I think we have a similar concept of revenge - an emotional response to 'get even' when we feel wronged (eye for an eye).
I think justice is somewhat harder to define, because the term means ultimate and correct judgement and as humans we are unable to make ultimate judgement as we are bound by space and time and we cannot guarantee flawless or correct judgement. Justice must be assessed outside of the domain of time. I believe in a God and creator who was before all things and exists outside of time (eternity is in his hand) and it is only God who can deliver true justice as the past and future are not a mystery and any crime can be assessed from an eternal perspective.
In terms of the 'justice' we have here on earth. I believe strongly that criminal actions should have punitive consequences and that we should make our best effort to accurately judge and appropriately punish.
Is it a crime to inflict punishment on a criminal, even if it means having to actually kill a murderer? I say no. If they truly committed the crime then they deserve the punishment and forfeit their right to life.
Well this kinda seems like a death penalty yes or no thread but Ill go with it. Putting someone in a concrete box for the rest of their life seems much worse than merely killing them quickly.
I think justice is somewhat harder to define, because the term means ultimate and correct judgement and as humans we are unable to make ultimate judgement as we are bound by space and time and we cannot guarantee flawless or correct judgement. Justice must be assessed outside of the domain of time. I believe in a God and creator who was before all things and exists outside of time (eternity is in his hand) and it is only God who can deliver true justice as the past and future are not a mystery and any crime can be assessed from an eternal perspective.
You discuss god?
In terms of the 'justice' we have here on earth. I believe strongly that criminal actions should have punitive consequences and that we should make our best effort to accurately judge and appropriately punish.
No argument there.
Is it a crime to inflict punishment on a criminal, even if it means having to actually kill a murderer?
Actually I think we apply too much government policy to the punishment of criminals. I think that justice was more aptly served when it was the victims of the crime who exacted revenge. These days many laws are notoriously lax, and honestly I feel the death penalty is underused and it is a long, expensive, political process.
I believe that people should have more rights to defend themselves and their property and that many laws should have much steeper and decisive consequences. Incarceration is notoriously ineffective at rehabilitation and education of criminals, so locking them up is pointless. You are simply removing the symptom of the real issue temporarily, not solving the issue.
As long as we have society we will have those who violate the basic tenets that make society function smoothly. But by taking the power away from the people and placing it on the government we allow great individual power to those that wish to commit crimes. And by being so lax with our punishments our legal system fails to provide enough deterrence to those who are considering committing such crimes.
Also, incarceration for smaller petty crimes has little deterrent value and often times promotes education in crime as opposed to rehabilitation of poor social ethics and skills. I believe that most jails should instead be education and treatment centers, not simply cages. And those committing the most heinous of crimes should be swiftly and publicly eliminated, as there is no use for their kind in our society.
and honestly I feel the death penalty is underused and it is a long, expensive, political process.
My biggest issue with the death penalty is the cost. The use of the electric chair is a waste of energy and money to use. The way lethal injection is set up is a joke. The Gas chamber is also an overly expensive method.
We could simply just put a bullet in there head. If we are to concern ourselves with them feeling pain, the right caliber at close range the criminal being killed won't feel it. We could also just use an overdose of morphine to kill them, guaranteed the criminal will not feel it.
My dads idea for handling rape crimes was to strap the rapist to a chair and lock them in with a bunch of people who have been raped. Then what ever happens to the incapacitated rapist happens, no questions asked. If he ends up dead so be it.
In terms of the 'justice' we have here on earth. I believe strongly that criminal actions should have punitive consequences and that we should make our best effort to accurately judge and appropriately punish.
Is it a crime to inflict punishment on a criminal, even if it means having to actually kill a murderer? I say no. If they truly committed the crime then they deserve the punishment and forfeit their right to life.
The law is not absolute; it is full of contradictions. It is a process in which we nurtured and built on ever since the first society was built. We cannot make the most accurate of punishments in a situation; the only thing we can do is have the outcome and solution better suit the circumstances.
My biggest issue with the death penalty is the cost.
