| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/12/2008 03:25:08 AM · #76 |
Further I should add quick, that as part of that process all measures should be taken to restore any material losses, and to provide public service to restore human losses. I know it isn't the same as a person, but nothing can be. Either they can try to give something back, or they can be denied that, however it will be society that losses in the end.
I honestly believe if the gap between their feelings and the majorities can be closed that they will seek any and all methods to restore the losses on their own. Which is why I omitted this detail from the previous post, in error.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2008 03:35:34 AM · #77 |
Those who suffer before A are martyrs to a worthy end, and they should certainly be honored very highly by the society of post A. I liken A to my concept of Heaven: you are imperfect and a sinner, but you want to be made perfect by a higher power, and escape the suffering of this world. I liken B to my concept of Hell. Punishment for cause, but for cause that never ends. A world of B is a world of eternal suffering.
I go with A. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 06:32:12 AM · #78 |
Firstly, I did try to see this from your point A, B, C, D perspective, but I cannot help but notice the whole "experiment" seems to be geared toward an argument for treating criminals (some of whom commit horrendous crimes) that victims pay the price, in most cases for a lifetime, more humanely?. In the hope that doing so will somehow affect them in such a way that you will "fix" their sick minds and make them valuable members of society, who somehow manage to contribute something worthy that atones for their sins and crimes?
If you ask someone who has been a victim of hideous crimes what they think about prisoner reform and crime deterrents, you may get an entirely different perspective. You mention several times prisoners being raped, And although I do realize that this does occur, that in itself should be a deterrent for them committing crimes and landing in prison where such things can happen to them and yet it is still does not deter them. This fact should tell you something. that the offenders and re offenders aren't made in prison they were made before they got there. And hope of reforming someone through kindness and magically giving them a social conscience by showing them the error of their ways may work in the minority but overall sick minds especially those of murderers and rapists and child molesters will remain sick minds no matter what one does to "fix" them. They would rather indulge themselves and commit the acts regardless of the consequences they know doing so will bring. This will raise the argument that prison in it's current state does nothing to reform them and that changing how we treat them will change what they become when released. I disagree. I think if they will commit the acts knowing that in being caught what their punishment will be. How do you think they'll feel about sitting with a psychiatrist for a year as a punishment?
The answer is in society, it's in broken homes, abusive homes and abusive and cruel acts committed in society that as every year passes becomes more and more degraded, It's in morals that are increasingly becoming non existent in youth. It's in family values that are either robbed from a child as he or she is raised by parents who were raised in abusive homes themselves or by absent parents both working and both too tired to really give a child the love and guidance needed to raise caring, compassionate human beings. It's in the cycle of abuse that keeps going around and around, abusers raising more abusers. It's in the language we use to talk to one another. It's in the lack of love and compassion shown towards other human beings, before they commit crimes this is where criminals are raised and this is the only place you can truly affect a change.
I see footage of large crowds at prison gates holding candles and praying and begging for clemency for convicted murderers. Mercy is what they seek, for someone who showed none for others! I see this and want to scream, go find an abused child instead and shower them with love and help so as you may change one abused child's view of the cruel world of adults that don't give a damn. Or at least donate to charities that are making a difference in those areas. In doing so possibly change the bleak future that statistically may see them become one of the very people they stand at the gates trying to save. I see Christian groups with children in tow at the same said gates, teaching them to " forgive" choosing to take the forgiveness part of the bible to the extreme. The bible also tells them the crimes these people have committed shall never be forgiven. It also speaks of righteous anger which they choose to ignore.
For rapists, murderers and child molesters this is something I wouldn't bat an eye at. The old eye for an eye works for me there. I think where some crimes are concerned it is lenient sentencing that is to blame, child molesters for instance, getting prison terms that are ridiculous and are out back on the streets within months in some cases, while their victims live with it for life. Prison is no picnic and these offenders commit the crimes knowing that, that is what they risk being caught and sent to prison to endure the acts we all know happen in there.
