We talked a lot this week about the aspect of shame in Confucian thought, versus the nonexistent (in Confucian thought) notion of guilt. For example shame implies public image, versus the inner corruptness associated with westernized notions of guilt.
Moreover, punishments differ- if one stipulates that a primary goal of punishment is correction, than it follows that shame would not need correction, but prevention- one does not need to correct what is not broken in the first place. Conversely the broken or corrupt "guilty" person would require corrective or retributive measures to return to society. With that being said, if a society holds the notion of shame over guilt, and therefore, no retribution is needed for one's crimes, then where do they stand as/or not as a fully functioning member, and can they return (without retribution) or do they never loose their status to begin with?
My question is, should shame or guilt make a difference as to whether or not a convicted criminal member should be a represented member in society? I am operating under the assumption that the society is democratic and representation constitutes voting rights.
I find it interesting that we both saw a link between guilt/shame and retribution/deterrence, respectively -- I posted about the very same line of thought on my blog. To answer your question, I think shame would have a greater likelihood of following a convicted criminal long after they have been punished, since punishment in that case does not correct but rather prevents further crimes, whereas with guilt, once a criminal has been corrected, they should have little trouble re-entering society (ideally, at least -- I think it's clear that this doesn't work very well in real life, at least in our culture)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe might also want to consider shame cultures that operated under strict codes of conduct (moral?) and exercised inherently understood corrective measures, e.g., the case of Japan and seppuku. I wonder what human impulses are strong enough to override our membership in a shame culture. I don’t think shame or guilt makes a difference in the case you present, assuming we are talking about parallel cases of criminal and crime. I think a person who commits a crime is no longer operating universally under the assumption of freedom; he/she has forfeited some rights, or civil liberties. (Interestingly, I think Vermont allows convicted felons to vote)
ReplyDeleteYes; convicted felons can vote in Vermont. In some other states, they can regain their voting rights after having served their sentences. Still other states ban them for life from participation in the political life of the society.
Delete