Crime and Punishment

Restitution, for full medical and legal expenses to the victim should be the minimum. Then a small fine to cover court costs and probably community service. For first offense, and this assumes the person is not a juvenile. I feel juveniles should be treated harsher. I also chose whipping and lock up in the stocks, generally for juveniles, but also for younger adults.

Other: pay the medical bill. Outside of that, maybe under 100 hours community service.

although other circumstances might affect the sentence, i would say that in general, a first offense of punching someones lights out should be a fairly minor one - a small fine or community service.

I think incarceration is more fair than a fine; $2000 doesn't mean the same thing to everybody. I think the punishment should still depend a lot on the circumstances... was the offender pushed into it by the victim? And a cracked rib is a lot different for a 70 year old person than a 20 year old person.

I generally have a problem with "mandatory sentencing" sorts of laws, because there's always something they don't think of when the laws are passed. So some reasonably wide range of punishments should be allowed. By this I mean, say, a minimum of $500 + 100 hours community service, to a maximum of a year in prison, for this example.

Yeah, I realize that I just gave a mandatory minimum there, but on the other hand I think it would reasonable to impose $500 fines and 100-hour community service on everyone, whether they commit a crime or not, so small fine/service sentences are acceptable to me.

The WORST thing you could do to anyone is whipping. Whipping/violence is the reason anyone hits another person to begin with. Violence is TAUGHT.

I'm not on the Earth to decide that. Some others seems to think they are authorized to decide it, but no me.

I picked the smallest of the fine, whipping and community service options. I feel that the fine should go to the victim and should cover any medical expenses and then some.
I am not in favor of incarceration. I think that it should be used only when it is apparent that someone cannot function in society. Furthermore, particularly for first time offenses, incarceration may actually be creating a criminal. Picture an individual who has a job, supports himself and generally is not a drain on society. He commits a (relatively) minor crime and is locked up for 3 months. He spends 3 months with criminals, probably will lose his job while in prison, and be in debt when he gets out. If that's not a recipe for creating a criminal, then I don't know what is.
Community service seems to be the best alternative if it's apparent that the individual needs no encouragement to not do this again.
**elijahblue: I know. Spending a weekend in jail is one thing. Three months is another thing entirely. I should have probably divided the lowest incarceration option into two options...
**phi: I tried to keep the hypothetical situation as "generic" as possible. Every case is different. I think that the final decision should rest with the jury, regardless of any "mandatory sentencing" laws.
**BadtzMaru: If you're talking about a juvenile, I agree. An adult has probably already formed their opinion on whether or not violence is acceptable behavior. Given that the adult in question was just found guilty of assault and battery, I think you could guess what their opinion is. I don't think that a whipping would make them more likely to think that violence is a good thing.

I think that it is important that any criminal that is "normal" (not psychotic) should be forced to see how people suffer as a result to criminal actions. I think also that the punishment for anything should be more severe than it is today, so I checked community service, a high fine that goes to the victim and a day at the public stocks.
**As for punishing violence with violence I agree it may not be the best thing to do, but I must admit that it does work many times.

How about mandatory counseling. ***elijahblue: I think that the person in the situation you describe is an excellent example of someone who needs counseling. It may be a one time thing but hopefully the counseling would be able to offer them other ways to control their anger and possibly drinking.

Short incarceration and then <100 hours community service. Fines only hurt those who can't afford them.

eye for an eye. have a government official or a community approved bruiser work them over with as close to the same amount of force doing the same amount of damage as possible. **failing that stocks, the stigma of having been in the stocks for the day should be sufficient. I will also agree with the idea of paying any medical bills and repaying the costs for court etc.

If there is a fine, it should go to the victim (and to pay court costs), since they are the only injured party. But I don't think the punishment should not be monetary, because the amount needed to cause an appropriate amount of suffering in the offender varies tremendously. (Of course, the victim and offender may choose to settle for money out of court.) Incarceration is expensive, and a first-time offender is unlikely to be considered a significant danger to the public. Community service may be good for rehabilitation if it can teach the offender to respect people more. It's unlikely to be a punishment/deterrent.

I was going to check other and say "COUNSELING", but then I realized that that's not punishment. (Some people may consider it punishing, but that's irrelevant.) But the reason I want to include it is that incarceration without counseling seems to me more likely to make someone more angry and violent than to deter future aggressive behavior. (Hurray for the spell-checker, which actually caught a bona fide spelling error this time!) ***Yes, I really do think that. I just don't view assault as a minor crime. I apologize in advance for the self-righteous tone of what's coming up, but the fact is that the last time I attacked anyone I was 9. It's not as if I haven't been angry in that time; civilized adults do not attack one another. If you haul off and break someone's nose, you need to learn ways to deal with your anger so that you don't do it again. And I agree with Romkey about fines.

I prefer the "tie the person to a pole and let the vitctim kick the crap out of him or her" tactic, myself, but it's not like I'm vindictive or anything...it depends on the circumstances of the attack. If you were asking for it, and you got beat up, what are you crying about? Fine, community service, yadda yadda yadda.

I really believe incarceration should only be used if the person poses a future threat, so the circumstances around the assault would need to be known. If if seemed like a one time incident then a fine or community service would be appropriate.