I do know your questions are “theoretical” and you even say they're unrealistic and I did try to just answer the theoretical questions but I couldn't, Because the answer to me is love for all children the kind that breeds mentally healthy, strong, kind and compassionate people. Theoretically this too is a wonderful fantasy! One I would rather spend my time thinking about and finding ways to achieve it. One "little" person at a time. One that is just that much more realistic and achievable than being kind to prisoners to affect a change. I'd rather be kind to victims to prevent possible future crimes. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 06:58:32 AM · #79 |
| This thread puts me in mind of the film "Felon" which came out this year - a man is put in jail for accidentally killing someone who was breaking into his house. It really highlights the dangers of the American jail system and how it creates exponentially worse criminals by encouraging violence and gang activity. I don't know how accurate it is but it's certainly harrowing and made me think - recommended viewing. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 07:25:38 AM · #80 |
Sling them in a deep dark hole, feed them on bread and water. seriously, if you do a crime then do the damn time, if they later get found out to be innocent then compensation is not such a bad thing, after all, the victim of a crime is usually offered the same thing. IMHO, and I have been to jail when I was young and rough(driving my motorbike with a passenger on L plates with no insurance)and I went through quite a tough time in jail, no TV or Sugar or tobacco, NOTHING! except hard bloody work sewing up mailbags and putting something back into the community. It infuriates me to see child molesters and killers or violent MF's going to jail and getting wrapped in cotton wool.
I would also be happy to bring back hanging for people who, WITHOUT ANY POSSIBLE DOUBT (come on, we have the technology now), murdered someone. In certain countries a sexual attack on a minor will have you and your direct family pulled into the street and your bits cut off for all to see, OK that is a tad barbaric but I bet he, or his family, will ever molest a child again.
I understand that by treating them like shit it MAY cause them to be a nasty bad person when they get out ect ect, but they were a nasty bad person when they went in.
I like the idea too about making them pay back the money it cost to keep them in Jail.
Just my 2c
|
|
|
|
08/12/2008 07:36:18 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
"Wearing thongs in church is wrong!" |
When attending the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, we all wear thongs! But instead of holy water we have a container of eye bleach. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 08:45:33 AM · #82 |
Thanks a lot for your thoughts. We seem to focus on rapists and murderers here, but please keep in mind that they are a small minority of the prison population. People who go around raping and killing and enjoy themselves are extremely rare, fortunately.
Originally posted by overclover:
For rapists, murderers and child molesters this is something I wouldn't bat an eye at. The old eye for an eye works for me there. I think where some crimes are concerned it is lenient sentencing that is to blame, child molesters for instance, getting prison terms that are ridiculous and are out back on the streets within months in some cases, while their victims live with it for life. Prison is no picnic and these offenders commit the crimes knowing that, that is what they risk being caught and sent to prison to endure the acts we all know happen in there. |
Unfortunately, prison doesn't seem to work as a deterrent for those people. They don't make a rational choice considering the benefits and drawbacks of rape.
Originally posted by MAK:
I understand that by treating them like shit it MAY cause them to be a nasty bad person when they get out ect ect, but they were a nasty bad person when they went in. |
So punishing the criminals is more important to you than preventing future crime then?
 Judi, thank you for your explanations. You seem to have a strong desire for revenge and one to reclaim control that was taken from you.
I don't know how I would feel as a victim (and I hope I'll never find out), but I'd like to ask a question to all of you on a more theoretical level again to better understand the desire for revenge:
Let's say one of your legs was badly hurt and you are unable to work for a year while you are recovering. Let's consider your desire for revenge for different causes of the injury:
1) If a hurricane came through your town and falling debris landed on your leg causing the injury, would you feel a desire for revenge? Would you be angry at someone or something? Probably not.
2) If you went swimming in the ocean and a shark attacked you and caused the injury, would you feel a desire for revenge? Would you be angry at the shark and want it to suffer? Well, maybe.
3) If the injury was caused by some drunk guy who attacked you with a bat in the street, would you feel a desire for revenge? Would you want him to suffer? Probably.
The net effect on you is the same in all three cases. You have the same injury (or a similar one, just accept this for the sake of the argument, please), the same pain, the same costs and you are unable to work for the same time.
Now why is your desire for revenge smaller in cases 1) and 2)?
