|
Post by Sigmaleph on May 9, 2009 20:23:33 GMT -5
Personally, I think that calling it "revenge" is just sort of a dick way of putting "making sure they get what they deserve." Call it whatever you like. I just believe that a justice system should be concerned, primarily, with reducing crime. If criminals getting what they deserve is the best way to go about it, then do it. If not, don't. On your other point, yes, the victim usually gets something out of the feeling the criminal got what they deserve. But, do you really believe we should honour the victim's desire for revenge, justice or whatever over rehabilitation (when possible)?
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on May 9, 2009 21:00:25 GMT -5
On your other point, yes, the victim usually gets something out of the feeling the criminal got what they deserve. But, do you really believe we should honour the victim's desire for revenge, justice or whatever over rehabilitation (when possible)? That kind of implies you feel the rehabilitation of a socially destructive criminal should take precedence over the victim's right to due justice. Especially when you consider that rehabilitation is entirely up to the criminal. Without an innate desire to leave a life of crime, or to get aid for whatever emotional issues caused them to snap, rehabilitation is entirely impossible. Added to the fact that rehabilitation is something very easy to fake, and criminal rehabilitation programs become an easy way out of prison for violent criminals.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 9, 2009 21:32:13 GMT -5
I'm with Nutcase on most of what he says, except for the rehabilitation working really well thing. I don't have any fancy hyperlinks to give you all, it just doesn't seem right, considering that's been the focus for like decades now, and we haven't exactly deterred crime any more effectively than the old chop-your-hand-off method.
(Again, not endorsing that.)
I also don't understand his random remark that we don't care enough about hot, expansive fields of sand.
The thing I think is, we have all of these debates about capital punishment, eye for an eye, whatever, but we never seem to argue about whether or not victims should get more help. It's not that I don't understand the idealism behind trying to find a better way, but eye for an eye, by sheer definition, is fair punishment, if done right.
To put what I'm saying a little too simply: Fuck the criminal. As long as the punishment isn't cruel or unusual, I really don't give a rat's ass what happens to them.
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on May 9, 2009 21:44:15 GMT -5
I've honestly never understood why punishments shouldn't be cruel or unusual. They obviously weren't concerned over whether they were being cruel or unusual to their victims.
A murderer doesn't just kill a person. They drastically change the lives of every person close to the victim, causing untold amounts of mental anguish, possibly causing permanent psychological damage. The same thing happens in the case of rape; sure, the woman may live, but she is potentially emotionally crippled for life.
And what do we do? We throw the offenders into comfortable, if boring, government-funded hotels. The only truly negative aspect of the experience of prison is the risk of being targeted by others like yourself. And despite the fact that the damage caused by the offender may never be healed, in all but the worst of cases, the criminal will eventually be released back into the public to carry on their life.
Cruel and unusual may be exactly what it sounds like. But if the criminals have proved anything, it's that cruel and unusual gets permanent results.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on May 9, 2009 21:53:18 GMT -5
On your other point, yes, the victim usually gets something out of the feeling the criminal got what they deserve. But, do you really believe we should honour the victim's desire for revenge, justice or whatever over rehabilitation (when possible)? That kind of implies you feel the rehabilitation of a socially destructive criminal should take precedence over the victim's right to due justice. Yes, I do believe that. Because when you rehabilitate them, guess what, they are no longer a socially destructive criminal. As I said before, I believe that in a justice system reducing crime should be the priority, and therefore take precedence over the victim's wishes. And yes, I know rehabilitation is not always possible, which is why I added that parenthetical statement.
|
|
|
Post by John E on May 9, 2009 22:00:16 GMT -5
Personally, I think that calling it "revenge" is just sort of a dick way of putting "making sure they get what they deserve." And I think "making sure they get what they deserve" is just a sugar coated way of saying "revenge." No, it's not the same shit. We're helping victims recover by having them get their jollies from violence? Is there any evidence that violence to the criminal makes the victim happier or psychologically healthier in the long term? On a larger scale, there IS evidence that the death penalty has a brutalizing effect on the population, making people MORE violent. A man murders a child. What's the appropriate punishment? "Death!" some might say, but is that an equal punishment? No. For one, the victim died as a child, but the murderer got to live until however old he was at the time the sentence is carried out, so killing the murderer can't possibly be equal. How do we make up the difference? Do we torture him some? How much? What's more, the child is not the only victim. Her parents had to suffer through her death. So did her older brother. How do we punish the murderer for that? Do we kill his child? Do we kill two of his children, since there were two parents? Do we then kill one of his siblings? And since the victim's family has to live with that loss for the rest of their lives, isn't it unfair to let the murderer escape his pain so quickly by putting him to death? What then is the equal punishment? My point is that even in cases of violent crime, when it's possible to violate the criminal in retribution, it's still impossible to make the retribution equal to the crime.
|
|
|
Post by deliciousdemon on May 9, 2009 22:02:40 GMT -5
Some say a truly just and merciful authority would -- even for the slightest offense -- impose a punishment that is indescribably painful and lasts for eternity. R.J. Sawyer explored that idea in his Parallax universe. In the Barast (read: Neanderthal) world, offences are punished by castration of the offender and anyone sharing 50% of the offender's genetic material (parents, children, siblings). The punishment is so extreme crime is almost unknown to them.
