On punishment and reform

In terms of culpability, we seem to assume any agent could have done otherwise. Without being able to do otherwise, we don't usually consider an agent culpable. That much we often assume. And, in this case the emphasis is on a hypothetical past action. In terms of correction, the emphasis is on punishment and the failure of adherence to a past possibility. But why think focusing on what could have been done is preferable as a corrective?

Why place emphasis on what one could have done? What is wanted is a future where that same agent adheres to the responsibility. If there is one thing we know, we know the past is over. What is needed is a new future. So what to do?

Solution: We hold agents responsible, not for what they could have done, but for what they should have done. What they could have done is past. What they should have done still holds, and will continue to hold. All things being equal, they should do it today or tomorrow, if such is needed. The emphasis here is on future action and the corrective is reform. Punishment cannot bring back what should have been. Reform, on the other hand, is a live possibility. Anyway, who doesn't want a better future?

I am thinking part of our tendency to focus on punishment, instead of reform, is closely associated with certain assumptions concerning human freedom. Consider, so called, "libertarian free will" (philosophical and not political "libertarian"). If one assumes human freedom is the hypothetical "one could have done otherwise," then the focus will be on a non-existent past event. In this case, responsibility is based on a hypothetical "what could have been." Obviously, what could have been is past and merely a hypothetical with no real possibility of becoming actual. So, what is punishment doing? Recouping some of the past? Punishment is an odd attempt to recoup what can no longer be. In fact, never was. Punishment cannot give substance to a past event that never was.

Reform, on the other hand, focuses on a possibility that can become concrete, can become actual. Reform is grounded in "what should be." And, what should be can happen. Punishment is past oriented, reform is future oriented. So, yea reform. What about human freedom?

Freedom is simply what it is: whatever we want. If we want it, and are able to do it, then we are free. In this case, there is no dependence on some ontological failure. A hypothetical does not ground the responsibility. We are free by virtue of an unhindered want, that is found within us. There is no reason to drag in unwanted hypotheticals that have no possibility of actuality. If someone argues that it could have been actual, I don't even know what they mean.

When I think of punishment and reform in this way, I can't understand why any time would be wasted punishing. What is recouped by punishment? Nothing. What is left? The unreformed. Can that be changed? Yes, by reform.