At the moment, I can only try and explain it with a desire to teach someone a lesson and have them think "I should not have done that.". This is not possible for the hurricane or the shark. But for the person it is.
The next question that comes up is: Is punishment the best way to make people learn something and think "I should not have done that"? |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 09:03:56 AM · #83 |
Unfortunately Sam we HAVE criminals. I fail to see how giving them cable TV is going to prevent any future crime they may or may not do.
It takes a certain kind of 'person' to be able to kill another person or to sexually attack a child, for those, I say they should be severely punished yes, not given cable TV and 3 good solid meals a day at tax payers expense.
The same can be said of terrorists, why is America Bombing the hell out of Iraq fighting against terrorism when they should be giving them champaign and computers and lovely soft bubble bath. catch my drift.
Punishing criminals is not more IMPORTANT to me but is definitely the better option than Cable TV and playstation.
I think UK has been talking about the idea of giving people that carry knives a mandatory Fine followed by a sentence. If I were king, anyone caught walking around in Public carrying a knife would be locked up for 5 to 10 years depending on the knife. I am NOT king though so all you killers can breath easy.
We are in a funny situation now because we have jails full of different types all learning the tricks of the trade and we live in a society that doesn't really have the power to change anything.
So to answer your point... YES, again, do the crime, do the time, but make that time a horrid experience. for the lesser 'criminals who do what? steal cars? steal money? burgulars? tax evaision? parking offence? well there are different levels of crime and to be honest I was talking about the more serious crime. if you go to jail for a parking offence I still say "NO playstation or cable TV, go sew mailbags for a while.
Message edited by author 2008-08-12 09:04:54.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2008 09:34:59 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Thanks a lot for your thoughts. We seem to focus on rapists and murderers here, but please keep in mind that they are a small minority of the prison population. People who go around raping and killing and enjoy themselves are extremely rare, fortunately.
Originally posted by overclover:
For rapists, murderers and child molesters this is something I wouldn't bat an eye at. The old eye for an eye works for me there. I think where some crimes are concerned it is lenient sentencing that is to blame, child molesters for instance, getting prison terms that are ridiculous and are out back on the streets within months in some cases, while their victims live with it for life. Prison is no picnic and these offenders commit the crimes knowing that, that is what they risk being caught and sent to prison to endure the acts we all know happen in there. |
Unfortunately, prison doesn't seem to work as a deterrent for those people. They don't make a rational choice considering the benefits and drawbacks of rape.
Originally posted by MAK:
I understand that by treating them like shit it MAY cause them to be a nasty bad person when they get out ect ect, but they were a nasty bad person when they went in. |
So punishing the criminals is more important to you than preventing future crime then?
Judi, thank you for your explanations. You seem to have a strong desire for revenge and one to reclaim control that was taken from you.
I don't know how I would feel as a victim (and I hope I'll never find out), but I'd like to ask a question to all of you on a more theoretical level again to better understand the desire for revenge:
Let's say one of your legs was badly hurt and you are unable to work for a year while you are recovering. Let's consider your desire for revenge for different causes of the injury:
1) If a hurricane came through your town and falling debris landed on your leg causing the injury, would you feel a desire for revenge? Would you be angry at someone or something? Probably not.
2) If you went swimming in the ocean and a shark attacked you and caused the injury, would you feel a desire for revenge? Would you be angry at the shark and want it to suffer? Well, maybe.
3) If the injury was caused by some drunk guy who attacked you with a bat in the street, would you feel a desire for revenge? Would you want him to suffer? Probably.
The net effect on you is the same in all three cases. You have the same injury (or a similar one, just accept this for the sake of the argument, please), the same pain, the same costs and you are unable to work for the same time.
Now why is your desire for revenge smaller in cases 1) and 2)?
At the moment, I can only try and explain it with a desire to teach someone a lesson and have them think "I should not have done that.". This is not possible for the hurricane or the shark. But for the person it is.
The next question that comes up is: Is punishment the best way to make people learn something and think "I should not have done that"? |
No sam I agree it's not a deterrent for "those people" because they're let back out on the streets again to commit more crimes, it's a case of the punishment does not fit the crime for "those people" and no, not revenge Sam, JUSTICE!
