What are the moral differences between premeditated and non-premeditated violence?

[Souron]

Oh. Well personally I've never understood why people are given lesser sentences just because the were incompetent in the crime they attempted to commit. If it were up to me, they'd get the same punishment for attempting as they would if they had been successful.

One reason is that with attempted crime, you never know if the criminal would have remorse at the last second, and not do the deed.

 

[luiz]

It's not clear. I catch some guy sleeping with my hypothetical wife & I butcher him immediately or after stewing in my juices for four hours. Dude's dead, same thing.

I don't see how it's the same thing, man. In the first scenario you acted without thinking through the consequences, you were being subject to a very traumatic sight (assuming that was indeed traumatizing to you) and reacted on impulse. This is not to say you shouldn't be punished; of course you should! But the fact that you acted without premeditation is an attenuating fact that ought to be taken in consideration.

On the second scenario, you had time to think of the consequences of your act. You had time to think of the fact that this guy, douche as he may be, also has a mother, also has people who love him, and that killing him won't undo the offense that he and your hypothetical wife did to you. You'll still be just as heartbroken, and now you also killed someone. If after thinking everything through you still decide to go ahead and butcher him, you're a pretty bad guy that deserves a harsher punishment than on scenario 01.

Yes, this is unfortunate. This is why the "correctional" system corrects very few & simply breeds more criminality.

The same type of society that has mercy on impulsivity can't take the time to (pre)meditate on how to make the correctional system more beneficial to more criminal & society (rather than a breeding ground for more criminals, feeding itself). Simply "punishing" criminals clearly isn't a deterrent as the jail population is booming (at least in the US).

I agree that the correctional system should be reformed to have a better shot at rehabilitation. But retribution is still the primary component of justice. It's what people expect from a justice system. And I also believe that most serious criminals can't be reformed.

To give another example of the fairness of retributive justice, think of Madoff. After his pyramid was exposed and he went bankrupt, the chance of he harming society again is close to zero. Nobody would invest in one of his firms. He is not locked up to protect society, because he poses no threat whatsoever. He is locked up as a retribution for his crimes. Would you say that's unfair?

I suppose a lot of people who campaign against "retributive justice" would still want to see Madoff rot in jail.

 

[Farm Boy]

I suppose a lot of people who campaign against "retributive justice" would still want to see Madoff rot in jail.

There is an appropriate level of retribution to incorporate in punishment other than strict deterrence. Justice, being an emotional thing, depends on many/most members of a society feeling it is "just." And society is more than simple contract law. And that is not entirely a bad thing. Presumably criminals surrender a degree of society looking out for their best wishes when they cause whatever harm it is that they cause, thus justifying harming them to make society "feel whole," or at least "compensated somewhat," again. Which is part of the reason mens rea components matter in the first place.

 

[Flying Pig]

Justice, being an emotional thing, depends on many/most members of a society feeling it is 'just'

That's a slightly cynical point, but I think you're right - for the law to persist, it must have the agreement of society, and if society wants retribution then a legal system which ignores it will not stand.

 

[luiz]

There is an appropriate level of retribution to incorporate in punishment other than strict deterrence. Justice, being an emotional thing, depends on many/most members of a society feeling it is "just." And society is more than simple contract law. And that is not entirely a bad thing. Presumably criminals surrender a degree of society looking out for their best wishes when they cause whatever harm it is that they cause, thus justifying harming them to make society "feel whole," or at least "compensated somewhat," again. Which is part of the reason mens rea components matter in the first place.

Yep, pretty much. A justice system must feel "just". A system which is only based on rehabilitation and deterrence feels very unjust, and thus it's unacceptable.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yep, pretty much. A justice system must feel "just". A system which is only based on rehabilitation and deterrence feels very unjust, and thus it's unacceptable.

A system based only on rehabilitation and deterrence winds up disgorging state resources for improving the lot of those who break the rules and/or hurt others. If you happen to be of modest to lower means, and you follow the rules and don't hurt others, this could seem extremely insulting/unjust, and why wouldn't it? Sort of like sleeping on park bench to get a warm bed in the clink for a night, except that this is minor enough most people don't begrudge that those particular resources were provided. They might even hope, in this limited instance, that the bed in the county jail is relatively comfortable.

 

[illram]

Retribution should not be the primary component, if it is one. Rehabilitation is not solely benefiting the criminal, it benefits everyone who will be safer now that their fellow citizen has been rehabilitated and is less likely to commit more crimes. At least that is the idea, obviously ideas on how to actually do that vary wildly.

