Justice of Lycurgus; what use would it be today and how might it changer USA criminal justice?

Which are you referring to?
1) The victim gets to choose the punishment?
2) Taking people who did bad things and reforming them?

@roundsquare Have you, by chance, read of the Justice of Lycurgus? It was Lycurgus’ choice, and his alone. He chose to educate the fellow, i.e., open the mind to that which determines ones own behaviors and the ‘whys’ of them. To free the fellow from re-action and to permit action. Do you know Lonnie Athens works on the “Creation of Dangerous Violent Criminals”? Have you considered that no one does evil intentionally but only what they consider to be “in furtherance of the good”? Just ask them, they will tell you all about it.
You cannot reform someone else only they can change their behaviors. However, one of the best attended classes, I’m told, in prison education classes, when meaningful classes were offered, was college level philosophy. “Go figure”, eh? :)

@throssog I’m saying that you’re story had two (potential) lessons to it. One related to how a society chooses a punishment for a crime (based on a “fixed” punishment set by a central authority or based on how the victim feels). The other (potential) lesson is that it is better to try to reform someone rather than punish them. Which of these are you asking us to apply to the US criminal justice system? Or is it both?

I’m trying to find out exactly what you are asking.

That being said…

Have you, by chance, read of the Justice of Lycurgus? It was Lycurgus’ choice, and his alone. He chose to educate the fellow, i.e., open the mind to that which determines ones own behaviors and the ‘whys’ of them. To free the fellow from re-action and to permit action
Never read it, but I’ve heard similar stories. They are thought provoking but don’t provide evidence of anything as they are effectively myths.

Do you know Lonnie Athens works on the “Creation of Dangerous Violent Criminals”?
I just reads this. It sounds interesting and probably most applicable in the urban-poor or young-man-in-the-middle-east-with-nothing-to-do context and perhaps less applicable to other sorts of contexts. But there is a real question: can someone who made it to stage 4 ever reverse the process? The wikipedia article says no. Some people say yes. For now, both positions seem, to me, to be a matter faith and thus I don’t have a view.

Have you considered that no one does evil intentionally but only what they consider to be “in furtherance of the good”
Yes, I’ve considered this position but I rejected it. People don’t rape others because they think its “in furtherance of the good.” They don’t kidnap others because they think its “in furtherance of the good.” Of course, some crimes are done because the perpetrator thinks it is “in furtherance of the good.” People who steal to survive, for example. So yes, in some cases, I think we should try to reform people – but it’s not quite as simple as that. It takes resources, commitment, patience, etc… all coupled with a society who doesn’t want to “punish” but instead “improve.” Also, we can’t discount the power of deterrence so perhaps reformation is not always the best way.

You cannot reform someone else only they can change their behaviors.
This appears to be playing with words to me. Of course, the reformee needs to be the one to change their behavior and this means they need some willingness to do so, but that hardly means that one cannot put them on that path and lead them along. This, to me, is what it means “to reform someone.” When I say “we should try to reform people” I’m not talking about some Clockwork Orange-esque psychological manipulation.

@roundsquare I would submit that There are more than just the two options you postulate. However, I do find it fascinating you only see two.
Lycurgus as ‘myth’? Very convenient method of rejecting an unwanted approach. Not new or unique , but still, convenient.
Lonnie Athens: Applicable to “urban poor….” I think you have rather missed the point of Athens discovery. But then , most have. He doesn’t carry it through to the “dangerous, violent” emotional/interpersonal “criminals” who we choose, so far, not to prosecute. Give it a bit and we will. Germany and Switzerland already do and Great Britain has some laws that skirt it – “hate speech, Holocaust denial, etc.”
Aristotle would be devastated to hear you so out of hand reject one of his major theses. I am afraid I must disagree with you about rape not being done “for the good”, in the mind of the perp. It is a truism that the perp always has a justification: “She/he deserved it.; Gave’em what they wanted/needed.”, etc. Always to the, actor perceived, “good”
Reforming as an act of others: To assist, yes – to mandate, not possible. Just look to the Pennsylvania Method and the Wheat Street system and our modern criminal justice system. The “Clockwork Orange” system is the type that is under consideration today…in regard to certain types of sex offenders. Along with, I might add, preventive detention,i.e., civil commitment.
I am sorry you are having difficulty with “what I am trying to say” by citing the “myth” of the Justice of Lycurgus – seems straight forward to me. The “offender” sought the good, as he saw it,i.e., destruction of Lycurgus, and attempted it. Any Regicide, Presidential assassin, revolutionary,etc. does the same. “Brutus and the rest…” come to mind,hmmm? But instead of his “just desserts” the young man was, by Lycurgus, seen as of value in himself and a valuable resource to the nation and was thus educated in how to think – not what to think – and Sparta was increased in its wealth rather than having lost him. In our prisons we have “gold” and instead of refining it we give ourselves the “shaft”.

