Jenny in Florida Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I think there should be harsher punishment for people who do horrific crimes. If you knew the punishment for raping a child was castration wouldn't you think before choosing to act on that behavior? If you knew stealing would get your hand cut off wouldn't you think before acting on that behavior? From http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty (I should mention that I'm not vouching for this site. It was just the first one that came up when I searched. There were serveral others with similar information.) A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country from found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder. This site also sites studies showing that states without the death penalty have lower murder rates than those with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abigail4476 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 What does physical punishment do? Does it make anyone less evil? In my view, it only slakes the thirst for vengeance. It serves anger; not victims. Anger can mislead, overreact, misinterpret and create new victims, which is why we shouldn't allow anger to lead us around by our noses. A levelheaded response is necessary if you want to have a civilized society. Morality is to purposely separate yourself from a visceral response and respond instead in a way that is intended to protect society from harm rather than exact harm upon the evildoer (for the sake of it). We may all have barbaric moments, rushes of emotion, anger and even rage. The difference between morality and evil is the ability to set those barbarisms aside and behave humanely in spite of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 What does physical punishment do? Does it make anyone less evil? In my view, it only slakes the thirst for vengeance. It serves anger; not victims. Anger can mislead, overreact, misinterpret and create new victims, which is why we shouldn't allow anger to lead us around by our noses. A levelheaded response is necessary if you want to have a civilized society. Morality is to purposely separate yourself from a visceral response and respond instead in a way that is intended to protect society from harm rather than exact harm upon the evildoer (for the sake of it). We may all have barbaric moments, rushes of emotion, anger and even rage. The difference between morality and evil is the ability to set those barbarisms aside and behave humanely in spite of them. Beautifully said! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Florida Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Do you think they will actually serve the amount of time they receive? No, it may not be a deterrent, but how is catch-and-release working? How many times are violent criminals released back into the public, and take another life? I understand what you all are saying here. Truly, I do. But, just because a system is flawed doesn't necessarily mean we should toss it and go vigilante. I would absolutely be in favor of reforming our justice and prison systems so that those who can be helped are helped and those who can't are stashed safely away so that they can't hurt anyone ever again. What I'm not in favor of is treating them with the same lack of compassion with which they treated others. And eye for an eye, in my worldview, just leaves us all blind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendi Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Do you know that when prisons first came into being (versus dungeons) it happened here in the US and was thought to be a humanitarian endeavor. The earliest reformers thought that to keep the prisoners safe from each other and to help rehabilitate them, it was best to keep them in separate cells. That led to madness. What aspect of prisons are you saying was an American invention? I'm confused. Clearly there were prisons in other countries before the U.S. existed. And prisoners were kept in separate cells in at least some of those prisons. So I'm not sure what you mean. Wendi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abigail4476 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Beautifully said! Bill Thanks! :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Florida Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I expect anyone to be sicken by rape. I do not expect "decent" people to advocate illegal vigilantism and acts of torture, mutilation and murder. "Of two evils, choose neither" ~Charles Spurgeon Bill Agreed. And I love that quote. I suspect I will be sharing it. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Sherry Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) But so many people are calling for physical things to be done to the rapists in that thread...and they seem to be in the majority. So I just wonder why when so many people think it is suitable, it doesn't happen here? It's one thing to just vent your emotions about an injustice when you have no power or intention to actually carry out that action,although even venting can be harmful at times. But it's another thing to make carrying out that action legal. As a society, I think it would be shameful if we behaved as barbarically towards criminals as some of their actions are. I certainly hope most people would not, if given the chance, really think it were advisable to personally do horrific things to a criminal themselves, rather than waiting on the justice system. Committing barbaric actions against any human is harmful not only to the person being physically harmed but it also has an effect on the person doing the harmful action. So if anyone were to physically harm a criminal them self, I think they would experience some adverse emotional/mental consequence from having participated in a violent or harmful action. We must maintain a balance of having some acceptable level of justice, but not become barbaric in the process of meting out justice. