This is already continuously tried. All it creates is a lack of trust in the justice system. If you remove the ability of the justice system to make the people feel that justice has been served, people will revert to vigilante justice. You need confidence in the system.
It's all well and good to say that that's irrational, and has no place in a logical society - but this isn't a logical, rational society. That's why we need a justice system in the first place.
Ultimately, until you can change human nature, some amount of tangible consequences that make the victims, their family, and the public at large feel that justice has been served, perpetrators have received appropriate consequences, and vigilante justice is unnecessary.
Finally, has the infinite-empathy approach been shown to work anywhere where there is an existing, significant crime problem, and where it's liable to being abused - that is, most of the world? And working is about more than empathy towards violent criminals and the reduction of crime statistics (though anecdotally I doubt it would achieve the latter).
Ultimately the justice system's number one priority should be victims, their interests and welfare, and reducing the amount of new ones. Criminals have made their decision; victims are innocent.
I'm not saying the American justice system doesn't have issues. I'm not American personally, but it appears to have a lot of problems. However, I don't think incurring consequences for people's actions is the root problem here.
>This is already continuously tried. All it creates is a lack of trust in the justice system. If you remove the ability of the justice system to make the people feel that justice has been served, people will revert to vigilante justice. You need confidence in the system.
Sorry, but that's just ignorant. Countries with non-retribution based justice systems fare much better in lower crime than the US. So much better it's not even funny.
>I'm not saying the American justice system doesn't have issues. I'm not American personally, but it appears to have a lot of problems. However, I don't think incurring consequences for people's actions is the root problem here.
"Incurring conseqeuences" is orthogonal to the issue here. Going to jail and being kept there is already a consequence.
The US system turns "inflicting medieval/biblical conditions and systemic revenge" into the consequence.
It's all well and good to say that that's irrational, and has no place in a logical society - but this isn't a logical, rational society. That's why we need a justice system in the first place.
Ultimately, until you can change human nature, some amount of tangible consequences that make the victims, their family, and the public at large feel that justice has been served, perpetrators have received appropriate consequences, and vigilante justice is unnecessary.
Finally, has the infinite-empathy approach been shown to work anywhere where there is an existing, significant crime problem, and where it's liable to being abused - that is, most of the world? And working is about more than empathy towards violent criminals and the reduction of crime statistics (though anecdotally I doubt it would achieve the latter).
Ultimately the justice system's number one priority should be victims, their interests and welfare, and reducing the amount of new ones. Criminals have made their decision; victims are innocent.
I'm not saying the American justice system doesn't have issues. I'm not American personally, but it appears to have a lot of problems. However, I don't think incurring consequences for people's actions is the root problem here.