Look at the child sexual abuse statistics and call that a small minority? 1 in 4 children are sexually abused! Sorry and as you said yourself there is no deterrent for "those people"so why let them back out on the streets!
Message edited by author 2008-08-12 09:39:02. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 10:59:57 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by overclover:
No sam I agree it's not a deterrent for "those people" because they're let back out on the streets again to commit more crimes, it's a case of the punishment does not fit the crime for "those people" and no, not revenge Sam, JUSTICE! |
I assume that by "JUSTICE!" you mean that criminals get punished according to the crime they committed, right? Is "justice" what you would consider most important? Would this mean that you would chose scenario B*) rather than A*) (in the original post)?
I see a tendency especially in the US that victims and their families want to see someone, anyone get punished. When an alleged perpetrator is caught, they revel (often together with the general media audience, greetings from Nancy Grace) in condemning that person and seeing them getting punished. And even if evidence is discovered that puts into question the prisoner's guilt, the relatives of the victim and the public yell something like "That girl was brutally raped and murdered! JUSTICE!" and often innocent people are convicted (Just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. And black. Usually.) Such behavior creates two problems:
1) Innocent people suffer.
2) The actual perpetrator is still free and possibly committing other crimes.
I see a certain obsession with crime and punishment in the US that worries me. Why would anyone want to hear about every little gruesome detail of a rape on the news? Do people enjoy this? Does it give them satisfaction to see a rapist getting caught and punished? Is it more entertaining to hear about a rape, the subsequent hunt for the perpetrator and his punishment than never having the rape occur at all?
Gruesome crime stories are so popular that the media actively look for them because they know that they will attract viewers. This even leads to exaggerating stories to make them more appealing (i.e. more brutal). And some news outlets even often report what did not happen ("No gun was involved. Nobody was injured or killed."), just to be able to mention the words viewers obviously wish to hear. (The Onion also seems to have diagnosed this phenomenon: //www.theonion.com/content/video/missing_girl_probably_raped )
Originally posted by overclover:
Look at the child sexual abuse statistics and call that a small minority? 1 in 4 children are sexually abused! Sorry and as you said yourself there is no deterrent for "those people"so why let them back out on the streets! |
Hmm, interesting statistic. I'd like to study it in detail. Could you please provide a link? How is "sexual abuse" defined? |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 11:33:35 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
...Such behavior creates two problems:
1) Innocent people suffer.
2) The actual perpetrator is still free and possibly committing other crimes.
|
Wait are you double talking here? Lets look at your second problem. Isn't that the same as your first theatrical "A" in your OP?
An EXAMPLE if I may add:
In the city where I live we had a string of murders where the victims were all white elderly lady's and wealthy. They were strangled, raped, and on one or more occasions raped by objects unspeakable. After months looking for the "alleged" criminal they found and caught him. He is black (I'm only bringing up the two races because you seemed to want to bring it up). Now all this happened before DNA testing was available and he was put in prison on physical evidence and circumstantial evidence.
The whole time in prison he plead his innocents to such a degree that many began to wonder; was the right man in jail. Finally after 25+ years he was granted another hearing at taxpayers expense. Do you care to know what they found?
Not only did preserved DNA evidence support that he did in fact murder, rape, and strangle three of the women but also his DNA linked him to another murder in another city that had been unsolved for decades.
The bottom line is that they are very few that are in jail that did NOT commit the crime. And I know even one person incarcerated unjustly is one to many but that is going to happen and I don't think their is a way to avoid it.
However there are a lot of victims that don't get the justice they deserve because courts have let criminals go free at the trial because of technicalities even though it is obvious the person committed the crime or later when, if convicted, the criminal is released without servicing his/her sentence.
Message edited by author 2008-08-12 11:35:11. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 11:40:03 AM · #87 |
I agree with you on this issue.
Also a few days ago I asked:
If you were going to be arrested...guilty or innocent...list your top 3 countries you would rather BE arrested in and the top 3 you WOULD NOT want to be arrested in.