@throssog
I would submit that There are more than just the two options you postulate. However, I do find it fascinating you only see two.
Okay, what else is there? Please explain.

Lycurgus as ‘myth’?
Stories from ancient Sparta about miraculous changes may well come from something true, but in general they get exaggerated.

Very convenient method of rejecting an unwanted approach. Not new or unique , but still, convenient.
You’re making assumptions about me that are unwarranted. I do my best not to reject unwanted approaches. In fact, if you read the rest of what I wrote, I endorsed the approach to a degree.

Lonnie Athens: Applicable to “urban poor….” I think you have rather missed the point of Athens discovery. But then , most have.
It would be far more helpful if you explained what the point is instead of just saying I missed it.

He doesn’t carry it through to the “dangerous, violent” emotional/interpersonal “criminals” who we choose, so far, not to prosecute.
I’m not sure how that fits in here. Like I said, I only read the really short description of his work on Wikipedia. Perhaps if you could be a bit more clear I could engage on this point, but for now, I’m not able to say anything productive.

Give it a bit and we will. Germany and Switzerland already do and Great Britain has some laws that skirt it – “hate speech, Holocaust denial, etc.”
Are we now moving to discussions of free speech? That’s fine but it seems very tangential to the original question.

Aristotle would be devastated to hear you so out of hand reject one of his major theses. I am afraid I must disagree with you about rape not being done “for the good”, in the mind of the perp. It is a truism that the perp always has a justification: “She/he deserved it.; Gave’em what they wanted/needed.”, etc. Always to the, actor perceived, “good”
Define “good.” I have a feeling we’re using different definitions of the word. If you mean ‘personal good” then I might well agree for the most part, but it would probably undermine your original point. Instead, if you are saying that a rapist rapes for what he/she perceives to be the “greater good” than I’m afraid you’re going to need to give me some evidence, reasoning, etc… anything more than a assertion.

I am sorry you are having difficulty with “what I am trying to say”
It would perhaps be helpful if you answered my original question with a straightforward response. In any event, what I was trying to do is pin down if you were only interested in part of the story or the story as a whole for discussion. One could have a full blown meaningful discussion of either of the two lessons I presented and potentially any of the others you might be so kind as to point out to me. If you were interested in a more focused discussion, I was hoping to oblige you on that point.

The “offender” sought the good, as he saw it,i.e., destruction of Lycurgus, and attempted it. Any Regicide, Presidential assassin, revolutionary,etc. does the same. “Brutus and the rest…” come to mind,hmmm?
Yes, there are, of course, examples of crimes being committed for what the perpetrator believes is the greater good. I have no doubt of that. But that doesn’t mean that the blanket statement that all crime is committed in that vein. Again, I’ll agree with you if you give me something more generic than a few examples.

But instead of his “just desserts” the young man was, by Lycurgus, seen as of value in himself and a valuable resource to the nation and was thus educated in how to think – not what to think – and Sparta was increased in its wealth rather than having lost him. In our prisons we have “gold” and instead of refining it we give ourselves the “shaft”.
Indeed. We don’t do reformation well at all.

Final points:
You’re way to engaging in this conversation is getting frustrating rather rapidly. You write as if you are extremely enlightened and I am a barbarian who needs education. Perhaps this is the case, and if so, I’m happy to learn from you. However, so far you make a lot of assertions about what you assume I’m thinking and you make little attempt at clarity. If this is your modus operandi I will leave this particular thread.

@roundsquare My friend, you have a desire to best another in argument – I do not. I have provided the information and have done my best to be clear, without lecturing, etc. But I do ask for thought and consideration. Perhaps Aristotle and his statements are unfamiliar to you. A shame but I am not about to spend the time required to prove, to you , what was proven, by Aristotle, over 2000years ago.
The “myth” you refer to is accepted history and not some fantastic invention of the imagination.
The possible lessons encompassed by the question are multitudinous , far too many to address here.
No, free speech was not at issue – again, you reject the plain and seek the simplistic.
The offender/no-offenders always have a rationale for why it is to the good. From bank robbery to regime overthrow and the collateral damage therefrom – always to the good. May I suggest Epictetus or Seneca? Both dealt with this…as did Aristotle, afore mentioned.
However, I was the one who asked a question and sought the opinions and thoughts of others on it. Not to waste their or my time. If you feel that this is a waste of your time – I could not be more delighted to agree with you. Go thou and think no more. :)