (almost no cost) environmental changes help. But the law enforcement/incarceration industry (and the voting public) is rigidly inside-the-box in thinking. When you change a person's environment, you're not directly making (or forcing) any changes to that person.

[@marco_mate5181]

@@313-e4g except that retribution would not repair any damage or harm done. Reparative justice would.

[@Greg-yu4ij]

I think people should be given the choice between prison, corporal punishment, or re-education. I would take 12 lashes over a year in jail but maybe not over 30 days in jail if the wounds weren’t healed by then. “Government by consent of the punished”

[@GaryBetterton]

I thought LOVE was supposed to be THE ANSWER. War and punishment retribution. Love creates only LOVE.

[@ericmann770]

What about states that incarcerate innocent people, and don't compensate them when (if ever) they are proven not guilty?

[@AaronDahlstedt]

What's the punishment which protects society? This person needs to be removed from society; they may "deserve" to feel hurt, others may learn from the example, and they perpetrator of a violence may learn from the consequence. But if the goal is to protect others from further violence, and the punishment isn't about the perpetrator, how is that categorized?

[@ThinkingAboutStuff]

That sounds like a deterrence justification to me. We can break deterrence into two subcategories: deterring the perpetrator from committing the crime again in the future, and deterring others from committing a similar kind of crime. In both cases though, if you're punishing on the basis of protecting society, that's justifying punishment on the basis of deterrence.

[@313-e4g]

incapacitation

[@sanyashetty8008]

Loved your explanation. To the point and easy to grasp. Thankyou!

[@thesarahsmith]

Something something bitter ex wife comment.

[@ThinkingAboutStuff]

😂 (but also 😢)

[@radhikaokay3976]

Short and to the point explanation! Thank you so much

[@mayankमोनंटि]

I don't understand the concept on crime. Why do we need to punish a murderer. I understand that he is harmful for the society and most of us would not like to get ourselves killed(exception some people do want themselves to be killed). Keeping them in prison surely parents them from comitting more crimes. Giving death PENALTY surely prevent people to do crime. But if you think deeply if we are the accused and you have killed someone, would you still support the death penalty? Will you still say that yes I deserve life imprisonment? No if i am the murderer i will not say that i deserve the death penalty. I will try my best to save myself. Even if I have plans to do more murders I don't think that i deserve to die or I deserve any form punishment. From victim perspective if i think they will say that I deserve punishment but from my accused perspective i don't. My thoughts also changes when I put my self in different situations. If i am the victim i will want punishment, If I am the accussed I don't want any punishment. So I am myself confused. The reason i think death PENALTY or any punishment is wrong is because we human want to do things. I would like to kill, i will like to murder, i will like to fly, i will like to go to moon and climb mount Everest, i will like to have sex with some people who don't want to have sex with me(Rape), I would like to stab someone. But all these things I cannot do because some of them are not possible today and some of them are illegal. So I would like to do them. So what's the solution Act i think giving everyone 10 extra lives. So they die and get to life. This way murderer can kill the victim and enjoy. At the same time the victim can enjoy being killed without actually being dead because after being dead he will get back to life after may be 10 minutes. But this not possible as of today that's why the only option we are left with is Giving punishment to the accussed. Because when accussed kills a victim it's the accused who gets the benifit only victim suffers. Which looks wrong. But if you see tiger killing a buffalo. Why tiger does not any punishment??? He surely kills buffalo brutally. Buffalo is the victim and only victim suffered in this case.

[@matino0820]

Juanquiosco

[@NotDanValentine]

Why should we punish people in the first place, though? Why even have to go with any of these theories?

[@ishmaelrock3210]

Hi, This video is perfect for my class. Just to give you the correct credit can you provide me with the correct citation?

[@ThinkingAboutStuff]

You might want to check with your professor to see if they want you using KZbin videos as sources for papers! But if you're using a source, it's definitely important to cite it. My name is Timothy Houk if you need to use an author name.

[@SunSheepOfLight]

Punishment can be good but also bad, but in some place’s like North Korea 🇰🇵 it’s much more bad than good.

[@GODemon13]

Punishment is always evil. Punishment doesn't make people better. It makes people worse. Education and understanding is the only way of making people better.