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This reminds me of a story I heard about a little girl who had been raped. Some of the men in her neighborhood were so enraged when they heard about her being raped that they killed the man who had raped her. She was very young and it was all so over whelming for her. When she heard that the man had been killed after she told that he had raped her ,she felt in her young child like mind that her words had killed him. She did not speak at all for years ( I don't know how many) after that. She went into some kind of shock.That man being killed was another trauma for her. Edited March 12, 2011 by Miss Sherry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) No #%#! The glee some people take in their revenge-torture fantasies represent about the lowest form of human nature. We have a society of laws, and a system of justice. Summery executions, mutilations, and torture are immoral. Not to mention highly illegal. I agree, one need be careful lest one become the animal, that does not mean that cries of outrage in any way indicate that a poster on this board would behave in a manner that is illegal, it seems to me that there is an elemental frustration with the inability of society to deal with scum such as seen in TX. Your view is actually something I understand and we may find ourselves in some agreement, but it seems that your views change depending on the format. You stated in another thread titled The Stoning of Soraya M It does not represent the justice (or injustice) of Sharia law......if the corruption and evil-doing of the officials in this story are to be conflated with what is right and just under Islamic law so is Shar'ia, in your view, immoral as it allows for executions, mutilations, and torture or is it simply because this is done by a government that makes it acceptable? I do not want to see genuine torture introduced even if the crime seems to call for it, but comments about "masks slipping" and calling the reaction of outher posters "the lowest form of human nature" are also beyond the Pale. Edited March 12, 2011 by pqr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 What about situations where there is no doubt at all? Journals, videos, numerous eye witnesses? How much more 100% do you want? I don't know who Jesus would lynch, btw. The verse is about drowning, not hanging. And directed clearly to those who go after children. I'm assuming that people thought there was no doubt at all in any of the cases where innocent men were wrongly sentenced to death. If there WAS doubt then why were they sentenced to death? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I agree, one need be careful lest one become the animal, that does not mean that cries of outrage in any way indicate that a poster on this board would behave in a manner that is illegal, it seems to me that there is an elemental frustration with the inability of society to deal with scum such as seen in TX. Your view is actually something I understand and we may find ourselves in some agreement, but it seems that your views change depending on the format. You stated in another thread titled The Stoning of Soraya M so is Shar'ia, in your view, immoral as it allows for executions, mutilations, and torture or is it simply because this is done by a government that makes it acceptable? I do not want to see genuine torture introduced even if the crime seems to call for it, but comments about "masks slipping" and calling the reaction of outher posters "the lowest form of human nature" are also beyond the Pale. You always attempt to twist words. I said the film represented men who abused justice. They lied about the truth and coerced others to lie in order to commit violence to a person who was innocent of wrong doing. You know that is the truth. But you will use every opportunity to inflame anti-Muslim sentiments. I have no time for your hate mongering. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) You always attempt to twist words. I said the film represented men who abused justice. They lied about the truth and coerced others to lie in order to commit violence to a person who was innocent of wrong doing. You know that is the truth. But you will use every opportunity to inflame anti-Muslim sentiments. I have no time for your hate mongering. Bill How is it hate mongering to ask you a simple question? Is Shar'ia with its allowance or mutilation and torture immoral? You attack posters here for advocating just that so I ask again if posters xyz on this board are immoral is Shar'ia? Edited March 12, 2011 by pqr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 How is it hate mongering to ask you a simple question? Is Shar'ia with its allowince or mutilation and torture immoral? You attack posters here for advocating just that so I ask again if xyz on this board are immoral is Shar'ia? I think mutilations and torture are immoral. I feel the same way about bigotry and hate-mongering. Happy? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) I think mutilations and torture are immoral. I feel the same way about bigotry and hate-mongering. Happy? Bill Absolutely, so I can quote you as finding Shar'ia immoral? I do however think that you leap to conclusions. Remundamom and others who displayed understandable fury are not bigots or hate mongers, they are not immoral, they cetainly are not representative of the lowest form of human nature. You throw insults around a little too easily. I am still interested in how asking a question is hate mongering. Edited March 12, 2011 by pqr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sahamamama Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 This reminds me of a story I heard about a little girl who had been raped. Some of the men in her neighborhood were so enraged when they heard about her being raped that they killed the man who had raped her. She was very young and it was all so over whelming for her. When she heard that the man had been killed after she told that he had raped her ,she felt in her young child like mind that her words had killed him. She did not speak at all for years ( I don't know how many) after that. She went into some kind of shock.That man being killed was another trauma for her. Maya Angelou http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Know_Why_the_Caged_Bird_Sings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 why is it OK for the gvt to kill