Justifying Punishment

[Dylab]

This has been bothering me for a while, my question is how do people justify pumishment beyond a pragmatic level for other reasons besides the benefit of either the individual or society.

It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that most atheists including myself believe that we do not posess free will in the traditional sense either in the external or internal perspective. Human actions are soley based on the fulfillment of are own selfish deep-felt needs and which are not seperate from the casuality of nature. Understanding that is it not somehwhat difficult to say someone deserves some form of punishment or is it not logically consistent?

[Agammamon]

Punishment is supposed to be pragmatic and for the good of the individual and society. Punishment for the mere sake of punishment seems to be a religious phenomenom.

[Yahweh]

Human actions are soley based on the fulfillment of are own selfish deep-felt needs and which are not seperate from the casuality of nature.Classic Tomas Hobbes philosophy.

I dont know too much about law and punishment, but I would assume that we punish our criminals based on morality and "damage done to society". Most of our morality comes from the bible (although some people arent a part of Christianity, it is more or less universal for people to say "dont kill people, dont steal nothing").

[Dancing David]

Uh, punishment is to deter the damage that antisocial do to society.

In the way old days there were only two punishments.

death

death with mitigating circumstances.

Punsihment is not meant to reform that is some sort of hogwash.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Dylab
It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that most atheists including myself believe that we do not posess free will in the traditional sense either in the external or internal perspective. Human actions are soley based on the fulfillment of are own selfish deep-felt needs and which are not seperate from the casuality of nature. Understanding that is it not somehwhat difficult to say someone deserves some form of punishment or is it not logically consistent? If perpetrators of punishment-worthy actions have no free will, then neither do the people that mete out the punishment.

"I killed that person because I have no free will, and thus no choice!"
"And I likewise have no free will, and thus no choice but to sentence you to life in prison."

[justsaygnosis]

Corrective punishment has long term rehabilitation as its' end.
In the extreme circumstances is the subject of those measures ever going to return to society?
Should Timothy McVeigh ever have been destined for parole even in a theoretical scenario?
As for the 'free will' argument,which will probably go on idefinitely, should there be a termination of the determination of 'mens rai' in order to determine guilt?
Likewise should a sociopath be viewed as less destructive by intent than a criminal deemed competent?