I asked that you answer as it applies to getting fair trial.
Like you said, there may be people in prison that are completely innocent of their crime. But I bet it is far fewer in the US than in many other countries.
Originally posted by SDW:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
...Such behavior creates two problems:
1) Innocent people suffer.
2) The actual perpetrator is still free and possibly committing other crimes.
|
Wait are you double talking here? Lets look at your second problem. Isn't that the same as your first theatrical "A" in your OP?
An EXAMPLE if I may add:
In the city where I live we had a string of murders where the victims were all white elderly lady's and wealthy. They were strangled, raped, and on one or more occasions raped by objects unspeakable. After months looking for the "alleged" criminal they found and caught him. He is black (I'm only bringing up the two races because you seemed to want to bring it up). Now all this happened before DNA testing was available and he was put in prison on physical evidence and circumstantial evidence.
The whole time in prison he plead his innocents to such a degree that many began to wonder; was the right man in jail. Finally after 25+ years he was granted another hearing at taxpayers expense. Do you care to know what they found?
Not only did preserved DNA evidence support that he did in fact murder, rape, and strangle three of the women but also his DNA linked him to another murder in another city that had been unsolved for decades.
The bottom line is that they are very few that are in jail that did NOT commit the crime. And I know even one person incarcerated unjustly is one to many but that is going to happen and I don't think their is a way to avoid it.
However there are a lot of victims that don't get the justice they deserve because courts have let criminals go free at the trial because of technicalities even though it is obvious the person committed the crime or later when, if convicted, the criminal is released without servicing his/her sentence. |
|
|
|
|
08/12/2008 12:09:07 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by SDW:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
...Such behavior creates two problems:
1) Innocent people suffer.
2) The actual perpetrator is still free and possibly committing other crimes.
|
Wait are you double talking here? Lets look at your second problem. Isn't that the same as your first theatrical "A" in your OP? |
Nope. The number of people being arrested (relative to the crime rate) is the same in A*) and B*).
Originally posted by SDW:
An EXAMPLE if I may add:
In the city where I live we had a string of murders where the victims were all white elderly lady's and wealthy. They were strangled, raped, and on one or more occasions raped by objects unspeakable. [...] |
Argumentation by anecdote never works. Yes, there are cases of people who committed terrible crimes and who were rightly imprisoned. Yes, there are also cases of people who spent decades in jail although they were innocent. Mentioning a case of either category doesn't help us discuss policies.
Did you see my comments about media coverage? You know in detail what objects the perpetrator in your story used when raping the women. Yes, there are people in law enforcement and in the judiciary system who need this information, but why do you want to know it? You obviously studied this case carefully and remember all details. What is so fascinating about it?
Originally posted by SDW:
The bottom line is that they are very few that are in jail that did NOT commit the crime. |
That's the conclusion from your one story? Hundreds of defendants previously convicted of serious crimes (rape, murder) in the US have been exonerated by DNA testing alone in recent years.
Originally posted by SDW:
And I know even one person incarcerated unjustly is one to many but that is going to happen and I don't think their is a way to avoid it. |
I agree you can never get the number down to zero. However, by taming the eagerness for punishment cases could be studied more prudently. And the fact that some people get wrongfully convicted should be a reason to rule out policies like immediate execution. You'll argue that innocent people suffering in prison are "collateral damage" and that we have to punish everyone convicted harshly, otherwise the real criminals would get treated too leniently. This argument would be valid if punishing criminals severely improved the general state of the society. I fear it doesn't.
Originally posted by kenskid:
If you were going to be arrested...guilty or innocent...list your top 3 countries you would rather BE arrested in and the top 3 you WOULD NOT want to be arrested in. |
The US wouldn't make it on either list. And if I wanted a fair trial, I'd keep as far away as possible from any kind of system with your average housewife sitting on a jury.
Message edited by author 2008-08-12 12:11:06. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 12:12:53 PM · #89 |
The average housewife? Housewives can't be fair?
So should we have professional juries? Permanent "elected" juries? What is your idea of a good jury?
So the US wouldn't make your top 3 or bottom. Well which countries WOULD make your top 3? You must have some idea.