[@SunSheepOfLight]

@@GODemon13 Still people have to pay for wrongdoing.

[@GODemon13]

@@SunSheepOfLight Huh? Explain. Are you saying that intentionally inflicting suffering is good because 2 wrongs make a right? Seriously, explain how this is justifiable. In what way does punishment (suffering) PAY for "wrongdoing"?

[@SunSheepOfLight]

@@GODemon13 You do the crime you do the time.

[@313-e4g]

@@GODemon13 This explains it well. "A friend covers the cost of my dinner one night when I forgot my wallet and so I pay him back the next day. So punishment of criminals under retribution would be a natural extension of a natural relation in society to those harmful acts with malicious intent."

[@trollingisasport]

To reaffirm boundaries and teach responsibility.

[@thesarahsmith]

This is an interesting thought. And, for me, all three are applicable in different instances. As a parent I feel like some should apply more often than others. But certainly use all three.

[@ThinkingAboutStuff]

It's definitely interesting to think about punishing children vs. punishing criminals and the differences/similarities. I tend to think of most punishment for children as a matter of rehabilitation and deterrence. (Although it's strange to call it rehabilitation since they're just learning it for the first time. Maybe we should call it "habilitation" in that case. Is that even a word?) They're not fully formed people, so we use punishment to teach them and to form them into emotionally mature members of society. But I must admit, when one of my kids does something particularly mean-spirited, my motivation for punishment is probably more just "What a little snot!" which seems retributive.

[@LetsGetLogical]

Let's say you tell your child, "If you do X one more time, you'll lose TV for a day." They do X one more time. But they also immediately apologize and you can tell that (a) they really do understand what they've and why it was wrong and (b) they are genuinely remorseful. Would you go ahead take away the TV anyway? If so, that seems retributive. After all, they don't need rehabilitation and deterrence presumably isn't needed-they already sincerely will try not to do it again.

[@unknownprofile8909]

@@LetsGetLogical because then they won't believe you and not take you seriously, they should have meant it before they did it. And you can't tell if they mean it anyways. So you should take the TV. If the child is sincere like you say they will understand and not complain about the punishment

[@iamasmurf1122]

Because you are a power tripper

[@laurieberry162]

???????????????

[@ThinkingAboutStuff]

Do you think retribution is a legitimate justification for punishing people? Some object that it’s just an excuse to exact revenge or get vengeance.

[@chickengod9885]

I think instead or "punishing" people we should try to make them a better person.

[@neuronneuron3645]

From Google the word retribute means transitive verb. : to pay back : give in return : requite. intransitive verb. obsolete : to make requital. I think this is something that just members of society do. E.g. A friend covers the cost of my dinner one night when I forgot my wallet and so I pay him back the next day. So punishment of criminals under retribution would be a natural extension of a natural relation in society to those harmful acts with malicious intent.

[@spacekettle2478]

I agree that it should be a mix and I do think depends greatly on a case-by-case basis. A thief stealing some money to buy food for his kids doesn't need punishment, he needs help. A kid using drugs to because her friends all do it should get rehabilitation instead of punishment. But can you really say that a politician committing war crimes and mass genocide should not be punished? That a serial r*pist should not be punished and that we should try and spend resources help him be a better person and have a better life? There's a reason Lady Justice holds a sword in one hand.

[@unknowngod98]

@@chickengod9885 if it was possible..we would already be living in a paradise... how can u make something better which don't seek betterment.

[@bailey1955]

@@spacekettle2478 I agree with you. I do wonder though, is a person that does horrible actions without a justifiable reason (like your last two examples) making those decisions in a mentally capable manner? Are humans with healthy and fully functional brains able to commit entirely immoral acts? Would punishment really have a justifiable reason, or does it just come back to an idea that it is okay to harm people who harm others; an eye for an eye? If a person lacks compassion, if they lack morals, why should we respond with cruelty? Is that acceptable? Who does it really benefit? In the case of completely unacceptable actions, they may never be reformed. However, could we prevent them from further enacting harm without being cruel? Without locking them in a torturous cage, because cruelty in response to cruelty may bring comfort but I can't see it as justifiable. That being said, I am unsure how to respond to my own question.