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

More interesting question. Why do you feel that it is right?



I very much respect the cleverness of this answer. Yet it doesn't hide that you're avoiding the point.



Hmmm.... let me tell you a little story, it somewhat relates to my prejudices on this point.

In case you haven't noticed I'm an arrogant little upstart who thinks he's far cleverer than he actually is. This resulted in me being picked on quite a bit during primary and high school. Despite our school having "laws" and a "justice system" designed to prevent it, the actual application thereof left much to be desired.

Within our society the police, much like my old teachers choose how they react to the crime, the law depends upon the participation of judges, lawyers, police and politicians. None of whom I can trust.

Ergo I feel no protection from such a random splurt of legal activity and simply provide my own protection or retaliation against travesties inflicted against myself or my friends.

That's not very true, so you don't have to worry.

I believe that people who are pedophiles, sexual offenders, etc, should be kept under very close watch while also being rehabilitated. Whether this means always keeping them in prison while they are rehabilitated, I'm not sure of.

Jpin wrote:


Is cruelty to the guilty mercy to the innocent?
Your quote is too black and white to be applicable in the real world. Nobody is all guilty or all innocent. That's the point I tried to make earlier.

If the innocent who have lost a loved one by a killers hand feel wronged by the mercy shown to the killer, then are they really that innocent? It will not rectify anything to execute the killer. One wrong does not right another. It is not mathematics, where two negatives create a positive.

Our ancestors, the ones who wrote the laws, knew this. They were aware of the moral difficulties surrounding this problem, and they tried their best to compensate for them, and their line of thought may have gone something like this:

Jpin wrote:


I'm not sorry either that he cannot commit more crimes, but I am sorry that to deprive him of his freedom is the only means to ensure this. I agree that being a victim of his illness does not excuse his actions, but none the less he is a victim.

The system of law is not a payback tool. It is not meant to exact vengeance. Whenever the wronged feel that the system is inadequate it is because their are not avenged. This is their pride, not their sense speaking.

It is important that those who enforce the system try to make it as good as possible for all parts involved. Not just the victim. The criminal too. By good I do not mean butter his bread for him. I mean that he should be confronted with challenges that enabled him to grow past his vile acts. Most criminals will see this as punishment, and it should continue until they realized what it actually was.

To keep them from committing more crimes. A few people have argued on this thread that no matter how severe the punishment is, it is not a deterent for crime. These people will committ crime no matter what... unless they are locked up where they can not commit crime. It keeps society safe. I answered your question... now you anser mine:

Why do you feel that it is wrong to lock up a person who has proven that they can and will not contribute to society in a positive manner?



What point? That not everything is balck and white? So what... that is why people are innocent until proven guilty. That is why we have trials judged by our peers. That is why we have a system in the first place. Is it perfect? No. Nothing ever will be. But you have yet to offer an alternative.

As clever as my response was it was not meant to hide or avoid any point... it is the truth.



How is it working for you? I actually don't blame you for providing your own protection. The system is flawed as it is. I have been advocating a ramping up of the system while you are advocating a tearing down of the system. You already don't trust a system, which does work, but not very good. Your solution is to make it work even less. Can't you see the flawed logic in that reasoning?

Name one proven method of rehabilitation.

In Norway in the old days notorious drunks used to be outfitted with an antabus dispenser under their skin. Antabus is a drug that has no effect on the body until alcohol is introduced. Then it just makes you really sick and makes you vomit.

The problem with this method is that you cannot change someone who doesn't want to change. To try and force someone to stop drinking is not going to work. This antabus practice showed that, and so it was abolished.

The first step towards rehabilitating pedophiles would have to make them want to be rehabilitated. How? Make them really understand their crimes.

Chemotherapy. Although not 100%, it does work sometimes.

There might not be an insured method of rehabilitation at the present, but this is the ongoing research, and just because there isn't a proven method as of yet, it does not mean that it is not possible. If there is no will to try, then the impossibility of rehabilitation would be created.

"Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent" is too vague a quote to use for a justification. What does he really mean by mercy and cruelty?
Is he advocating a vigilante based system? It is no doubt that we do think that people who are guilty should be punished, but it is also as reasonable to make people see what they are doing wrong and to not take away their right to life and security as they are humans themselves who have made horrendous mistakes.

Chemotherapy? Sorry, val, not a new one. How about lobotomy? Not new either, but it sure is effective. Hell, it even sounds fair. Take someone's life, and we'll take all joy out of yours. You will be a mindless, uncraving zombie, harmless to everyone but yourself. The process is regrettably irreversible, but so is murder.

Castration is another option, although it will only work on men, obviously. We have lots of experience with this on dogs. When they loose the testicles they also seem to lose all aggression.

I am not saying that I would support any of these options, although it was fun thinking them up...

Cyracuz, you're referring to me right? Not Val?

Believe it or not, many sexual offenders actually choose to be cestrated (physiologically or chemically). I don't know how this will affect them though.


Lobotomy can't be compared to cognitive and chemotherapy.



We have anti-androgens.

JP,
I can't help but notice that you appear to believe that I'm in some fashion an opponent of jail on the grounds of moral sympathies with criminals. I'm curious at what point you drew this conclusion and upon what basis.

As for my desire to scrap the system it is because I have no confidence in the human race to administer "justice" effectively, particularly given the massive disagreement upon the meaning of the term. Forgive my misanthropic and anarchistic viewpoint here, but I simply don't think this system is actually achieving anything.

You say you wish to protect society and those who contribute to it. Yet what, precisely is the objective of society? What is your end goal? If you do not have an end goal, then how can you possibly hope to achieve it?

A "justice" system is not a standalone element of a society but rather one internal element by which it achieves its objective. Yet society has no objective, it is a collection of individuals who are each struggling for their own advantage (which includes caring for family and friends) by which various of the elite have utilised their power to establish that anyone who inflicts suffering on them and their kith will be "punished".

When society has a firm objective in mind, then a justice system is possible. Until then it is nothing more than a complicated mutual defence agreement. It is not designed out of morality, it is designed out of self-interest. Those attempting to introduce morality into it are thoroughly missing the point.

If society does have an endgoal then it should be achieved by the most efficient means possible. If that is jail then so be it, yet currently jails clearly aren't working. IMO your suggestion of increasing sentences will not be efficient.

I would recommend that should you wish to prevent "crime" then the "justice" system should be a combination of methods by which crime is prevented in the best way possible. Ideally individually crafted methods for each criminal based on what will be most effective for them as a disuasion compared to stock standard sentences which do not vary for the entire human race.

Had you read my posts carefully you would have noticed I have suggested an alternative. Corporal punishment. That's not a solution in and of itself, yet it could be included as an element. Like I said, individually tailored programs could be matched to each "criminal" based upon psychological assessment. Also included could be drug treatment, capital punishment and brainwashing.

Jail is insufficient. If it is intended to be preventative then capital punishment is more effective. If it is punishment then corporal is more efficient. If it is rehabilitive then psychological reprogramming is more efficient. Jail is an attempt to hybridize the goals of various facets of our society. A justice system can not be constructed by committee and still be effective.

Apolgies for the length of this summation but as a moral relativist and an anarchist my position on a "justice" system is somewhat complicated. I trust that I have made my point at least somewhat clearer. I also trust that you realise your perception of my point of view was incredibly inaccurate.

(Forgive me as well that I'm not particularly lucid at the moment. I slept poorly last night. If I've been unclear at all, then I'm happy to answer any questions for clarification, I should be clearer after another cup of coffe.)

Yep Ray. You are right. I'm sorry about that.

Actually, when it comes to thinking up sanctions I am a little cautious. I'm just not entirely sure wich side I'm on...

I think that the situation in norway is different from usa. Yesterday I watched the news, and a report came about a man who had taken a shotgun to a disco because he had been denied entrance (too drunk). Anyway, he shot a seventeen year old girl in, and she was on the news, showing us the damage. She also told about how she had met the shotgundesperado afterwards, and he had apologized. She did not forgive him, of course. (the girl will never lead a normal life)

I just thought this whole report was... strange.