Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I find your points quite interesting. If I'm understanding correctly, that if the victims, families of victims, or frankly, anyone who feels pain and wants to seek retribution, don't believe that the retribution is sufficient, then they may take action into their own hands. I witnessed this living in Tanzania, where if people didn't trust the police to arrest and punish someone who stole, sometimes the people would track down and seek mob justice (violence?) against the person who stole.

So if the government would take a true rehabilitative approach, and maybe arrest people but treat them well, try to help them so they don't do the same behaviors in the future, a percentage of the population might see that as insufficient and take retribution into their own hands.

You've helped me realize why I've actually shifted my professional focus from wanting to change politics to wanting to change culture. Seems a lot of being in government is doing what the people want, and if the people want retribution, then the government has to follow it.

I hope for (and am working towards) a world in which we help people know our pain not by trying to cause the same pain to them, but by expressing our pain to them with more granularity, because the pain they'd feel as a result of retribution will never be the exact same pain we feel, as our contexts are way too complex to replicate exactly.

I really appreciate your comment, thank you for helping me think more deeply about this.



Yes, I think you've eloquently summarized my thinking on this. Thankfully I've never had to witness people trying to take justice into their own hands, as you have, though I imagine it must be harrowing to witness especially in a mob situation.

It sounds like you're trying to be part of the solution, which I deeply commend. Thank you also for your very thoughtful reply. It's appreciated.


I once read something that part of the point of government "management of crime" whatever you want to call it is to suppress vigilantism.

It may not be entirely descriptive, but it certainly is part of it. At some point Gary Plauché becomes common.


This makes a lot of sense to me. And I appreciate you sharing the reference to Gary Plauché, I had never heard the story before.


One of the most "unstabalizing" things in a society is a person or people with nothing to lose. You could make an argument for much of government being reducing the number of people with nothing to lose.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: