|
Post by skyloom on Aug 25, 2006 18:20:20 GMT -5
I find it odd that in so many people's minds, the 'eye for an eye' maxim is regarded as a minimum, whereas it was clearly intended to be a maximum.
You are quite right! The idea was no more than an eye for an eye, and so on.
|
|
|
Post by legallybrunette on Aug 26, 2006 18:30:58 GMT -5
On that basis, there may be some justification for an idea I had for child abusers - cut off their didgeridoos and then house them in secure accomodation and have them make goods which can be sold and the profits raised go to funding children's charities worldwide. There you have the eye for eye maxim satisfied to the bare minimum and the offender gets to give back to the very members of society he or she took from. As to other crimes, could be a bit tricky....
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Aug 31, 2006 15:48:07 GMT -5
On that basis, there may be some justification for an idea I had for child abusers - cut off their didgeridoos and then house them in secure accomodation and have them make goods which can be sold and the profits raised go to funding children's charities worldwide. There you have the eye for eye maxim satisfied to the bare minimum and the offender gets to give back to the very members of society he or she took from. As to other crimes, could be a bit tricky.... You know, that is a really good idea.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Aug 31, 2006 17:41:32 GMT -5
You know, that is a really good idea. Another more reasonable idea is to do the minimum needed to make society safe. Of course this would never satisfy the public thirst for bloody revenge, which is why many prisons don't meet the standards needed to hold animals for slaughter. It is also why so many come out of prison much less civilised than when they went in.
|
|
|
Post by legallybrunette on Sept 1, 2006 6:28:44 GMT -5
The minimum to keep society safe - Oh you mean drop the work for charitable purposes and just go with the removal of didgeridoos, Happy? ;)Yep, could be done. Still think we could make a bit of use of the guys before they go back out didgeridoo-less... ;D I kind of like the image of a hardened criminal sat at a table surrounded by mohair wool, trying to master the pearl and knit technique with a pair of bright pink plastic knitting needles....
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 1, 2006 13:02:17 GMT -5
The minimum to keep society safe - Oh you mean drop the work for charitable purposes and just go with the removal of didgeridoos, Happy? ;)Yep, could be done. Still think we could make a bit of use of the guys before they go back out didgeridoo-less... ;D I kind of like the image of a hardened criminal sat at a table surrounded by mohair wool, trying to master the pearl and knit technique with a pair of bright pink plastic knitting needles.... No. I mean don't put them in a brutal prison with other sex offenders where they learn how to lure children and evade law enforcement -- and then release them but notify some of the neighbors where they are (the present system). Set off an area of the country where they can live forever, where there are no children and from which they cannot escape. I'm sorry for them, but I see no good reason to repeatedly allow them to try again. If some psychiatrist thinks he can treat or cure them, let him try; but only one at a time and we'll see if the results are acceptable and if the grounds for his selections are appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Sept 1, 2006 13:20:47 GMT -5
The minimum to keep society safe - Oh you mean drop the work for charitable purposes and just go with the removal of didgeridoos, Happy? ;)Yep, could be done. Still think we could make a bit of use of the guys before they go back out didgeridoo-less... ;D I kind of like the image of a hardened criminal sat at a table surrounded by mohair wool, trying to master the pearl and knit technique with a pair of bright pink plastic knitting needles.... Why would you want to make use of those kind of guys? I would like to see there things removed too, but wouldn't want to make use out of them, yuck!
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Sept 2, 2006 9:26:53 GMT -5
The minimum to keep society safe - Oh you mean drop the work for charitable purposes and just go with the removal of didgeridoos, Happy? ;)Yep, could be done. Still think we could make a bit of use of the guys before they go back out didgeridoo-less... ;D I kind of like the image of a hardened criminal sat at a table surrounded by mohair wool, trying to master the pearl and knit technique with a pair of bright pink plastic knitting needles.... Or not. Some men find needlework relaxing and enjoyable. Two things are going on, I believe. One is that public thirst for bloody revenge that we have going in the U.S. The other is that we don't seem to know what to do with the addiction that child abusers have. We have the Betty Ford Clinics and the 12 Step Programs and such for alcohol and drug addicts, but we go for bloody revenge when it comes to child abusers instead of at least trying to find out if a clinic or a program could be of any help to them. Sure, child abusers have to pay up and make amends, apologies, and restitution (insofar as possible) for what they've done, just as alcoholics and drug abusers have to do. But the rest of us need to solve the problems we actually have, and not create other problems that we don't have at the moment. The "knitting circle" is also going to pass around a few tips about how to find more children and lose the cops while they pass their yarn around the needles.
|
|
|
Post by legallybrunette on Sept 2, 2006 15:45:50 GMT -5
Ugh Pumpkin mate - NO NO NO!! I didn't mean THAT kind of use of 'em. Ooh dear, I can feel my dinner coming up now.... I meant putting their knitting skills to good use but you're right Skyloom - they might just enjoy it. Also agree with Happy - that is what keeps happening over here - the authorities imprison them, purportedly treat them and then release them right back out into society but we don't even get the benefits of Megan's Law so we have no idea how many of these creeps are living near our innocent children. For instance, my little girl's last school which has kids aged 2-7, had a regular visitor - a middle aged man who would stand by the gates, watching the kids in the playground - they would be most little girls hanging upside down from climbing frames, with their underwear displayed for public viewing through the railings. I ended up approaching him a number of times and asking what his business was with the school and he would hurry away - true to form, he wore a dirty old beige mac and kept his hands in his trouser pockets - at least i think that is where they were.. Yuk.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 2, 2006 16:59:17 GMT -5
Also agree with Happy - that is what keeps happening over here - the authorities imprison them, purportedly treat them and then release them right back out into society but we don't even get the benefits of Megan's Law so we have no idea how many of these creeps are living near our innocent children. Quote from "Murphy Brown": "Some men think that meaningless sex is possible. That's why we should pity them and lock them up in cages". I just change "meaningless sex is possible" to "sex with children is acceptable".
|
|
|
Post by julrich on Sept 8, 2007 0:48:01 GMT -5
I think the way this discussion switched from the topic of revengeful state killing to generic punishment of sex offenders as though they were all equally guilty of the same thing is indicative of the point. We feel a strong emotional reaction when we identify with victims of crime. Who doesn't have empathy for a defenseless child victim of a pedophile? So we discuss the extremes of punishment they deserve without reference to any facts or individuals in a specific case. But justice isn't generic. It's supposed to be balanced to the particulars of the crime and the people. killing or castrating them all isn't justice. It's revenge. We're afraid we'll bump into a psycopathic killer and be murdered. So we identify with those who are murdered. forget that most of the murderers aren't like those psycopaths, and that many of those psycopaths don't get the death sentence. Just kill somebody for god's sake. Prosecutors in some states know their constituents don't even care if it's certain they're guilty. They just want another death to happen. It's not really a fair alternative to the blood feud. It's society's sublimation of the feud, so we don't have to dodge bullets in the street. It's still revenge, not justice. Justice is an attempt to repair social damage or to stop the loss from a tragedy. More killing doesn't do that.
jim
|
|
|
Post by pinbalwyz on Sept 9, 2007 5:29:58 GMT -5
It is mainly about vengence. You forget that the major reason for the existance for the criminal justice system is about punishing the offender (ie making the guy suffer). I think these days we have to much emphasis on the rehabilitation part of the punishment (no I am not against rehabilitation, but I do think that we as a society to have a responsibility to crime victims to ensure they see justice, to ensure they get to see the bad guy suffer, not in a disproportional way to the crime committed) You forget that the murderers are the bad guys. Yes, they may have been the innocent victims of a bad childhood, but that does not mean that they had a right to inflict their problems on someone else! That's all true, I agree. But do we torture (as part of a legal penalty/punishment) those who do? One guy in California was convicted of hacking off the arms of a young woman (who miraculously survived). And he was eventually released--after something like 8 years, I believe. We insist our government refrain from making it difficult to distinguish between its own character and that of the criminal. I believe the cold calculated premeditated execution of any person based on 'legal' (it's the law) arguments makes it a distinction without a difference. e.g. Should Jeffrey Dahmer have been sentenced to be dismembered and 'eaten' after being raped? Proportionality is an important and valid argument--but only up to a point--a point that does not and should not include the cold calculated premeditated act of killing another human being--for ALL of our sakes, I might add.
|
|
|
Post by pinbalwyz on Sept 9, 2007 5:33:40 GMT -5
It is mainly about vengence. You forget that the major reason for the existance for the criminal justice system is about punishing the offender (ie making the guy suffer). ... No, the first and major purpose is to protect the offender against the victim or his/her family and friends. By providing a controlled form of retribution we try to ensure that only the correct persons are punished and only in an appropriate amount. If you want to see what happens without this system, examine any gang war between criminals. They don't care who they harm or how much vengeance they extract. I do wholeheartedly agree with this assessment--one rarely made. The reduction of vigilantiism is an important feature of modern justice systems. Still, that can be accomplished without the DP, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by pinbalwyz on Sept 9, 2007 5:37:12 GMT -5
I don't think that any of us forgets that those who murder are the so-called 'bad guys'. I do say, 'so-called', since there's a human being behing the term 'murderer'. Have you ever made an effort to look at the human being, the causes that would render one a 'murderer'. Can any one of us honestly say that under certain conditions, we would not kill. I honestly can't. Justice ideally should be about punishment, not vengeance or inflicting suffering. Rehabilitation is about justice. That 'murderer' may well be beyond redemption, however, it may be the converse. Nelson Mandela was once described as a terrorist and a murderer. Today, he is revered worldwide. The terms 'justice' is an abstract one. Anyone who says they wish to see a person die, as in the beginning of this thread, has one huge problem. Who, among us, could ever enjoy seeing the barbaric death of a human being. The 'closure' argument is one that's without merit and has become beyond tiresome. If the death of a person brings 'closure', what does that say about humanity? It says civilization is a thin veneer. That's why it's so important to try to preserve it. BTW, what was the Israeli Prime Minister's name (now deceased) who years earlier had bombed the King David hotel? (Begin?) I'm not certain of the spelling or the guy.
|
|
|
Post by pinbalwyz on Sept 9, 2007 5:42:25 GMT -5
It is not really about enjoying seeing someone die. Why should the murderer be allowed to be in a better situation then the victim ..... Why should the murderer allowed to remain alive, while his victim is dead? his victim did nothing to deserve to die (well maybe in the murderers eyes he did) The above post is an example of how the DP typically ends. It focuses on the humanity of the victim/murderer rather than the best interests of the society enacting the law and penalty. There's no argument a tragedy of immense proportions has happened. But in it's AFTERMATH, killing another (TU QUOQUE) doesn't improve the situation for the rest of US. It's as another poster said, it's just extending the blood feud one step removed. Worse than that, it promotes a culture of violence and death.
|
|