[iup=3593899]Karl[/iup] wrote:Should punishment be the primary aim of a criminal justice system?
I seriously doubt the British legal system has enough over-arching co-ordination that it has any primary aim. It's loosely directed by a political entity, so I'd expect it's goals to be frugality and image.
No. Scratch that. Let's be less glib.
I think the primary aim should be neither punishment nor rehabilitation. A judicial system should be geared heavily for prevention. But that would require a loss of significant freedoms. Many of which we wouldn't notice missing, but would still be foolish to surrender. This would be my idealistic, conflicted liberal view. Which results in the status quo. A system that can only endorse rehabilitation, but does not achieve it Or even make the strident effort needed to do so.
Of course, I could be coldly pragmatic instead. Cull everyone with a cumulative prison time of five years or more. Chilling, brutal, effective. Not as a prevention of first offence, but as one of recurrence. Lower prison costs(no strawberry floating appeals, no death row). A sense of closure for victims. Some innocent people will die. Many will be saved as repeat offenders are removed. Exodus 21:23-25. How utilitarian are you willing to go? Maybe being a monster is price worth paying, for the greater good. And that's where I usually catch myself, because there's no phrase more sinister than "For the greater good".
Some days I'd stick with the former. Some days the latter scenario holds great appeal. But it falls down at your first question, Karl. Because I'd sneer at anyone who thinks that the British legal system has Justice at its core. It's a societal tool like any other. It's there to stop us destroying each other. Beyond that, it doesn't give a gooseberry fool.
All for another thread though. One I won't participate in. Serious discussions aren't really my thing. And as you can see, I descend into rambling.