This is a longstanding and widely accepted ethical and legal principle. However, with the modern emphasis on victims' rights, I suspect many want to abandon this maxim, and to substitute revenge for justice. See this from a classic case of death from delayed brain bleed after a single punch and banging of the head on the ground (Evening Standard Oct 8th p.32): "Judge Anthony Bate told him:"You punched George because he got in your way. The length of the punishment now imposed in no way equates to the enduring and profound loss felt by George's family. You lashed out at him in a moment of hot temper"". So is it fair that someone is punished for the unforeseen (and unforeseeable?) result of a trivial or commonplace act?
Dear Anthony: I think we should settle a difference in order to keep respecting this principle: is obvious, at least for me, that there's no way to equal the victim's suffering.....even though we go back to Talion's Law......each of us reacts and feels suffering, sorrow, and all the emotions and feelings that arise in a crime, in so many different ways. This said, the only reasonable way to live in a society is to accept that the State is the only one who can measure punishment, regardless the feelings and acceptance (satisfaction) of the victim. Because criminal law, in a civiized society cannot be in the hands of the victims.Suffering caused by the criminal offence can be a measure for civil claims, but there's no way to equal this to criminal punishment. Is what really distinguish us from previous societies: we made the decision that is the State the one who has to deal with criminal offences and guarantee both perpetrator and victim a fair trial and respect for their rights, and in doing this he has to harmonize all the interests at stake: crime is a social conflict and is certainly an ethical dilemma. There's no right solution, only options that try to do their best, but they surely won't satisfied everybody
Cheers. Susie.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics