Resolved: Rehabilitation Should Be Valued Above Retribution

I don't want to get into an argument over the burden of proof, so I'll just accept the BoP for this debate, though I don't see how it works to my favor. Moral Responsibility and Accountability Note first that punishment is not necessarily retribution. Punishment can be used for rehabilitation, segregation or deterrence. So while I advocate rehabilitation over retribution, I'm not advocating we do away with punishment. I'd like to also state what I do and don't mean by moral responsibility. When someone causes something negative to happen, the reason for the occurrence could be attributed to that person, but that does not mean he's morally responsible. In essence someone can be responsible for an act but not morally responsible. Responsibility implies a causal connection while moral responsibility implies more than that. For example, someone with a mental disorder, which causes him to act irrationally, might be responsible for hurting someone but we probably wouldn't say he's morally responsible. His mental disorder alleviates moral responsibility because it was a condition he was incapable of controlling. Since he possesses no moral responsibility or accountability, no retribution is considered. I'm not going to make an argument against free-will necessarily but my argument will form around a contention against libertarian free-will. So, while we have compatiblist free-will maybe (free-will that is compatible with determinism) to choose what to wear today, we don't have libertarian free will (the common conception of free-will). First I will stress the limits of our freedom, then its implications on the subject at hand. Philosophical Support We can easily accept the fact that we are born with a personality consisting of a blend of thousands of different tiny character traits. As our character determines what we do, we can extrapolate our actions are based upon what properties we are born with. Our personality then shapes according to social and environmental factors throughout our life. Everything we do is decided by our physical makeup and the world around us. We are merely the sum of the molecular positions of our body and the vastly complex ordering of nerves and atoms. Most probably there are thousands of tiny direct miniature causes that affect one act a person commits. In the vast sum of things that number could be much larger. The actions of the individual are based upon his character. His character is shaped by his environment, upbringing genetics and other such factors. Ergo, his character is no more than just a product of nature. One cannot help the way he is. If someone is not moral, it's because that's just the way he ended up being. If he changes his character, it's because he had a character the allowed him to change. If he doesn't change, it's because his character and environment does not permit it. To use an analogy, we're like a machine operating according to its mechanical build. Humans are just the same; simply mechanistic creatures. Our actions are bound by our chemistry and the world around us which all determine what we do. Scientific Support Observational tests also support my argument. “He wired people to an electroencephalogram and measured when they reported having a particular conscious thought about an action [...] and when the actual action started. Astoundingly, the latter came first: that is, subjects had actually made (unconsciously) the decision to act measurably earlier than when they became aware of it consciously. The conscious awareness, in a sense, was a "story" that the higher cognitive parts of the brain told to account for the action. It's as if the conscious brain was not the decider but simply the spokesperson.” http://goo.gl... This fits perfectly with my arguments before. Not surprisingly, actions are observably decided before conscious awareness comes in. The important implication is that we're not really in control of our actions. They're just determined by our natural body. Psychological Support In Erickson's 8 stages of psychosicial development (picture below) the external development of our actions can be demonstrated. "Because an infant is utterly dependent, the development of trust is based on the dependability and quality of the child's caregivers. If a child successfully develops trust, he or she will feel safe and secure in the world. Caregivers who are inconsistent, emotionally unavailable, or rejecting contribute to feelings of mistrust in the children they care for. Failure to develop trust will result in fear and a belief that the world is inconsistent and unpredictable." http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... Implications The implications I think are largely obvious and hardly disputable. A freedom which we do not have is required for moral responsibility/accountability. The deterministic way our character forms largely undermines any need or justification for retribution, because there's no free-will over the environment we're born into and our natural inclinations. Whatever act I commit is based upon my character which is a product of factors not in my control. I would posit this is even more obvious for murderers and rapists. The thought of these crimes are so forwardly repellent to us that we have to wander why these people would commit such horrid acts. It is simple. They obviously are lacking in a moral conscience or intuition in comparison to ours and their development of personality was influenced in such a way as to cause them to be as such. The reason for our putting such accountability on people, is our lacking in moral understanding. For example, when we fail to remain 100% perfect for a day, no one's going to blame you because everyone knows our human character makes us unable to be perfect for any extended period of time. However, we only understand that because we’re on the same level. Why don’t we stop and consider it’s applicable to anyone? Everyone acts according to their natural personality, so while it's difficult for us to remain perfect for a day, it would be even more difficult for others to keep from doing worse things. It's not someones fault if his environment made him an immoral person. Consider two possible worlds. World 1: All wrong doers are punished according to their crimes. World 2: All wrong doers are rehabilitated and made good. Obviously neither would happen but I think it very clear which one is better. The first, for instance, does not get rid of the bad in the world. It just satisfies revenge, while the second makes the world a better place and is overall much better given my mentioned arguments. We should hate the sin, but not the one who committed it. We can hate that nature brings about so many sinful people but we shouldn't hate the people themselves because it’s not their fault they were shaped to the way they are and thus we don't have any need for retribution. Overview -The value of retribution sits on the level of moral responsibility and accountability we can attribute to an individual. -The moral responsibility/accountability we can justly put on a person is greatly diminished by a number of factors. -First, no one chooses the environment they are born into or the genetics they inherit. The way they are is largely just because nature, and not themselves, made them that way. -The main responsibility for evil falls on nature. Nature is not a moral agent and thus cannot bare any moral responsibility. Thus we can't place any (or at least very little) moral responsibility and accountability on anyone. -Since retribution is meaningless without moral responsibility and accountability, there's no reason to place any high value on it whatsoever. Even if it satisfies a lust for revenge, there would be insufficient warrant to that lust.