Actually, the largest increase of cost in a death penalty case versus a typical class 1 felony case is the long series of appeals, the added research, evidence gathering, and professional witnesses used to gain a conviction. If the application of the sentence was carried out immediately this alone would reduce the cost of death penalty trials to less than that of a typical class 1 felony trial. This also eliminates the cost of housing the inmate for the 8-20 years it takes to enact the sentence.
We could simply just put a bullet in there head. If we are to concern ourselves with them feeling pain, the right caliber at close range the criminal being killed won't feel it.
This is how we slaughter cattle. There is a metal spike with a .22 caliber bullet at the tip. You place the spike between the eyes and hit the back with a mallet. This fires the round directly through the brain and death is instant and painless. If it's humane enough for a helpless animal that has done no harm to anyone it's good enough for murderers, rapists, child molesters and their ilk.
My dads idea for handling **** crimes was to strap the rapist to a chair and lock them in with a bunch of people who have been *****. Then what ever happens to the incapacitated rapist happens, no questions asked. If he ends up dead so be it.
While this certainly would be a fitting punishment, it crosses the line into cruel and unusual punishment, which is disallowed by law. Also, in such an instance those people punishing this rapist are fueled by emotion, although rightly so. However this would likely lead them to committing acts that would later have a severe traumatic effect and would in all likelihood be detrimental to their psychological recovery from their traumatic experiences.
The law is not absolute; it is full of contradictions.
I definitely agree with you there. There are many things about our legal system which are far from perfect. However given these imperfections we honestly need to either develop a way to make the system more perfect, or remove the system and return the enforcement of justice to the hands of the people.
We cannot make the most accurate of punishments in a situation; the only thing we can do is have the outcome and solution better suit the circumstances.
No, but we can reevaluate whether or not the punishments fit the crime, and our definitions of the rights of the people. We can increase the severity of the punishments of the most heinous crimes in order to act as a greater psychological deterrent, while replacing the caging of people who commit lesser crimes with education, treatment, and rehabilitation in order to decrease their propensity toward those actions and reduce the overall amount of crime in our society.
I've thought about this. A lot. What I have realized in my contemplation:
To err is human, to forgive in divine.
I don't believe in punishment. It's revenge masquerading as justice. I don't think a rapist deserves a bad turn for his actions, not even a slap on the wrist. Two wrongs really do not make a right.
The reason behind this is a simple question: Why revenge? What does it do? Who does it help? Revenge, I think, is just a petty and feeble attempt at evening something. It's the idea that, after the fact, it will somehow make the world right.
But it doesn't. It's just hurting someone for no good reason. That is, of course, morally wrong and the idea that so many people think it isn't is, frankly, a bit scary. I'm all for prevention and rehabilitation, however.
I don't believe in punishment. It's revenge masquerading as justice. I don't think a rapist deserves a bad turn for his actions, not even a slap on the wrist. Two wrongs really do not make a right.
So you leave them free to repeat their actions? And you let everyone know that they can whatever they want sans consequences? And where does that take us as a society?
Why revenge? What does it do? Who does it help? Revenge, I think, is just a petty and feeble attempt at evening something. It's the idea that, after the fact, it will somehow make the world right.
Well incarceration removes dangerous people from our society. It keeps those who have shown a propensity toward violence away from the rest of us, thus making our society slightly safer.
But it doesn't. It's just hurting someone for no good reason. That is, of course, morally wrong and the idea that so many people think it isn't is, frankly, a bit scary. I'm all for prevention and rehabilitation, however.
And how do you propose that we prevent these behaviors? And how do we rehabilitate them without separating them from society, at least for the short term?
I bring a thought from the novel Dune. Perhaps one of the greatest pieces of work I have ever read.
While I disagree with religion, and any theocratic type of government I wonder at this: "A crime must be a sin to them." So I ask, is this possible to install in our own society without turning to a theocracy?
As for my idea of justice. There is no justice, we will always find something that needs to be avenged.
While I disagree with religion, and any theocratic type of government I wonder at this: "A crime must be a sin to them." So I ask, is this possible to install in our own society without turning to a theocracy?
You mean embedding religious morals into our society. We have done that it worked until people found out the Christianity is balls and most people became more layed back about religion.
