Crime and punishment

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Teri, Apr 20, 2002.

  1. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    B\W if your thing was excepted there would be no crime because you could always find something the other person did to you first

    Revenges is murder under our laws, how about yours?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    You can not legistale morality, nor can you make everyone obey the law. The trick is to make the end result of breaking that law enough to make one stop and reconsider. (In crimes of passion this will not work either) You must carry through with the punishment so that the next one might think about not doing it. Now if you have some suggestion that is a deterant, I will listen, but I believe that most has been tried at one time or another with no success at all. If the punishment makes 1 out of say 4 reconsider, due to the concequences of that act, then you have done something. Doing nothing, or making the "rehabilation effort" less than the punishment opens the flood gates to any who would consider it. After all, when was the last time that a kid stopped doing something because he would be told to stand in the corner? How many have had to use this sort of punishment more than once even though the child understand what the results would be? Now, change the punishment to spanking. A lot of the kids will think about what happens afterwards. Not all but some will not what to get spanked more than others. In this case the punishment is a deterent but it is not 100% effective. Neither are the laws 100% effective. So what do you do? Let 'em walk free? Will you feel safe if this is what happens to murders or thieves? How will you make an effective treatment that works?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    I agree that "Protection" of scociaty is important, and if it works as a deterant then maybe thats good to (there is a point though, torcher might work but is just wrong)

    What im arguing is the value of punishment or VENGANCE (thats probably a better word as punishment is used to cover all of them)

    That is one of the arguments against the Death penalty, once there in jail we are protected from them

    My question was desined to see wether people think rehab (say it works 100% in this case) or vengance was more important

    Xev thinks vengance is because its
    this dosen't jell because you can't use it as a deffence in court, so it CAN'T be a human need

    Revenge is wrong, simple as that
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Bugger the law. I've never heard of a legal system that makes sense. I don't believe in law. I do believe in justice.
  8. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    What do you mean by justice?

    what IS justice?
  9. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    What do I mean by justice?

    I mean if someone punches you, punch them back harder so they don't do it again.

    If someone steals your wallet, take everything they own.

    If someone physically attacks you, you have the right to do anything you want to completely neutralise that threat. You are under no obligation to stop at anything less than complete neutralisation of any threat to your safety.

    In short: Whatever they do to you, do it back three times worse. Eventually they will learn not to screw people over.
  10. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    thats not justice

    Not my definition anyway

    Self defence is not justice but is compleatly JUSTIFIDE

    As to the rest i don't agree

    deterants don't work (if something WILL work as a deterant fair enough, as long as its ethical), and revenge is wrong

    I stand by that

    Revenge in ANY form is wrong, in a legle sence its wrong, in an ethical sence its wrong, in a economic sence its wrong, in most RELIGIONS its wrong, in a social sence its wrong and in a security sence its wrong, even is a scientific sence its wrong


    Ethics say killing is wrong in all sences, so using death penelty is wrong because its killing (in cold blood)

    the more people in a sociaty (working profitably, not in jails) the better sociaty is as a whole, economicaly

    This one is debateable but christanity says that anyone can change, there is no point of no return, other religions maybe different

    sociaty runs more smothly when people are happy and killing its own citisens or locking them up for long periods of time for mestakes you are breeding desent

    Long jail terms have a tendancy to make people re-offend

    science says that we should treat criminal behavior as a mental illness and try to cure the criminals

    As you can see there are quite a few reasons for forgiveness (or rehab depending on how you look at it)

    It is ingrained into our sociaty that people CAN change but we keep saying we need vengance. This ignores the other three componants of "justice" (rehabilitation, deterance, and protection)
  11. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    If people behave in a civilised manner, I don't harm them. Life is wonderful. That's all I ask of people: that they behave in a civilised manner. But they don't.

    Since we have free will, the committing of an act of harm against any other person is a deliberate choice. It is not sickness. It is not "society's" fault. It is a choice. If someone makes that choice and it involves me, they will most likely be in big trouble.
  12. WildCard Registered Member

    My view is that the human "community" has become too large for justice to operate effectively, as opposed to law.

    In a small community, if someone offended against you, then "justice" might be, for example, that they had to give you something of theirs in return, to an equal value of what was taken away. Difficult to measure, but easier by comparison to today's society. The entire community would be witness to such a transaction, and the offender perhaps (hopefully) sufficiently embarrassed so that it would not happen again. In small communities, everyone would also have a better (if not perfect) idea of who the offender really was as a person, and what may have caused antisocial behaviour in the first place.

    Modern society is impersonal, and offenders have to be treated in a manner where the "community" as whole can see that the law is adhered to.. and in such a case justice may not be fully served, and such it often appears to the victim and those who take a more personal interest. The law is applied by those who have no direct involvement or real interest in the case, as opposed to a small "tribe" of closely involved persons.

