Good of you to ask. As I've mentioned in various iterations of this forum, my Jurisprudence thesis was on punishment.
You overstate its focus on revenge. Retribution is one of its four purposes. Rehabilitation is another, then Deterrence and Incapacitation. Some people add Restitution to that list, but that seems like a subchapter of Retribution to me.
Some people believe in rehabilitation, and some don't. In my opinion it works only because 20 year olds eventually, given time, become 60 year olds.
My continued belief is that Incapacitation is the only proven, non-ideological basis for punishment.
Thanks for that. Not that I am a proponent of behaviorism, but Psych 100 teaches that reward (positive reinforcement) is more effective than punishment (negative reinforcement) in achieving behavior modification.
How do you define punishment? Depriving someone of life, liberty, or property?
I guess most would agree with incapacitation as a justification.
Right now, "justice for the victim" is common theme. That almost always amounts to capturing and punishing a perpetrator; which is revenge or, if you prefer, retribution.
I say almost always, because restorative justice might be an exception. From what little I know, it appears that might involve a mix of restitution for victim and and rehabilitation of the perpetrator. I gather they meet and the perp is supposed to experience empathy and remorse.
There are Buddhist practices in every tradition that are proven effective at arousing empathy and cultivating self reform -- Theravada metta bhanava, Tibetan tonglen, Mahayana sange. Also, samatha-vippassa; some form of which is common to most traditions.
Buddhism also teaches that moral conscience / private guilt and fear of public shame or embarrassment are what deters crime for most people.
RecentA place to celebrate cele... by Reacher
WTF is up with this Clown...
by murphstahoe TOTTM 2026 by Judge Judy
Total Members: 142