“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?
Yes, I’ve noticed that. It’s hard to miss really.
I assume it is, exactly as you say, virtue signaling.
Virtue signaling isn’t just an end in itself. It’s often (generally?) a feedback loop - the person is not just trying to demonstrate that they’re virtuous, but to reassure themselves that the standards upon which they’re measuring their nominal virtue are legitimate.
So calling for ever more draconian punishment is not so much the point - more, the point is to call for draconian punishment, then have somebody else applaud and even amplify that call. That helps to solidify the sense of moral superiority since it’s not just that I believe that I’m morally superior because [X], but other people do as well. We all agree that this is the morally superior position, so we must be right.
But underneath it all, what it really is is just foul, vindictive, hateful assholes who enjoy the thought of people suffering, and try to excuse it with the belief that, by whatever standard, this person deserves it.
Though they’d be the last to admit it, the nominal crime isn’t the point. They just get off on the suffering of others, and the nominal crime is just an excuse.
And since their whole position is a lie - because their real motivation is just a sick pleasure in the suffering of others and their moral posturing is just cover for their loathsomeness - they need constant feedback to convince themselves that they’re in the right. And conveniently enough, there are plenty of other people in the same situation, so they can, and do, reassure each other.
I was following your rationale, up until you said the real motivation is sick pleasure from suffering.
Like, maybe… But I feel like it was already sufficiently explained with your “I want to be validated as the most virtuous”.
If there was a richer vien of good boy points to mine with an alternative position, I think many would take it. These people are essentially just parrots who’ve learned a set of syllables that earns them crackers.
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?