someone who is guilty, but it's not ok for an individual to kill someone who is guilty? I guess the real question is why courts don't give the victim the option of pullng the trigger once a death sentence is issues? She went into some kind of shock.That man being killed was another trauma for her. That's why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 comments about "masks slipping" and calling the reaction of outher posters "the lowest form of human nature" are also beyond the Pale.:iagree: You throw insults around a little too easily.:iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I'm Canadian. Death policy doesn't exist here. Given the chance, I'd vote to bring it back. Bring it back for creatures like Paul Bernardo. Who will never see the outside of prison, but gets cable, protective custody, etc, etc until he dies. What possible good is he serving society? He's a drain on taxpayer dollars. He also was video taped assaulting the girls he kidnapped, and his younger sister in law. Clifford Olsen, confessed pedophile and murderer. List goes on. No, it may not be a deterrent, but how is catch-and-release working? How many times are violent criminals released back into the public, and take another life? Society needs to stand up and protect the innocent, rather than the guilty. Ftr, anyone that works in the field that I've known refer to it as the 'legal' system, not the 'justice' system, because justice is few and far btwn. Would I want to retaliate against someone that hurt any of my kids? Absolutely. Would I? I don't honestly know. I hope I never, ever have to find out. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Revenge sanctioned by the state is the basis of justice Revenge is NOT justice. Additionally, it is sad to see how many people seem to think that human life has no inherent value. IMO, if people believed that human life had inherent value, it wouldn't matter whether someone effed up in a big way ... their life would still be considered valuable merely due to its existence. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I am not in favor of the death penalty as it is carried out in many states. We have 50 states with 50 different policies about the death penalty. About which one do you want my opinion clarified? Texas? Illinois? They run the gamut. Since we're discussing personal preferences about a topic in general, howabout you share an example of one you ARE in favor of supporting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 A levelheaded response is necessary if you want to have a civilized society. Morality is to purposely separate yourself from a visceral response and respond instead in a way that is intended to protect society from harm rather than exact harm upon the evildoer (for the sake of it). ... The difference between morality and evil is the ability to set those barbarisms aside and behave humanely in spite of them. well, again, I can understand that as a blanket statement for people who are against the death penalty, period, but it still doesn't explain why killing person A is humane when done by the gvt yet inhumane/evil if done by an individual.... Just because a bad guy is killed by an individual doesn't mean the killing was NOT 'levelheaded.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 That's why. but if the man being killed was the trauma, then that would be another reason to be against ANY death penalty, but my question was about one type of killing vs another..... In the story quoted, 'her words' would have killed him regardless WHO [gvt/individual] carried out the punishment of death.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Trying to answer your question below: The reason we need to collectively determine guilt and punishment is to build trust in our community. When an individual takes the law into his own hands he is robbing his community of the responsibility of determining guilt and punishment and undermining trust. Now, currently we don't seem to have a lot of trust in our system (i.e. community), so the question is really legitimate. If individuals could trust the system to do the right thing they wouldn't feel the need to act individually. Vigilantism is an expression of distrust in the community, sometimes it's rational, sometimes - not so much. and here's the weird part..... most communities [when asked as individuals] tend to support a vigilante form of justice over NO justice/failed justice/ corruption, which seems to negate a 'need' to build trust in the community via collectively determining guilt/punishment.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Matthew 10:34-37. Yes, the NT is about the things you listed. It is also about justice, holiness and righteousness. It is about destruction and deserved punishment (Revelation). yeah but.....Revelation is about God meting it out perfectly, not supporting us doing it personally. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I think mutilations and torture are immoral. I feel the same way about bigotry and hate-mongering. Happy? that's not what he was asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) I'm assuming that people thought there was no doubt at all in any of the cases where innocent men were wrongly sentenced to death. If there WAS doubt then why were they sentenced to death? because they were trying to assemble a larger picture from many pieces of evidence. I'd have to say there are degrees of 100% certainty. ;) eta: which is why it's "beyond a reasonable doubt" not 'absolutely certain.' Having a video of the murder is quite different from depending on a victim's testimony and other evidence gathered. Edited March 12, 2011 by Peek a Boo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garga Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 but it still doesn't explain why killing person A is humane when done by the gvt yet inhumane/evil if done by an individual.... Just because a bad guy is killed by an individual doesn't mean the killing was NOT 'levelheaded.' Conspiracy theories aside (that the government wants to oppress the people), governments reserve the right to kill criminals vs the individual so that there is a system of checks and balances. A single individual killing a criminal may or may not be levelheaded and appropriate, but for such a big decision (determining guilt and punishment), there need to be checks and balances to ensure irreversible mistakes aren't made (or are at least minimized.