I think monetary fines are a problem because they confuse two very different value systems and create an exchange rate between them, which I think is dangerous for both the victim and the victor- although perhaps covering medical bills as an aside is appropriate in an absence of good, reliable, public medical treatment. I'm not sure what the answer is, I put 'butt loads of community service" because I don't think incarceration helps rehabilitate, while properly administered community service might. I realize the question was 'punishment,' and not 'rehabilitation,' but I don't see any value in punishment if the goal isn't rehabilitation. Isn't that why parents punish, with an intent to change future behavior? I do think it's appropriate for me to decide- I think it's necessary for me as an adult to face problems directly and not ask others to decide for me, assuming that I am open to changing my decisions based on new information or opinions of other people.

EB: OH MY GOD YES, I do think that if a person strikes another person when they are pissed off, regardless of the chemicals they chose to put into their body before hand, then OH MY GOD YES they need counselling. THIS DOES NOT constitute socially acceptable behavior. AT ALL. please, never allow anyone to do this to you and just write it off as "oh, they had a few drinks."

This is entirely dependant on the circumstances. If the "victim" started it, and the "attacker" over-reacted and beat the snot out of him it's a very different situation than if the attacker stalked, threatened, and bullied the victim and then beat the snot out of him. *** EB, I agree completely with topper. Attacking someone is not socially acceptable. Period. If you can't handle your liquor/ drugs/ cough medicine/ anti-depressants/ bad day at work/ whatever, you shouldn't take them or learn to deal in an acceptable manner. It doesn't make it OK if the person healed, it doesn't make it OK if the person deserved it, it doesn't make it OK if the person did/ could have/ should have defended themselves.

Negative reinforcement is effective - make the attacker not want to do this again. Period. I was assaulted once, and it was enough for me.

It really depends if the attack was instigated ("your girlfriend is ugly!") or spontaneous ("I just feel like beating you up today!"). I'd say money paid to the beaten person, and also community service, since the crime was a social crime (i.e. people shouldn't go around randomly beating on other people). But do we really teach each other that hitting is bad? Sure, it's "less good" than it was 100 years ago. But still, in hockey we cheer fights. How about that recent baseball brawl? Never mind boxing. Never mind movies where the good cops chase down and bash the bad guys.

***I agree with EB on the therapy. People have to *want* to change to change. Forcing someone into (essentially) therapy won't work and I don't imagine would deter the type that would hit someone. Long, arduous hours of community service might :) I dislike the jail idea because they're cooped up for say 30 days, come out more hostile, and haven't helped "us" at all in return for what they've done to "hurt us". And if they don't show up for the service, there's always jail too!! :)

EB, ...how can they earn their keep? Do we pay them for their work while in jail? Yes (and then take it all away from them?), or No (and what motivation will they have to do their job or do it well. Do we threaten to beat them if they refuse to work?). Prison work is a tough problem, it's not like real-world work, it's more like slave labor, or labor you do to get perks, not bio-survival tickets. Motivation problems are the flaws in most Socialist ideas.

[Huge debate about socialism vs. Capitalism] deleted and moved to private email.

I think they should do a little jail time. If they end up paying a fine, though, the money should definitely go to the victim, that's a great idea.

*** steve: do you really think counseling should be required in such as situation? If someone has a few too many drinks, gets pissed off, and hits someone, causing minor damage, I think a fine or a little jail time will make them think twice about doing it again.

*** the jails in which minor offenders are kept are quite different than those that house die-hard criminals. I'm in favor of the offender spending a night or two in the local sheriff's office jail, cooling off...

*** topper: I can take care of myself. My last boyfriend was a second degree blackbelt in Uchurin Ryu karate, and he taught me some cool self-defense moves based on tai chi. But I don't think this is as HUGE a deal as you do, and I don't believe counseling would do much good for most people who do stuff like this. It could be offered as an option, though.

*** milktree: I didn't say that I thought it was "OK" under any circumstances. I said that I don't think therapy is the solution*, that I don't consider this behavior quite as heinous as others apparently do, and that topper needn't worry about me allowing anyone to assault me and get away with it.
*Court-ordered therapy is often not effective (the most important element in effective therapy is a client interested in changing), and it is easier to conceal, more pleasant, and considered more socially acceptable than doing jail time, thus it may not dissuade the offender from repeating their behavior as well as jail time. "Anger-management," in particular, simply does not work. If someone does choose of their own volition to go into therapy and explore the underlying motivations for their behavior, awesome. But that process will be time-consuming, and neither the court nor the offender's HMO will pay for such a lengthy process. They will have to do so themselves.

***lisashea: I think the offender should at least earn their keep while they are in jail, and if feasible actually contribute back to the community.

Depends entirely on the circumstances. Were they provoked? Was it self-defense? Was it motivated by hate?

The fine should go to the victim. Pay victim's medical, plus time off work, plus other compensation just for victimizing them. But all this also depends on the factors that led up to the assault. Was it understandable in the situation? Did the victim commit a more minor assault first? Self-defense or not, I think the circumstances should play into what the punishment should be.
If it's extremely unlikely that the assailant will ever do anything like that again, jail would be inappropriate.