Where ..in your opinion would you get a fairer trial than in the US?
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by kenskid:
If you were going to be arrested...guilty or innocent...list your top 3 countries you would rather BE arrested in and the top 3 you WOULD NOT want to be arrested in.
|
[quote]The US wouldn't make it on either list. And if I wanted a fair trial, I'd keep as far away as possibly from any kind of system with your average housewife sitting on a jury. |
Message edited by author 2008-08-12 12:15:45. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 12:36:16 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by SDW:
An EXAMPLE if I may add:
In the city where I live we had a string of murders where the victims were all white elderly lady's and wealthy. They were strangled, raped, and on one or more occasions raped by objects unspeakable. [...] |
Argumentation by anecdote never works. Yes, there are cases of people who committed terrible crimes and who were rightly imprisoned. Yes, there are also cases of people who spent decades in jail although they were innocent. Mentioning a case of either category doesn't help us discuss policies.
Did you see my comments about media coverage? You know in detail what objects the perpetrator in your story used when raping the women. Yes, there are people in law enforcement and in the judiciary system who need this information, but why do you want to know it? You obviously studied this case carefully and remember all details. What is so fascinating about it? |
No I was not fascinated by it - my grandmother was terrified by it. Even though she was not wealthy she leaved near the area the crimes was taking place. She wanted some of grand children to stay with her at nights because she was fearful because her husband (my grandfather) of 50 years had recently passed and she felt alone with no protection. So my brother and I did.
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by SDW:
The bottom line is that they are very few that are in jail that did NOT commit the crime. |
That's the conclusion from your one story? Hundreds of defendants previously convicted of serious crimes (rape, murder) in the US have been exonerated by DNA testing alone in recent years. |
Oh NO! not a conclusion from my story. I have no problem giving a convicted criminal another hearing if DNA evidence has come to light that could, within a reasonable dough, exonerate him/her. And yes they have been hundreds but out of how many? millions! that is a small percent and that's on cases where DNA did not exists at the time of the conviction and/or crime. But now we have very reliable tools to use in our justice system to prevent innocent people from conviction. At least to the degree the % will be far less that the the 100 you were referring to.
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by SDW:
And I know even one person incarcerated unjustly is one to many but that is going to happen and I don't think their is a way to avoid it. |
I agree you can never get the number down to zero. However, by taming the eagerness for punishment cases could be studied more prudently. And the fact that some people get wrongfully convicted should be a reason to rule out policies like immediate execution. You'll argue that innocent people suffering in prison are "collateral damage" and that we have to punish everyone convicted harshly, otherwise the real criminals would get treated too leniently. This argument would be valid if punishing criminals severely improved the general state of the society. I fear it doesn't. |
When in recent US history has a convicted criminal been rushed to punishment and immediately executed? Name One! Death Row convicts spend at least 10 year and sometime as high as 25 years appealing their case before they are executed. Their defense will be hear from the lowest court all the way to the US Sepreme Court before an exicution will take place. Immediate execution, I think not; but murdered victims suffered that injustice!
Message edited by author 2008-08-12 12:43:35. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 12:57:28 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
The average housewife? Housewives can't be fair? |
Sure they can be fair. But especially in emotional cases like rape the horror of the crime itself is likely to have a stronger impact on their decision than the actual evidence against the defendant. (They are more likely to answer the question "Was this a crime worthy of punishment?" rather than the actual question "Is the defendant guilty?".) I would expect a better chance to get a fair trial with a judge deciding.
Originally posted by kenskid:
So the US wouldn't make your top 3 or bottom. Well which countries WOULD make your top 3? You must have some idea. |
Pretty much any country in Western Europe. Canada might also be ok. I would not only take into consideration the trial itself, but also how I'd be treated before and after the trial. Police brutality in the US is unrivaled by European countries.
Originally posted by SDW:
When in recent US history has a convicted criminal been rushed to punishment and immediately executed? Name One! |
I wasn't referring to current US policy, but to suggestions some were making in this thread. Sorry for the confusion. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 01:01:54 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by SDW:
When in recent US history has a convicted criminal been rushed to punishment and immediately executed? Name One! |
Lee Harvey Oswald? lol jk |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 01:29:16 PM · #93 |
So you would take a chance on having a Judge decide your fate in a Rape case.