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LidiyaDawn Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I'm Canadian. Death policy doesn't exist here. Given the chance, I'd vote to bring it back. Canada's wrongful convictions ~ there's a little roundup of people for whom that death penalty may have been applied if we did have it here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remudamom Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Welcome back Peek. Satisfied sigh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacy in NJ Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Justice is another name for socially sanctioned revenge, at least in sociological terms. Revenge is NOT justice. Additionally, it is sad to see how many people seem to think that human life has no inherent value. IMO, if people believed that human life had inherent value, it wouldn't matter whether someone effed up in a big way ... their life would still be considered valuable merely due to its existence. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacy in NJ Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) to answer regardless. Are you talking about determining guilt and innocence or punishment? Because it is quite possible to have a fair criminal justice system based upon the rule of law and still engage in corporal punishment. You can have trial by jury, criminal defense and still punish with caning. Singapore does it eveyday. Because we are not Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, former USSR , Romania or any of the other countries where there is no rule of law save that of a dicatator, king , or prime minister such as Putin. We are a nation of laws. This thread has me absolutely confused. What are you teaching your children about the rule of law , the consent of the governed, the foundations of democracy , the inherent value of human beings to be treated fairly and justly? I absolutely understand the hot button issues that have brought this line of thinking forward and believe you me I would just as soon shoot some son of a ***** who is a pedophile . Absolutely. I understand the feeling. I am however thinking that you might actually be considering that it would be reasonable to offer persons a choice between incarceration and physical punishment in a constitutional democracy. If I misunderstand please forgive my confusion. If not well I have nothing to say except I hope you reconsider your perspective. Edited March 12, 2011 by Stacy in NJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) Additionally, it is sad to see how many people seem to think that human life has no inherent value. IMO, if people believed that human life had inherent value, it wouldn't matter whether someone effed up in a big way ... their life would still be considered valuable merely due to its existence. I fail to see your point. Nobody, that I have read, says that human life has no inherent value. The posts seem to indicate that there are certain actions that an individual can take that negate that "inherent value." When one's behavior becomes inhuman, when one separates himself from any semblance of civilized or moral behavior, when one deliberately sets himself apart and though his actions injures... nay destroys the lives of others for a twisted joy, when there is no justification for one's amoral actions then the "inherent value", on this plane, and to others is nil! Do not ask me to sympathize or place any real value on animals who assault children in the manner seen in TX, they spent any value I place on them the second they molested a little girl. They need be dealt with as per the law and as harshly as legally allowed. Edited March 12, 2011 by pqr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I agree that government sanctioned torture is wrong. I don't agree that a visceral reaction against evil is automatically evil. :iagree: I think jail should be reserved strictly only for those who commit a violent or treasonous crimes. If only God would smite them, it would make things easier on us all. :iagree: It seems odd that someone that stole something serves time next to a rapist or murderer. Because what happens when someone is caned and later found to be innocent? Are you ok with caning innocent people? Katie Way more than putting them in prison for decades. By your logic we would never punish anyone for anything because they might eventually turn out to be innocent. :iagree: in accepting a beating (caning) then the longer term degradation of a prison term. You accept your guilt, take your punishment, pay your debt, move on, clean slate. It just seems more just to me, at least for minor crimes.:iagree: The scripture passage you quoted does not instruct us to go drown someone for causing someone to stumble. There are hard passages in the bible. Most of them are in the Old Testament. The New Testament is about hope, love, joy and peace. If you have Jesus in your heart, you can feel that same peace. Jesus advocated peace. I don't recall a passage where He advocated punishment by one human to another? I'm not a pacifist. I don't believe in letting everyone run free and wild. I'm saying we need to be less quick with the torches and pitchforks. What are we truly trying to accomplish by "punishing" criminals in a physical manner? The hope would be an actual deterrant. What are we accomplishing by locking them up for decades? We're not making them better people, we're making them less connected to reality and the people that had been their neighbors. We are not rehabilitating them, that's for sure. Revenge is NOT justice. Additionally, it is sad to see how many people seem to think that human life has no inherent value. IMO, if people believed that human life had inherent value, it wouldn't matter whether someone effed up in a big way ... their life would still be considered valuable merely due to its existence. Tara Oh no, I think human life comes with value. That's why I'm pro-life ;) Because I believe that innocent life should be preserved. Now, as far as people whose continued existence on the mortal plain means injury or death to others... they proven themselves too much a danger to the inherent value of human life to continue living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 A single individual killing a criminal may or may not be levelheaded and appropriate, but for such a big decision (determining guilt and punishment), there need to be checks and balances to ensure irreversible mistakes aren't made (or are at least minimized.) I understand the checks and balances against mistakes, but my question was about why killing a 100% guilty person is evil if done by an individual vs ok if done by the gvt. If the person is 100% guilty, why would it matter? I saw Spy Car make the distinction, and was kinda hoping more than one person could weigh in on that, but maybe not....? