"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"....?

One of the functions of murder by the state (capital punishment) is avoid the eye-for-an-eye (lex talonis) practiced in most societies before they have a state. The state, virtually everywhere, reserves for itself a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. That means that all personal uses of force (except when used in self-defense, not vengeance) is outlawed once a state is established. If you are damaged by another you must turn to the state for official reparation. It is thus the state, not you, who "takes revenge" (as in "the people versus so and so). But, while I see the necessity for outlawing blood vengeance, I, like Cyracuz, do not want to bloody my hands by having the state murder in my name.

Nobody

As for the "stupid" I don't know. Perhaps I am.
But you are wrong when you say that when someone examines a penal system, he does so under the influence of sadism, pity, fear or resentment. You see, there are people - like me - that must deal with the penal system everyday. People who has to make decisions envolving other people lives (criminals or victims). And you are wrong again when you say that most blue collour criminals are retarded. Of course, as a european citizen I have not a great knowledge of the situation of US. But white colour or blue colour criminals are not as different as you think. As I said before, both want what most people whant: but they want it know, no matter how they do it.
And I remember you one other thing: white collour criminals, in general, don't kill. Crimes against property cannot be compared with crimes against life.

This has got to be one of the dumbest statments I have ever read on these boards.

Val, you misunderstood me more than once. First, I did not mean to suggest that EVERYONE who seriously examines the issue of punishment operates under the influence of fear, pity, resentment, sadism, etc.. I meant that TOO OFTEN that is the case, including here on A2K and previously on ABUZZ. You are a reflective person, I acknowledge and therefore more likely to examine the issue dispassionately.
Secondly, I did not mean to imply that all blue collar crimminals are retarded, but many are (the same, I think, with street walkers), nor do I suggest that all blue collar crime involves physical violence (e.g., burglary and the dealing of harmless drugs like marijuana). I suspect that most blue collar crimes are committed by people who do not want to take the risk of being in a violent situation. I do think that the sociologist (Robert K. Merton?) was right when he argued that all people (in industralized societies) are to some extent socialized to want the rewards of "Success"--wealth, luxury, prestige, etc.., but that for many people there exists far less opportunity for the achievement of success. This "blocked opportunity structure" is reflected variablly in poor parents, class discrimination, inferior educational opportunities, lesser intelligence, and perhaps socialization into a Culture of Poverty (Oscar Lewis). The last is seen principally, as you note, in impatience, in the inability to delay gratification. All this compels some people--those with the greatest desire for the objects of the successful llife and the least amount of ability to achieve them legally--to commit crimes. Indeed, the life of crime IS their opportunity structure, and with it a high chance of imprisonment (many, but not all, ar
Thirdly, white collar criminals are often guilty of not only ruining their victims' lives economically (e.g. the savings and loans scandals, Enron, etc. etc. etc. etc.), but that many companies actually kill (the chemical company in India, Vioxx, the tabacco industry which intentionally concealed known dangers of smoking, etc. etc. etc.), and these people rarely if ever spend time in prison for their "respectable crimminality" (another way of saying White Collar crime). We middle class educated people are repelled, and rightly so, by overt violence, and wish, and rightly so, to have such perpetrators off our streets. When I see violence performed I want to take a gun and shoot the perpetrators. That's how much I hate it. The perpetrators inspire me to be like them.
One last point: I hate the big respectable criminals who resort to injurious crime out of greed. They do the harm they do not because the alternative is poverty, but because their consciences are minimal and their apetites are insatiable. They also, as with the former governor Arizona and Bush of Texas, people like them feel that they have a God-given right to exploit their class inferior retirees of their pension funds and to send thousands of youths to die for their own ideological fantasies.

Hey, thanks Jpin milwaukee. Dumb you say? So you are claiming that there is no truth whatsoever in this statement? Read it again

I re-read and all I see is that you are willing to let criminals out on the street because of some perceived inhumanity. So I stand by my statment of that being one of the dumbest things ever written. Even earlier you wrote:



Apart from you giving absolutely no evidence what so ever about our judgement being "never just" or "concience" being "a far better judge and a far more severe punisher than our judges can ever be," the problem is that not everybody has a conscience. Not everybody feels remorse for their actions. But you are willing to let these people free to, how did you put it, "carve a path of bloodshed" through innocent people because you are worried about the injustice casued by locking up a criminal. That is stupid. The real injustice is that people like you are more worried about the rights of criminals then the innocent people that these criminals harm.

You dream of a utopian society... a kind of cosmic justice where everybody gets what is coming to them... where everything is fair and balanced and happy endings. But there is no such place. Bad people do bad things to good people and should be locked up and forgotten about. I don't care about their rights. I don't care about their humanity. I care about the innocent poeple on the outside who should be able to walk down the street at night and not have to worry about being raped/killed/mugged/beaten/kidnapped.

No dream. This is the way things are. The laws of man are a supplement to this situation in an attempt to make humans the deciding factor in who lives and who dies. What you're describing above is natures own law. Seems you are too scared that you might get what you feel you don't deserve, and so you turned everything up side down.

Justice is simply the elegant gown and wig in which people dress revenge.

