If we have to punish anyone, how can we decide whether we are over-punishing or under-punishing?
How do we know whether punishment is too harsh or too lenient?
That’s a very difficult question. Even today’s legal systems struggle with this. In the past, legal systems were simpler—for example, in small villages, respected elders would listen to conflicts between two people. The elders might tell a story or quote some wise saying, then give a decision like “You make up for this,” or “Don’t do this again.” Usually, the parties accepted the decision because the culture was deferential and the elders were fair.
Today, legal codes are much more complex and extensive. Different laws apply in different situations, which is why we have lawyers to argue cases. It’s complicated.
Broadly speaking, when deciding if someone should be punished or disciplined, the purpose of punishment can be seen as threefold:
- Deterrence for the wrongdoer: To make sure the person who did wrong does not repeat it.
- Deterrence by example: To show society that wrongful actions have consequences, so others are discouraged from wrongdoing. This is why “justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done.” In the past, harsh punishments like public flogging or cutting off thieves’ hands might seem barbaric today, but the principle was to make consequences visible to society.
- Reparation: To compensate the victim for the harm they suffered.
Reparation is easy when the damage is measurable—for example, if money is stolen, the thief returns the money plus damages. But when the harm is intangible—like emotional abuse, physical abuse, or sexual abuse—it becomes very difficult to quantify and compensate fairly.
If the wrongdoer is not a habitual offender and generally has good character, punishing them too harshly would be excessive. Also, if the victim decides not to press charges, often the legal system cannot proceed without a party having an authentic interest in the case. This is where forgiveness can come in—sometimes the victim wants to move on and close that chapter of their life.
Victims may also choose to pursue justice, or in some cases, seek revenge—demanding more than a proportionate reparation. Because of this, the victim alone cannot decide what reparation is appropriate. The legal system involves the victim as a plaintiff, but also considers the wider social context.
In my understanding, considering these three factors—deterrence for the offender, deterrence for society, and reparation for the victim—allows a reasonable decision to be made. However, since it is subjective to some extent, complete agreement on specific disciplinary or punitive actions is unlikely.
Realistically, such situations are never pleasant. The best way to handle or avoid them is to cultivate healthy relationships based on trust. If a leader takes disciplinary action—whether harsher or milder than some expect—people who trust the leader will believe they have good reasons, possibly factors others don’t know about.
Ultimately, if there is general trust that the person in authority is good, honest, and not driven by ulterior motives, then resentment and hard feelings can be minimized.
Thank you. I think we can check here.