And rehabilitation and punishment can co-exist, e.g. educational programs in prison. (Prison being punishment in and of itself.)

 

[Flying Pig]

I do think that a lot of the educational programmes and so on in prisons are primarily motivated by the realisation that it's quite a bad idea to keep violent, criminal people locked in a building with a small number of guards and nothing to do.

 

[luiz]

Retribution should not be the primary component, if it is one. Rehabilitation is not solely benefiting the criminal, it benefits everyone who will be safer now that their fellow citizen has been rehabilitated and is less likely to commit more crimes. At least that is the idea, obviously ideas on how to actually do that vary wildly.

And rehabilitation and punishment can co-exist, e.g. educational programs in prison. (Prison being punishment in and of itself.)

Let's talk of concrete examples. Do you Bernie Madoff, who poses no threat whatsoever to society, should be left free or just receive a slap-in-the-wrist sentence?

 

[Perfection]

I don't think Bernie Madoff demonstrates retribution is a necessary part of criminal justice. The reason Madoff should be imprisoned could well be to deter future would-be criminals.

 

[illram]

Rehabilitation or "correction" isn't just confined to the criminal. I would try and use him to rehabilitate others or provide a cautionary tale to aspiring white collar criminals. And why would he ever go free? He can still be locked up for the rest of his life under a system that integrates rehab, deterrence and punishment. I am not sure what his actual prison sentence is but I am not advocating for something as silly as rehab or nnothing.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't think Bernie Madoff demonstrates retribution is a necessary part of criminal justice. The reason Madoff should be imprisoned could well be to deter future would-be criminals.

The deterrent effect of harsh punishments is debatable. People are really bad at risk analysis, and they're even worse when payoff is immediate and punishment is deferred. This is why capital punishment, even, isn't super effective at deterring over other punishments. You can scream "We'll fribbin' kill ya!" at people all day and some, still, won't follow the rules. Punishment of criminals exists largely for that aspect of justice. That those who follow the rules feel as if there is "equity" in their behaving. I suppose you could view it as sort of backwards deterrence if you really want to, since if people lose faith in the system being "just" because it doesn't punish the guilty enough, then perhaps that scorn of the system, just like an unjust law itself, will breed contempt of, and noncompliance with, the law.

 

[luiz]

I don't think Bernie Madoff demonstrates retribution is a necessary part of criminal justice. The reason Madoff should be imprisoned could well be to deter future would-be criminals.

I don't think he is imprisoned to deter future would-be criminals, specially because that category of criminal nearly always work under the assumption that they're too smart to get caught. Madoff received an extremely harsh prison sentence because the public demanded retribution.

Rehabilitation or "correction" isn't just confined to the criminal. I would try and use him to rehabilitate others or provide a cautionary tale to aspiring white collar criminals. And why would he ever go free? He can still be locked up for the rest of his life under a system that integrates rehab, deterrence and punishment. I am not sure what his actual prison sentence is but I am not advocating for something as silly as rehab or nnothing.

He was effectively condemned to life in prison without parole, as his sentence is way too long for he ever walk out of there alive.

And I agree that a good justice system ought to integrate rehab, deterrence and punishment (retribution). But let's not kid ourselves, retribution is the primary reason why we lock people up (and the only reason why the US and some other countries execute people; it obviously serves no rehab purpose and the deterrence effect is quite debatable, specially in the US where few people are executed and usually only years or decades after the crime). We are really bad at rehab, and I don't mean just the US, I mean justice systems in general throughout the world and throughout history.

 

[Narz]

I don't see how it's the same thing, man. In the first scenario you acted without thinking through the consequences, you were being subject to a very traumatic sight (assuming that was indeed traumatizing to you) and reacted on impulse. This is not to say you shouldn't be punished; of course you should! But the fact that you acted without premeditation is an attenuating fact that ought to be taken in consideration.

But the man is dead just the same. And just the same you decided to kill him. Whether it took 60 seconds or 60 hours it's all the same to him. Frankly I'd be more afraid of the snappy emotional guy than the cold-calculating guy, as I said since at least premeditation leaves room for a change of heart.

To flip it in a different way. Imagine you had a son who was contemplating suicide vs. a son with severe emotional problems who might well choose to off himself over any little thing. At least the first kid you can reason with, people who make snap emotional decisions are the scariest.

Planning can lead to a worse crime (say Columbine) but had it been spontaneous (assuming kids were allowed to come strapped to school) it would have been ever scarier.