Creating an orderly and peaceful society is which "crimes" do not occur is another goal, one that I doubt can ever be achieved so long as people believe in "justice".

That is assuming that we wish an orderly and peaceful society, I personally am not encouraging it.

Hey J.P. forgive me for placing your quotes below out of order. But it's funny, so it's for a good cause.





hehe

What did I turn upside down? You want to let violent criminals out of jail becasue you are worried about their humanity. I want to keep them locked up so that they can not commit anymore crimes against innocent people. If you think that is upside down then you are more messed up than I thought.

Let me ask you this... if we do not jail people, what method do we use to keep them from committing more crimes?

You are not responsible for their actions regardless of what they wish you to think. The "state" doesn't exist beyond a belief within the heads of certain people.

Is theft a crime? Morally it can be defended that property is crime. Do you own anything Jpin?

Is murder a crime? If so, who can be kille and who not? Do you eat meat Jpin?


I think there are a lot of defferences between our more fundamental views, Jpin, that are evident here. For one, I do not distinguish between life in humans and life in other beings.

Cyracuz, try answering the question instead of tiptoeing around it by playing the semantics game.

Very well. What falls under the term crime can be discussed. If killing is wrong no matter what, then why does the american government kill so wrecklessly without sanction? One simple answer: There is no one who can call them down. They are too mighty.

This is the true law we go by.

When you say you don't want people committing more crimes I assume your motives are quite selfish. You don't want to be their next victim. This is understandable and also entirely christian of you.

Besides, Jpin. The answer to your question is already given in the form of a few new questions, but I don't think you see them from behind that self righteous judgement of yours.

War is a completely different issue. Not everything is so black and white. Should we have let Hitler roam free to carry out his plans because fighting back would make us killers, too? But nice of you to show your anti-american side.



So what?



Damn right I don't want to become their next victim. Selfish... not at all. I don't want my family to be a victim either, or the innocent little boy that lives next door, or the grandmother the next state over, or you or your family in another country. I don't want anybody to be a victim. Unfortanately I live in reality, unlike yourself, and realize that a victimless society exists only in our minds. Christianity also has nothing to do with the discussion... but nice of you to show your prejudices against that as well. We're learning a lot about you.



In other words... you don't have an answer to my question.

No anti americanism here. Just an example. Why is war different?

To be honest, Jpin, and at the risk of sounding arrogant; it seems that your take on what is selfish is somewhat... wrongheaded. When you state that christianity has nothing to do with this discussion you are advertising your ignorance. Christianity has ALOT to do with it.

You are not trying to understand my views Jpin. You are trying to use them to glorify your own. That is just disrespectful. With a mindset like that I can see how you feel that the judicial system is just.

If you apply your mind to my previous questions, you might understand a thing or two.

You use a lot of words but don't say anything. You tell me my take on selfishness is "wrongheaded" but don't offer any explanation as to why. You say criminals should not be locked up but don't offer any explanation as to what we should do with them. Should we just take your word for it?

You say I am not trying to understand your views, which is just plain wrong. I have been asking you questions as to what you think we should do with criminals if we can't lock them up. I am trying to understand your views but you avoid the question and instead try to paint me as a holier than thou born again christian do gooder.

Maybe I am ignorant and just can't understand what you are trying to say... or maybe you don't have a good answer to the question:

How are we supposed to keep criminals from committing crimes if we don't put them in jail?

All right. Let me see if I can get this straight in my own mind:

Most penal systems operate on the following premises:

Rehabilitation which doesn't appear to work because of the high rate of recidivism.

Deterrent which is saying to potential criminals: Don't even think about it or you'll end up in the clink. Considering the high rate of crime, at different periods, that doesn't seem to work as it should.

Retribution which is simply the "eye for the eye" idea.

I don't subscribe to capital punishment because once an inmate is put to death, all hope of finding answers to the why's and wherefore's vanish.

Frankly, and I think all here would agree, institutions were first created to remove unpleasant or dangerous people from the eye and the minds of the general public so that the public won't have to think or be involved with the concept.

My point is that if you want to imprison criminals because you are afraid of them you will never be free no matter how many criminals you put behind bars. Fear comes from within, and it is within that fear must be fought.

That is the essence of the phrase headlining this thread, and the point I am arguing.



My answer is a question that needs to be answered BEFORE yours:
Who are we to assume this responsibility, and by what power do you justify that?

Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent - Adam Smith

Letty,

The thing is our penal system is not acting as a deterent becasue it isn't much of one. We had the chance to pass manditory sentencing for crimes but chose not to because people deserve a second chance. This is counterproductive to the deterent idea. Common sense tells us that the less severe the punishment the higher probability that that crime is going to be commited. Speeding is a good example. We all do it because we know that chances are we are going to get away with it. Even if we do get caught a $200 fine isn't that big of a deal. But would you speed if you could be arrested and jailed for it? I sure as heck wouldn't.

Cryacuz's idea is to let everybody out of jail because he thinks that criminals consciences are a far better and more severe punishment then anything we could do to them. i say bullsh!t. If there are no consequences for crime there will be more crime.

The solution is to make jail more of a deterant.