To think it’s never wrong to punish evil, even if it makes people uncomfortable?

[PoisedLimeFox]

I know “evil” is a strong word but I’m talking about people who deliberately hurt others: abusers, manipulators, violent offenders, people who act with cruelty and zero remorse. There’s often a push to be “compassionate” or “restorative” but sometimes that feels more like protecting the reputation of the wrongdoer than standing up for what’s right.

AIBU to think that when someone does real harm they deserve consequences, even if those consequences are harsh, unpopular or socially uncomfortable?

I found it impossible to vote. Are you thinking of a particular case?

Off hand, I cannot think of a criminal case where the perpetrator was deliberately cruel but I also felt their sentence was harsh or I that I was uncomfortable with.

I thought you were going to say something about sending an 87 year old dementia sufferer to prison for historical crimes that were terrible.

Maybe that’s part of it. I’m not just thinking of criminal cases but also things like workplace abuse, manipulation, coercion. It’s not always about the legal system, sometimes it’s just about holding people accountable, socially or professionally and not being made to feel like you’re ‘mean’ for doing so.

It's important to deliver punishment to wrong-doers as both a means to deter others who may follow the same path, and as an example for those affected by their wrong-doing.

But it's also important to provide the guilty with the guidance/education/etc required to allow them to make better choices in the future. A society that views all wrong-doing as justification for locking them up for their natural lives is not a society that I want to live in. As such I have to expect that there will be people who are guilty of crimes that will, at some point, be released into society as a whole. I'd much prefer that those people have had the support they need to turn their lives around rather than them come out of prison with the same, or worse, attitudes that they went in with.

There’s often a push to be “compassionate” or “restorative”

I think that’s the opposite of true for the types of crimes you describe.

“Dragged kicking and screaming” is the expression used most often, on here, and elsewhere.

Punishment often doesn’t work. Consequences plus understanding does.

You can crave retribution, doesn’t mean it’s effective.

I'm thinking of the young woman hotel worker stabbed to death at the station. I really can't see much merit in keeping the attacker alive. I used to be against the death penalty, but sometimes I question that belief

If punishment is a practical means to an end (making it less likely that the criminal, or others will commit similar crime in future) then of course you can justify it. But I’d say that punishment for its own sake is wrong.

Locking someone up in prison may make their life miserable (and sometimes it’s hard to care about that) but that’s not the reason we do it.

Too vague to vote.

Is the question "should people stand up for what's right?" If so then of course, but that's never the problem, it's agreeing on what 'right' is, in terms of consequences.

If you just want retributive justice then that's going to look very different to rehabilitation. It's my view that baying for harm for harm's sake is wrong. There are necessary harms to keep people safe of course, but we are all reduced by barbaric behaviour conducted in our name.

Yet I cannot believe that it's right for the state to kill but not an individual to do the same.

my view is , if it's wrong to kill, it's wrong to kill, period. I can see the sense in killing someone to stop them, in the moment, killing someone else. But if the murderer can be stopped from killing, by locking them up, then that counts, to me, as justice. And justice, not revenge, should be what society aims for.

Please don’t question it.
Killing is wrong.

I’m definitely not advocating for cruelty for its own sake. I’m more pushing back on how often the focus shifts to the comfort or image of the person who did harm, especially when they’ve shown no remorse. Of course there’s nuance between retribution and rehabilitation but sometimes it feels like even naming someone’s behaviour as harmful or expecting real consequences gets treated as excessive.

"naming someone’s behaviour as harmful or expecting real consequences gets treated as excessive."

Can you give us an example of this?

it really depends on the reason for the punishment- in jurisprudence there are five aims of punishment:

1. deterrence: to ensure society has a fear of punishment for the crime in general
2. protection: to incapacitate the individual so they can’t keep committing the crime
3. Rehabilitation
4. justice - repairing the relationship between the victim and criminal
5. Vengeance- the animalistic side of us all where we want to make the perpetrator suffer

so you really need to consider all of the above in any crime.

if the nature of the crime is so dangerous/cruel/evil/abhorrent then the idea of rehabilitation may not even be feasible and you may just need to protect society from that individual. And justice will always play a part

focusing on vengeance alone is never the answer - it’s animalistic and what the state shouldn’t do

thats why capital punishment by the state is also not correct: head over heart

I’ve seen this play out in workplace settings, where someone behaves inappropriately or undermines others and the second you call it out (especially if you’re direct), you become the problem for being “too harsh” or “not giving grace.” Or in families, where someone’s repeatedly cruel or toxic but if you set boundaries or distance yourself, people accuse you of “not forgiving” or “holding a grudge.” I’m not saying every situation requires public flogging, just that there’s often more social discomfort around holding people accountable than around the harm that prompted it.

If you feel strongly enough to stand up against something you believe is wrong then part of the deal is not worrying what other people think. There will always be bystanders who don't understand or don't know the details.

E.g. if a family member bullies you and you set boundaries, then you've done the right thing. If your sister in law, who hasn't personally been bullied for the last 10 years, finds you unforgiving then it matters nowt.

I will always remember what Simon Wiesenthal, the Nazi hunter, said about this. Although sometimes the chances of catching very elderly Nazi war criminals was slight, he believed it was worth doing because it meant they could never sleep easy in their beds, Many did die undiscovered and apparently unpunished, but they will have known that people were seeking them.

The organisation did track down a sweet old granny, however, who as an 18 year old, had grabbed Jewish babies and smashed their heads against a wall ( not under duress either). She was put on trial and died in gaol.

I'm not very interested in punishing evil. I'm much more interested in stopping evil. If punishment is a good way of stopping evil, fair enough, but the evidence for that is very weak.