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I understand the checks and balances against mistakes, but my question was about why killing a 100% guilty person is evil if done by an individual vs ok if done by the gvt. If the person is 100% guilty, why would it matter? I saw Spy Car make the distinction, and was kinda hoping more than one person could weigh in on that, but maybe not....? I responded? I don't think it makes a difference which does it. I do agree with the checks and balances of just law, but once the verdict comes in? No, I don't think it makes a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mejane Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I fail to see your point. Nobody, that I have read, says that human life has no inherent value. The posts seem to indicate that there are certain actions that an individual can take that negate that "inherent value." When one's behavior becomes inhuman, when one separates himself from any semblance of civilized or moral behavior, when one deliberately sets himself apart and though his actions injures... nay destroys the lives of others for a twisted joy, when there is no justification for one's amoral actions then the "inherent value", on this plane, and to others is nil! Do not ask me to sympathize or place any real value on animals who assault children in the manner seen in TX, they spent any value I place on them the second they molested a little girl. They need be dealt with as per the law and as harshly as legally allowed. I agree with your entire post except where you call these sick twists "animals". There I think you are being insulting to animals. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Justice is another name for socially sanctioned revenge, at least in sociological terms. I disagree with this. I have a minor in sociology (and psychology) and I have never encountered the term revenge conflated with justice. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 The posts seem to indicate that there are certain actions that an individual can take that negate that "inherent value." If you can negate the value, it's not inherent. It's assigned. FTR, I am anti-all-death-penalty. It's not because I have great love for people who commit heinous crimes. Like most people, I struggle with the dissonance between what I believe to be true (inherent value) and what I believe to be fair (being suitably punished for a crime). In the end it comes down to the fact that, according to my spiritual beliefs, it is not up to me to decide who lives and who dies. I'm willing to leave that to the greater force in which I believe. Or, as Gandalf says to Frodo in the movie version (which is a conflation of two things he says separately in the book): "Many who live deserve death, and some that die deserve life - can you give it to them? Do not be so quick to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wisest cannot see all ends." Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragons in the flower bed Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) When so many people think it is suitable, it doesn't happen here? Once upon a time this country was filled with people who had a sense of morality. Because of inertia, and because part of the unthinking immorality of the modern age is apathy, a lot of those old morality-based rules are still in place. That's why. Edited March 12, 2011 by dragons in the flower bed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragons in the flower bed Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Bring it back for creatures like Paul Bernardo. Who will never see the outside of prison, but gets cable, protective custody, etc, etc until he dies. What possible good is he serving society? A person isn't allowed to live because of the service they can be to society. Jails aren't meant to be punishments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ester Maria Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I have never encountered the term revenge conflated with justice. Because they sugarcoated it, calling it, for example, retributive justice. The basic idea behind it is largely the same though: a sort of "getting even", a sort of revenge if you wish, as Stacy put it. The question which then arises is, do two wrongs make a right? There is such a thread of thought in theories of punishment... the whole "rehabilitation" idea is a fairly recent concept, actually. Earlier theories of justice are largely retributive / preventive (aiming to "scare" the potential subsequent offenders, ergo the "draconian" element in many legal systems) - and looking at it historically, Stacy has a point. It was, and in many places still is nowadays, about instrumentalizing the process of revenge from the pre-legal-system societies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 What possible good is he serving society? I went back and looked for this late last night after reading a few pages of this thread, but I was tired and couldn't find it. But I did want to address this (not that anyone really cares what Tara thinks ;) ). No one can know this. No one can ever know what "good" someone is adding to life. That is not something that humans can figure out. No one can see all ends, as Gandalf said in the quote above, and no