On the second scenario, you had time to think of the consequences of your act. You had time to think of the fact that this guy, douche as he may be, also has a mother, also has people who love him, and that killing him won't undo the offense that he and your hypothetical wife did to you. You'll still be just as heartbroken, and now you also killed someone. If after thinking everything through you still decide to go ahead and butcher him, you're a pretty bad guy that deserves a harsher punishment than on scenario 01.

A split second decision is still a decision.

I agree that the correctional system should be reformed to have a better shot at rehabilitation. But retribution is still the primary component of justice. It's what people expect from a justice system. And I also believe that most serious criminals can't be reformed.

To give another example of the fairness of retributive justice, think of Madoff. After his pyramid was exposed and he went bankrupt, the chance of he harming society again is close to zero. Nobody would invest in one of his firms. He is not locked up to protect society, because he poses no threat whatsoever. He is locked up as a retribution for his crimes. Would you say that's unfair?

I suppose a lot of people who campaign against "retributive justice" would still want to see Madoff rot in jail.

I'd prefer to see Madoff working sweatshop style 16-hours a day 'til he dropped & all the profits going to those he fleeced. Him sitting in jail watching TV isn't really such justice. He had his fun & those he screwed over may get some satisfaction at him having lost his freedom but probably not much.

The deterrent effect of harsh punishments is debatable. People are really bad at risk analysis, and they're even worse when payoff is immediate and punishment is deferred.

Well put. However there may be some subconscious analysis going on. For example if you're about to kill someone there is an advantage to doing it right away as you will likely get less jail time (maybe can even plead temporary insanity) than if you go home & then come back & kill him.

As I said earlier a decision is a decision whether it takes five minutes or five days to plan out.

 

[Flying Pig]

But the man is dead just the same. And just the same you decided to kill him. Whether it took 60 seconds or 60 hours it's all the same to him. Frankly I'd be more afraid of the snappy emotional guy than the cold-calculating guy, as I said since at least premeditation leaves room for a change of heart.

It isn't a question of snapping at any time, though: in order to have mitigating circumstances, the stress has to be sufficient that any ordinary person would have felt a significant compulsion to commit the crime, the implication being that it probably won't happen again and that the victim probably wasn't totally blameless. A person who will only kill if he walks in on his wife's adulterer is extremely unlikely to be in that situation again, while a person who kills because they're bored will likely reoffend.

 

[Narz]

A person who will only kill if he walks in on his wife's adulterer is extremely unlikely to be in that situation again

Who knows. Maybe he was making certain mistakes with his wife causing her to cheat which he'll make again.

 

[Farm Boy]

That's the classic example though. It also explains why we don't presume guilt of underlying crime when somebody runs from the police. It's the part of the system that bows to the reality that even "good" people aren't perfect, and that just occasionally circumstances can be messed up enough that otherwise law abiding people may fail and do terrible things, thus they may warrant some measure of leniency compared to somebody who acted under fairly normal, rather than extenuating, circumstances. Affairs happen, but the fact that your spouse is having one is not sufficiently extenuating to justify going out and buying a weapon, coming home, tracking people down, then offing them. Walking in and being educated of your spouses affair by watching them mid-coitus in your bed, unexpectedly? That might buy you a reduction of guilt if the snap happens right at that instant on the premise even normal people wouldn't be reasonable in those particular moments. You'll note that even unreasonable people aren't given a pass of innocence on having defaulted to "kill" in their discombobulation.

 

[peter grimes]

I do think that a lot of the educational programmes and so on in prisons are primarily motivated by the realisation that it's quite a bad idea to keep violent, criminal people locked in a building with a small number of guards and nothing to do.

New York State just started a program that will provide a college education to inmates through the public University and community college system. I didn't vote for this governor, but if I had known about this plan I likely would have changed my vote. Hopefully the system implementation will not go to all hell.

To give another example of the fairness of retributive justice, think of Madoff. After his pyramid was exposed and he went bankrupt, the chance of he harming society again is close to zero. Nobody would invest in one of his firms. He is not locked up to protect society, because he poses no threat whatsoever. He is locked up as a retribution for his crimes. Would you say that's unfair?

I suppose a lot of people who campaign against "retributive justice" would still want to see Madoff rot in jail.

Well this is a very interesting point! I'm one of the people who think the Department of Corrections should be doing just that, and yet I *also* agree that Madoff needs to spend some time thinking about his greed. So, yeah - your point is very interesting to me.

But I think Perfection rightly resolved the apparent dilemma. As Matt Taibbi urged: "throw a few bankers and hedge fundies in PYITA prison and we'll clear up Wall Street behavior overnight"