A judge appointed by who? A right leaning Reagan or someone Obama would appoint? Of course you would not be able to "shop" for a judge.
If it is an elected judge would you perfer one elected from a "rich white district" or a "poor Hispanic district?
I'm not sure but I think you can waive your right to a Jury trial and say you want a judge to decide but it doesn't happen very often....I wonder why?
Edit:
And a judge is final...on a jury trial you have to convince 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty. Only one has to say not guilty and you get a new trial.
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by kenskid:
The average housewife? Housewives can't be fair? |
Sure they can be fair. But especially in emotional cases like rape the horror of the crime itself is likely to have a stronger impact on their decision than the actual evidence against the defendant. (They are more likely to answer the question "Was this a crime worthy of punishment?" rather than the actual question "Is the defendant guilty?".) I would expect a better chance to get a fair trial with a judge deciding.
Originally posted by kenskid:
So the US wouldn't make your top 3 or bottom. Well which countries WOULD make your top 3? You must have some idea. |
Pretty much any country in Western Europe. Canada might also be ok. I would not only take into consideration the trial itself, but also how I'd be treated before and after the trial. Police brutality in the US is unrivaled by European countries.
Originally posted by SDW:
When in recent US history has a convicted criminal been rushed to punishment and immediately executed? Name One! |
I wasn't referring to current US policy, but to suggestions some were making in this thread. Sorry for the confusion. |
Message edited by author 2008-08-12 13:33:16. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 04:00:17 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Judi, thank you for your explanations. You seem to have a strong desire for revenge and one to reclaim control that was taken from you.
I don't know how I would feel as a victim (and I hope I'll never find out), but I'd like to ask a question to all of you on a more theoretical level again to better understand the desire for revenge:
Let's say one of your legs was badly hurt and you are unable to work for a year while you are recovering. Let's consider your desire for revenge for different causes of the injury:
1) If a hurricane came through your town and falling debris landed on your leg causing the injury, would you feel a desire for revenge? Would you be angry at someone or something? Probably not.
2) If you went swimming in the ocean and a shark attacked you and caused the injury, would you feel a desire for revenge? Would you be angry at the shark and want it to suffer? Well, maybe.
3) If the injury was caused by some drunk guy who attacked you with a bat in the street, would you feel a desire for revenge? Would you want him to suffer? Probably.
The net effect on you is the same in all three cases. You have the same injury (or a similar one, just accept this for the sake of the argument, please), the same pain, the same costs and you are unable to work for the same time.
Now why is your desire for revenge smaller in cases 1) and 2)?
At the moment, I can only try and explain it with a desire to teach someone a lesson and have them think "I should not have done that.". This is not possible for the hurricane or the shark. But for the person it is.
The next question that comes up is: Is punishment the best way to make people learn something and think "I should not have done that"? |
So you are saying that he should not have been locked away...that he should still be free on the street to act his crimes out on others. You said I had a strong desire for revenge....you have got it wrong, completely. I wouldn't want him hurt the way I was. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. I wanted him to pay for his crime and know that what he did was wrong and to be stopped from doing it again...in what ever way is necessary for that individual.
Unfortunately, unless you are a victim, you cannot know what you go through day in, day out. Yes, I have learnt to get stronger, yet the fears stay with me every day. I now have children and the thought of them having to go through such a hurrendous crime scares me. Would I want him out on the street to harm my children, or your chilldren, NO! If there was a tablet that could stop these criminals from doing these things, then great....but until then, we have to accept the justice system whether we agree with it or not. Blaming these acts on the persons background is all well and good....but it isn't going to change them or what they have done or will do again.
They system has got a lot of flaws, it lets innocent people screaming for help before they do hurt people through the loopholes, without helping them with their problems, it puts white collar crims in with blue collar crims, making them worse for wear.....and so on and so on. I don't know the answer. But if your daughter went missing and a massive search party went out to find her and when she was found, her life was shattered because of someone elses act....wouldn't you be angry and want something done.