one can see all beginnings. I have worked with several populations of people whom many others in this society would consign to the "useless" pile. If you look merely at their negative actions, that feeling is somewhat understandable (if sad). But when you look at the totality of someone's life, I really fail to believe that any single person is 100% pure evil. Everyone has done something good. Everyone has loved or been loved or wished for love. Everyone has influenced someone in some way. I have worked with people who have done terrible things but have managed to raise loving, responsible children. I have worked with people who have done terrible things but were a cherished son or daughter. I have worked with people who have done terrible things but also heroic things. No one is completely devoid of a single positive thing. Human beings are not equipped to see all beginnings and ends, and therefore we are not equipped to decide who is worthy, who is of service, and who is doing any good. I am not against justice or the rule of law. I am against the idea that humans have the wisdom and capability to determine who lives and who dies and why. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacy in NJ Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 There are three purposes to imprisonment (as I remember it): 1. for rehabilitation 2. To separate the offender from society (to protect the innocent) 3. To punish and as a by-product to deter future criminal activity We now know the 1 is a complete failure in our prison system. Recidivism rates are totally predictable. Items 2 and 3 remain the only reasons we incarcerate. Physical punishments could in certain circumstances satisfy our needs (2 & 3) with equal effectiveness but more economically and probably more morally than our current system. I disagree with this. I have a minor in sociology (and psychology) and I have never encountered the term revenge conflated with justice. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 But when you look at the totality of someone's life, I really fail to believe that any single person is 100% pure evil. Everyone has done something good. Everyone has loved or been loved or wished for love. Everyone has influenced someone in some way. You want me to look at the human flotsam that hurt little girls and then weigh that crime against the totality of what they may have done.....there is nothing that they could have done that would in the slightest measure make up for what they did. Nothing. To argue in their defense (assuming that they are GUILTY which MUST be proven) is self delusion. I don't care how many times they helped a little old lady across the street, it is as nothing. To hurt a child in that manner IS evil incarnate. As to assigned vs inherent value....you are mincing words. They voluntarily gave up any shred of humanity. It is only because society must retain its humanity that I remain a staunch defender of the necessity of using the law to ensure that they are dealt with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 You want me to look at the human flotsam that hurt little girls and then weigh that crime against the totality of what they may have done.....there is nothing that they could have done that would in the slightest measure make up for what they did. Nothing. To argue in their defense (assuming that they are GUILTY which MUST be proven) is self delusion. Spy Car is right. You do twist words. I tried to explain myself in good faith and you seem bent on misconstruing what I say. So be it. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 1. for rehabilitation 2. To separate the offender from society (to protect the innocent) 3. To punish and as a by-product to deter future criminal activity Where is revenge on this list? Are you equating revenge with punishment? Because again, I disagree that they are the same. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) Spy Car is right. You do twist words. I tried to explain myself in good faith and you seem bent on misconstruing what I say. So be it. Tara I quoted you....what did I miss? Stating that I twist words as a means for you to avoid a question or comment is actually doing exactly what you accuse me of. Simply because you may not like the question or comment is not an indictment of my words or any evidence that I twisted yours, but accusing me of it makes a nice out for you dosen't it? I strongly disagree with any value that you assign to scum who se#ually molest children, yet you argue that they may have some value. Where is the twisting? Edited March 12, 2011 by pqr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mejane Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Bring it back for creatures like Paul Bernardo. Who will never see the outside of prison, but gets cable, protective custody, etc, etc until he dies. What possible good is he serving society? Other than providing jobs to those in corrections, none that I can see. Imo, he's a waste of good oxygen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Here's the thing for me. I completely believe that evil exists. I believe that there are those that are evil. Their humanity doesn't exist. To be able to do the horrendous things they've done, is to me, beyond human capabilities. They frighten me to be completely honest. The specter of more innocents suffering makes me want to throw up. I knew a family that had a son, 14, that was a violent predator. He preyed on his siblings, neighbourhood children...the horror of acts committed was so beyond description. At 18, he was released. No record of his acts. Free and clear. He TOLD the counselors, etc that he didn't want to change, and would simply be smarter about how he preyed on children. There's something essential missing in some ppl. A dead eyes, nothing but darkness. It scares me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacy in NJ Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 They aren't the same. Justice is revenge when it is socially sanctioned (i.e. approved). Where is revenge on this list? Are you equating revenge with punishment? Because again, I disagree that they are the same. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.