Discussion scenarios
A single mother steals food from a supermarket to feed her children. She has no prior convictions. The supermarket wants to press charges.
Which theory of punishment would you apply here — and why?
Does it matter whether she could have asked for help elsewhere?
If you let her go unpunished, what message does that send?
Tax fraud can cost society millions. Shoplifting may cost a supermarket €20. Why does one often feel more criminal than the other?
United States
2.1 million incarcerated — the highest rate in the world
67% reoffend within 3 years of release
Dominant logic: retribution + incapacitation
Some states have private, for-profit prisons
Norway
~4,000 incarcerated — one of the lowest rates in Europe
20% reoffend within 2 years of release
Dominant logic: rehabilitation
Halden Prison has a recording studio, a climbing wall, and no bars on the windows
Same goal — less crime, safer society. Very different results. What does that tell you about which theory is right?
If rehabilitation works better, should justice matter less? If a victim wants punishment but rehabilitation reduces crime more effectively, whose interests should come first?
A man has been convicted of assault three times and served his full sentence each time. He has just been arrested for a fourth assault.
Has punishment clearly failed here — or is this proof we need more of it?
Should the state be allowed to imprison him indefinitely after his fourth sentence, even before he offends again?
A 19-year-old was radicalised online and joined a violent protest that injured several police officers. He claims he now deeply regrets what he did.
Do you punish the ideology, the action, or the person — or all three?
Does genuine remorse change how much punishment is deserved?
Who decides if the remorse is real?
Some countries still use corporal punishment — caning, flogging — or the death penalty. They argue it is effective and culturally appropriate.
Does the state have the right to physically harm someone as punishment?
Is there a point at which punishment becomes torture — and who decides where that line is?
A billionaire deliberately evades taxes, costing the state millions. Nobody is physically harmed. He receives a fine equivalent to 0.5% of his total wealth.
Is this punishment?
If punishment barely affects the offender, has justice been done?
Should punishment depend on wealth — or should everyone face the same consequences?
The state creates laws. Citizens break those laws. The state then punishes the law-breaker. Is this arrangement legitimate — and what makes it so?
Where does the state's authority to punish actually come from?
Can a law be unjust — and if so, should breaking it still be punished?
If the law itself is wrong (e.g. apartheid-era South Africa), does resistance become legitimate?
If you never agreed to the social contract — you were born into it — why should the state have authority over you?