Think about that before you go preaching to others about feelings you know nothing about.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2008 04:26:02 PM · #95 |
I am kinda shocked that you call it revenge!
So to you Justice is Revenge?
Listen man you come from a very sheltered place. The population of Switzerland is 7.5 million people. The population of the US is 304 million. Our justice system needs are far different then yours.
Crime has always had punishment plain and simple. Your little tiny box you have tried to create with this "Thought experiment" is much to narrow and in no way could be contemplated with such limitations.
Consequences for my actions has been ingrained in me since birth. I know that if I steal I risk being punished and in that it is a deterrent for me. It may not be for someone else which is why I am so glad we have a justice system with prisons. People who commit the most heinous crimes should be dealt with in the extreme not only to set an example but violent crime deserves, no demands punishment.
There is no perfect system but I will take the one we got over 99% of the rest of the world.
If Judi's story had happened to someone I love I guarantee that justice would have been done if not by the system then by me! (My heart goes out to you Judi)
Message edited by author 2008-08-12 16:29:25. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 04:36:49 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I am kinda shocked that you call it revenge! |
If justice isn't revenge, what is it?
You seem to have made Sam's point yourself:
"If Judi's story had happened to someone I love I guarantee that justice would have been done if not by the system then by me!" |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 04:43:27 PM · #97 |
Perhaps I am to close to the topic and I may have indeed proved his point.
Someone very, very close to me experienced being raped and almost killed. The perp got away and possibly continued his heinous ways. It disturbs me very much to hear that one would just "Let it happen".
We have laws and for this reason they need to, to the best of our ability, be enforced. Yes perhaps with me it would be revenge but that is because justice was never served as it should have been.
Utopia does not exist and looking at the world through rose colored glasses wont make the bad things or bad people go away.
Message edited by author 2008-08-12 16:44:31. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 04:55:09 PM · #98 |
I was wondering when someone would get this going !
Thank god !
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I am kinda shocked that you call it revenge!
So to you Justice is Revenge?
Listen man you come from a very sheltered place. The population of Switzerland is 7.5 million people. The population of the US is 304 million. Our justice system needs are far different then yours.
Crime has always had punishment plain and simple. Your little tiny box you have tried to create with this "Thought experiment" is much to narrow and in no way could be contemplated with such limitations.
Consequences for my actions has been ingrained in me since birth. I know that if I steal I risk being punished and in that it is a deterrent for me. It may not be for someone else which is why I am so glad we have a justice system with prisons. People who commit the most heinous crimes should be dealt with in the extreme not only to set an example but violent crime deserves, no demands punishment.
There is no perfect system but I will take the one we got over 99% of the rest of the world.
If Judi's story had happened to someone I love I guarantee that justice would have been done if not by the system then by me! (My heart goes out to you Judi) |
|
|
|
|
08/12/2008 04:59:52 PM · #99 |
It may be difficult for people affected by the criminal actions of others to consider things objectively. On the other hand, everyone's life, with very, very few exceptions, is touched by tragedy. I don't think anyone is arguing that someone else's tragedy is "more tragic" than another's. I believe, then, that a middle ground on this issue can be reached.
I'm interested in people's definition of "justice". Considering that human beings have been philosophicially struggling with its definition for millenia, I wonder how anyone can consider their definition correct.
So I ask again: if justice is not revenge, how is it to be defined? |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 05:03:48 PM · #100 |
So let's say that Justice IS Revenge. What is your point? Because it may be revenge then we should just the the guilty walk free?
I don't understand what you're getting at.
Originally posted by Louis:
It may be difficult for people affected by the criminal actions of others to consider things objectively. On the other hand, everyone's life, with very, very few exceptions, is touched by tragedy. I don't think anyone is arguing that someone else's tragedy is "more tragic" than another's. I believe, then, that a middle ground on this issue can be reached.
I'm interested in people's definition of "justice". Considering that human beings have been philosophicially struggling with its definition for millenia, I wonder how anyone can consider their definition correct.
So I ask again: if justice is not revenge, how is it to be defined? |
|
|
