“Punitive grandstanding” is the most descriptive short phrase I could come up to describe the following concept:
A situation where someone pushes for extreme punitive measures against in immoral act, which in practice “virtue signals” moral superiority and implies people proposing lesser punishment are immoral. This behaviour often goes beyond what is proportionate or productive.
You probably know what I mean. Say there’s a new lemmy thread on a news community, it’s about someone having committed a horrible crime. All the comments end up being a sort of “jerk off contest” for who can propose the strongest punishment and thereby assert their moral superiority.
Instead of taking an approach to actually reduce the incident of said crime, looking at what problems might have led to it, how to care for the victim/family, and how to properly rehabilitate and treat someone who committed such an act, solely focusing on coming up with the most draconian punishment possible.
Anyone who comments something about the justice system ideally being rehabilitative gets accused of being no better than the criminal themselves or “helping” criminals.
I’ve just noticed this general trend which seems to be at odds with anarchist principles. I wonder what you think? Have you noticed this too? Do you think it’s a major problem? What can we do about it?
Certainly there are some who are just parrots (and they might even be the majority), but I don’t think that’s generally the case with those who are out there competing with each other to call for the most egregious possible punishments. I think the parrots tend more to be relatively passive consumers of that content rather than active participants. The ones who are actually in there competing to be the most vindictive are self-evidently more motivated than the passive consumers, and I think that that additional motivation comes from an overt pleasure taken in the suffering of others.
I am also doubtful that hidden pleasure at seeing other suffer is the prime motivator.
More likely they are of the mistaken believe that punishment can prevent future crimes and the stronger the punishment the better for that. But while this might be true for minor stuff like petty theft, this believe is generally not supported by evidence.
Exactly - that belief is not supported by the evidence
Yet they continue to call for increasingly punitive punishments anyway.
Why?
Because you don’t need evidence to believe something? Especially if you don’t care to look for such evidence?