|
|
|
Post by John E on May 9, 2009 22:03:14 GMT -5
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." Gandhi was great and all, but this isn't one of his better sayings. It's catchy, sure, but taken as a literal analogy, each person still has an eye left. That's assuming everyone stops hurting each other after the first offense and punishment, which they often don't.
|
|
|
Post by John E on May 9, 2009 22:09:28 GMT -5
On your other point, yes, the victim usually gets something out of the feeling the criminal got what they deserve. But, do you really believe we should honour the victim's desire for revenge, justice or whatever over rehabilitation (when possible)? That kind of implies you feel the rehabilitation of a socially destructive criminal should take precedence over the victim's right to due justice. Do I think that preventing further crime and victimizations is more important than giving people a subjective and fleeting feeling of "justice"? Abso-fucking-lutely.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on May 9, 2009 22:17:39 GMT -5
That kind of implies you feel the rehabilitation of a socially destructive criminal should take precedence over the victim's right to due justice. Do I think that preventing further crime and victimizations is more important than giving people a subjective and fleeting feeling of "justice"? Abso-fucking-lutely. Exalt. Justice is just a fancy word for revenge.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 9, 2009 22:18:11 GMT -5
Cruel and unusual punishments are among the few times I think the slippery slope argument is valid. We may go too far ensuring that everyone is treated well today, but at least we're not a tyrannical society that metes out even the slightest offense with some brutal punishment. Or worse, we could be like Saudi Arabia and punish the VICTIM.
As for rape...eh...at the risk of sounding like a dick, I think you're blowing it a little out of proportion. Understand, I'm not trying to minimalize the offense so much as I'm trying to accentuate the fact that people can move on with their lives. I can't really speak that much on this issue, though, as I really don't know jack shit when it comes to rape. I can think of several examples of scenarios where it would have been pertinent for us [speaking about myself as a student] to be taught about it, but we really weren't. I'd actually sort of like to suggest to someone that, somewhere along the line, kids should get a better understanding of that issue. Just not quite sure of how to go about that yet.
Erickson: The "revenge leads to revenge" argument is as nonsensical as the "they'll just hurt more people" argument. The individual isn't going to get out of jail to do either spin of that statement. And yeah, crime isn't going to stop. I said something to this effect a while ago.
Most of the stuff from the first paragraph I think was just semantics. "It isn't fair because they were older"? Come on. Seriously. Maybe I should have just said, "It's as fair as we can reasonably make it," then? And the difference between "revenge" and "eye-for-an-eye" is that revenge is about doing whatever makes you, as an individual feel better. Eye-for-an-eye is attempting to objectively decide on a fair and equal punishment for the individual.
I'm not saying that preventing crime is a bad thing, what I'm basically saying is that the sentiments presented in here are just empty idealism. In the example you outlined, you speak out so strongly about the hypothetical man's offense that I really rather doubt you'd WANT him to be reintigrated into society.
|
|
|
Post by John E on May 9, 2009 22:20:11 GMT -5
Some say a truly just and merciful authority would -- even for the slightest offense -- impose a punishment that is indescribably painful and lasts for eternity. QFT. True, there are those who will say how unjust it is. There are those who wil complain about the morality of it all. Okay, let's drop the morality argument and talk practicality. How would a justice system based on this model work? One, if every broken law was punished with death, everyone in the country would be dead within 10 years. Two, with no graduation of punishment for different kinds of crimes, once one has, say, jay-walked, he has no incentive not to commit any other offense imaginable. In other words, he may as well go on a killing spree, because his punishment will be the same regardless. Three, if the people living in that country have any brains, they'll revolt and overthrow the government. Some security.
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on May 9, 2009 22:23:09 GMT -5
]Yes, I do believe that. Because when you rehabilitate them, guess what, they are no longer a socially destructive criminal. As I said before, I believe that in a justice system reducing crime should be the priority, and therefore take precedence over the victim's wishes. And yes, I know rehabilitation is not always possible, which is why I added that parenthetical statement. Do I think that preventing further crime and victimizations is more important than giving people a subjective and fleeting feeling of "justice"? Abso-fucking-lutely. The point I was trying to make is that rehabilitation only works in cases where the offender was likely never to commit the crime again in the first place, or where living conditions thrust the crime upon them. In any other case, rehabilitation systems are simply open doors to innately and proudly violent criminals.
|
|
|
Post by John E on May 9, 2009 22:25:13 GMT -5
Erickson: The "revenge leads to revenge" argument is as nonsensical as the "they'll just hurt more people" argument. The individual isn't going to get out of jail to do either spin of that statement. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but that is exactly what happens. Criminals victimize people, get sent to prison to get victimized themselves, and come out worse than before. I would, if he could be rehabilitated. If not, I'd rather he were simply isolated from the general population (life in prison) so that he couldn't hurt anyone else, rather than killed.
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on May 9, 2009 22:28:55 GMT -5
I would, if he could be rehabilitated. If not, I'd rather he were simply isolated from the general population (life in prison) so that he couldn't hurt anyone else, rather than killed. Alright, then. Then let's make you solely responsible for paying for this man's food, clothing, medical expenses, utilities, and guard service, for the rest of his natural life. After all, you're forcing that expense on the rest of us due to the fact you don't want to just deal with an incurably violent criminal in the cheapest, timeliest way possible.
|
|