    Perhaps this is why Adam sees that justice is not served by law, a position which I fully agree with. However, I also can not see that retribution is the answer. Intellectually, I know that it's not, but in my heart I fully support his views. It's difficult for us to accept that "justice will be done" when we know that in many cases this just doesnt happen. If someone took my family, for example, I dont know if i could sit and do nothing waiting for "justice" to be served... because in most cases the punishment does not fit the crime, and in a large community the feeling of isolation after punishment is not so pronounced, rendering the punishment largely ineffective.
  13. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    It's not just about retribution/revenge. The fact is people are stupid, greedy bastards. If enough of them are hurt or made to face justice in some manner, they will eventually learn to behave. Revenge is about the past. Justice is also about the future.
  14. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member


    I see your thoughts of wanting to keep from killing as commendable. I do not, however agree with them and especially some of the other thoughts you have laid down.

    Culture and majority determine ethics. (Just like sanity) Crimes that carry the death penalty are for the most serious of offences. How does the family that lost a loved one console themselves to living with the idea that the perpetrator that wrecked their lives is living and will be in some cases back on the block in a matter of time? Their family member is gone never to be able to return to them. Why should that one, who caused their misery and grief, be able to profit by it later on in life? It sounds as if you say that the killer is more just because he will see many more days, while his victim has no voice to speak of the agony of his own death. Was the victim any less right because he is dead?

    If giving people jobs would eliminate crime then I would be all for it. People in jail are there because they could not live by society rules. Plain and simple. So how do you teach them it is wrong? Hollering at them is not going to do it. If you propose to have everyone working and no one in jail then you must have a near perfect deterrent. (One that works!) You will have to come up with what works to allow such people back into society; else you may be the next victim. Economics is not all the story. If it was, when some one was found guilty of any crime that meant imprisonment they would be shot to keep from having to spend money on them to feed, cloth, and house them.

    So how many do you allow the killer to kill before you decide that maybe he will never be able to interact with society. After the first death, if you do not stop the behavior, it will at some time resurface again. How would you feel if it were your son that was killed as the second victim after he had already been caught.

    Here we run into which is more deserving, the killer free to terrorize those around him or society, who is the victim? If you let the killer remain at large it will promote hysteria among those who are innocent and there are far more of them then there are of killers. Look at all the stuff that went on when Son of Sam was on the hunt. Or Jack The Ripper. Both are famous serial killers.

    I will not argue this point. What would you suggest to take its place?

    And how do you do that? We have tried jails, rehabs, institutions, but no single treatment works. Really seems to be effective in all round use it needs to be. A lot of this also depends on the individual. Rehabs returning to jail are just as high as ever because the rehab didn't take.
  15. Xev Registered Senior Member

    What? The Mafia? I don't see a connection.

    You hurt me, I take away your ability to hurt me ever again. Quid pro quo.

    Whether or not it is a basic need is not dependant on whether it works as a defense in court.

    Some ethical systems do, mine dosen't. Try again.

    Are you going to tell a rape victim: "Sorry, but your rapist could pour a bit of money into society, so we're going to let him off"?

    Bull. I won't let my sense of greed interefere with justice.

    There is no God, thus Christianity is false, thus your arguement fails.

    In any case, even if there were a God, He has no right to tell us what to do.

    MISTAKES? What? Since when were rape and murder itty bitty mistakes?!

    So keep them there for good! Or until they are too old to do anything!

    No it dosen't.

    None valid.
  16. *stRgrL* Kicks ass Valued Senior Member


    And how exactly can you give back the security and happiness you have taken from someone when you rape them. OR how can you give back a life if you take it?
  17. Xev Registered Senior Member

    You can't.

    So which side are you weighing in for?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. *stRgrL* Kicks ass Valued Senior Member

    Oh sorry! I thought everyone knew how I felt.

    Kill em all!!!!

    I fully support the death penalty, the only thing wrong with it is that we dont use it enough. Here where I work, we have a jail outreach program and education and rehabilitation DONT WORK! Their animals who dont give a shit about the lives of the people they terrorize. It could of been because of their extremely traumatized life

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But I for one, have lived that life and if I made it out okay, so can other people. They dont care about themselves or anyone else - so why do we feel the need to "figure them out"? I really wish they could be helped but the facts remain - they cant! So lock em forever or kill em. The latter makes more sense because it saves money and time and I believe the murderers and rapists deserve death. Just my opinion anyways.....

    Groove on
  19. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    I will surport the death penelty the SECOND somone points out to me the victome it has brought back

    Its NOT necisary and it DOSN'T deter ANYONE
  20. Xev Registered Senior Member

    It brought back Herbert West, of Arkham, MA.

    *Points at Herbert*
  21. WildCard Registered Member

    Maybe it doesn't bring the victims back, but it sure as hell makes sure that particular offender doesnt have any MORE victims.
  22. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    But if a person COULD be reformed with 100% chance of sucess i STILL don't think most of you people would take that as enough

    that was my origional point

    and it seems you people chose VENGANCE, so concratulations, you would all make perfect mobsters


    thats how the mafia work. its all tid for tat there to so you have the same idealogical base as them
  23. Xev Registered Senior Member

    *Places a horse head on Asguard's pillow*

    I would.

    Ad hominem. Attack my arguments, not me.

Share This Page