Retaliation and Crime Prevention

Questions about Objectivism
1

If the main function of the State is to initiate force as retaliation to prevent further crimes, should the State embrace activities to prevent further crimes, which do not entail retaliatory force?

For example, should the State spend time and money to advertise people or educate people about what neighbourhoods, cities or countries are dangerous, the importance of using a seat belt when in a car, how to use a gun in self-defense, etc?

If the only purpose of justice was to obtain a compensation for a right that has been already violated, I wouldn’t have this problem.

But the fact that the excercise of justice also seeks to prevent further violation of rights is what is giving me problems. And in many crimes, as there is no possible compensation (murder, for example) crime prevention represents the only reason for sending people to prison (or even death).

This is the whole idea of “protecting rights”, isn’t it? How a right can be truly “protected” if all actions are made after the right has been violated, for the sake of compensation, and not prevention ?

Please help.

2

If the main function of the State is to initiate force as retaliation to prevent further crimes, should the State embrace activities to prevent further crimes, which do not entail retaliatory force?

For example, should the State spend time and money to advertise people or educate people about what neighbourhoods, cities or countries are dangerous, the importance of using a seat belt when in a car, how to use a gun in self-defense, etc?

No, the only reason for gov. in the first place is the objective use of retaliatory force. If we didn’t need it for that, we wouldn’t need it.

All those “prevention” activities can be done by private citizens, as they see fit. Why would it be necessary for those private citizens to give their money to the government, who then employs some bureaucrats to do it for them? And even if these citizens did see it fit to pool their money together, and appoint some people to spend it for them, that would not properly be called a “government”. So, in the end, it’s a question of proper use of concepts, not legal procedure: a government, by definition, is the entity tasked with using retaliatory force in an objective manner.

3

OK, Jake.

But then I remain with the problem of crime prevention as the purpose of retaliation.

Let’s say I take $100 from John. The State uses retaliatory force and makes me pay John back $100 and, in addition, an extra $100 as a compensation for the time and effort spent by John in sueing me.

I think the State is acting properly, and this has nothing to do with crime prevention, but restoration of a damage.

But let’s say I kill John. John’s family is outraged. The government wants to send me to prison. Since I am a rich man, I offer 2 million dollars to John’s family, which represents pretty much all my fortune, as a compensation.

But then the State says “No way: you will spend years in prison. since we don’t want you to kill other people in the future”.

Would it be right for the government to use force against me in order to prevent me from killing more Johns in the future? On what basis can the State predict my behaviour and use force according to that prediction?

Or is it retaliation, in the end of the day, vengeance?

4

But let’s say I kill John. John’s family is outraged. The government wants to send me to prison. Since I am a rich man, I offer 2 million dollars to John’s family, which represents pretty much all my fortune, as a compensation.

But then the State says “No way: you will spend years in prison. since we don’t want you to kill other people in the future”.

Would it be right for the government to use force against me in order to prevent me from killing more Johns in the future? On what basis can the State predict my behaviour and use force according to that prediction?

Retaliatory force is what the State does, but it does it for different reasons. It can do it simply to protect the country (in war), or to prevent a crime (when the police responds to a crime), or to enact justice (when a crime has been committed).

Justice is not any of the following things: law enforcement, punishment, revenge, compensation, crime prevention. It is much more than that, it is an objective judgment of human beings in accordance with a moral standard. (As an aside, the kind of justice the State provides is limited of course to a narrow moral standard, that of respect for individual rights. But justice can involve other types of judgment, made by people when choosing with whom to interact with and in what ways, based on the much wider standard of personal Ethics in general. For instance, when you choose a business partner, you’re making, among other things, a moral evaluation. If you act on that evaluation, that’s an act of justice.)

So, in conclusion, the State isn’t there just to protect and enforce compensation, but to evaluate criminals based on the moral standard of “respect for the rights of others”, and treat them accordingly. When you murder John, you have proven that you have no respect for individual rights whatsoever. The State must evaluate you as such a person, and treat you accordingly (as a permanent threat who needs to be locked away or killed – no offense, but you did just murder a guy :slight_smile: ).

5

If the main function of the State is to initiate force as retaliation

Okay.

to prevent further crimes,

Ack! 4 words that messed it up.

For many things, cause-and-effect laws are absolutely enforced. Example: whack a wine glass with a baseball bat, and you turn the wine glass into a pile of broken glass shards. Mix gasoline fumes and flames and you get explosions. There are cause-and-effect laws about human choice as well, only they aren’t as inexorable as physical laws are. Whack a guy in the face with a baseball bat and (if you didn’t kill him) he will probably retaliate. But there are people who will refuse to retaliate, for whatever reason. When you retaliate, you have choose to to retaliate.

The government monopoly on retaliatory force is not there to prevent the initiation of force. It is there to regulate the way in which retaliatory force is used. Retaliation is just one kind of justice. Other kinds are that good work is rewarded with good pay. Read Jake’s post about 5 times. The “bigger” concept is justice; in a narrow domain, government does certain things as what it does about justice.

6

The State must evaluate you as such a person, and treat you accordingly (as a permanent threat who needs to be locked away or killed).

Thank you very much, Jake, and thank you David, for this explanation about what justice implies, and how police action or military action subscribes to but not necessarily exhausts the principle of justice.

Let me now go to the narrower field of punitive action from authority, in the light of the concept of justice.

When you say that the State has to treat the murderer as a permanent " threat" to be locked away or killed… do you mean a permanent threat to others? to society?

What about a person that has never been proved to violate any other person’s rights, but behaves in a way that can objectively be considered a threat to others?

Take, for example, a drunk man who is driving fast and carelessly. He has not killed anyone… yet. He has not initiated force against anyone.

Is he a threat to others? How should we treat this guy, following the principle of justice? Could initiation of force be initiated against him?

7

What about a person that has never been proved to violate any other person’s rights, but behaves in a way that can objectively be considered a threat to others?

Take, for example, a drunk man who is driving fast and carelessly. He has not killed anyone… yet. He has not initiated force against anyone.

If a man initiates force against others, he violates their rights. A man who actually kills another has actualized force against him. A man who begins the process of using force against another has initiated force. The expression “initiation of force” does not only refer to “being the first one to use force”, it also includes “starts a process leading to force”.

8

Take, for example, a drunk man who is driving fast and carelessly. He has not killed anyone… yet. He has not initiated force against anyone.

Is he a threat to others? How should we treat this guy, following the principle of justice? Could initiation of force be initiated against him?

Arresting a drunk driver is not an initiation of force, if the owner of the road made it clear that the rules of his road don’t allow drunk driving. The person initiating force is the driver who broke the rules of someone’s property.

Being an objective threat in general constitutes initiation of force. Due to free will, people always have the option to not be threats to others. When they choose against that option, that’s cause for the government to react. Not initiate force, but to react to the action that constitutes initiation of force, by the person who made himself a threat.

9

Thank you very much, David and Jake, as always for all your help.

Now it looks clear.

10

Arresting a drunk driver is not an initiation of force, if the owner of the road made it clear that the rules of his road don’t allow drunk driving. The person initiating force is the driver who broke the rules of someone’s property.

And as a note, the practical consequence for road owners that permit drunk driving would probably be bankruptcy, since most people would refuse to drive there. Lots of people pose “what if” questions about Capitalism, from education to roads, not realizing that Capitalism is the only system that promotes personal responsibility and accountability.