I concur with what I've read from Reilly and Braddock here. I think the only role that the Law should serve is to prevent future crime, and, if possible, rehabilitate prisoners to where they can function in society. No good or justice comes from gratuitous acts of revenge or punishment. This is largely dictated by my stance on free will. Monstrous murderers are only the vehicles for an unfortunate series of causal events. This does not exclude desire, of course. But the fact that they possessed said desires is a causal accident. I generally hate horror films where the crowd applauds when the bad guy finally gets tortured and mutilated at the end.

 

I think people should take responsibility for their actions, but removal from society and help is what they need and punishment beyond freedom is not something that will help the matter.

 

The problem with taking a stance of removing the criminal from their actions is you then have to remove a hero from their actions too.

I think people should take responsibility for their actions, but removal from society and help is what they need and punishment beyond freedom is not something that will help the matter.

It is society's job to inculcate basic moral awareness in everybody. Unlike children's films, nobody does evil for evil's sake. They have somehow been inculcated to believe that what they are doing is good or desirable in one form or another.

 

The problem with taking a stance of removing the criminal from their actions is you then have to remove a hero from their actions too.

What is a criminal/hero without action? You don't need ultimate responsibility to applaud good behavior or to disparage bad behavior. We applaud heroes because they exemplify what we wish to be, or what we think ought to be. But all the same, it's sensible to acknowledge that it's a matter of chance that yourself or the hero were not born into a different environment in which they may have held a very different set of values.

It is society's job to inculcate basic moral awareness in everybody. Unlike children's films, nobody does evil for evil's sake. They have somehow been inculcated to believe that what they are doing is good or desirable in one form or another.

 

Well actually, they kindof do, I think in some cases people do just intend to do something horrible for the sake of it, even as a child you can wreck something not even for attention or resentment of whoever owns it, just to do it. However I'd say on serious levels like murder it's hard to say that's anything but rare, and if it does happen it's because that persons brain isn't wired correctly, again just like contributing factors that turn someone evil, it's of course beyond a persons control.

Well actually, they kindof do, I think in some cases people do just intend to do something horrible for the sake of it, even as a child you can wreck something not even for attention or resentment of whoever owns it, just to do it.

 

Good point. I wouldn't argue that every criminal or destructive act was rationally thought out or justified, and thus executed with peace of mind. If anything, many or most cases of extreme, incomprehensible acts, are generally attributed to insanity or a disturbed mind. but it Still, actions generally stem from desire. I would like to see people explode, so I build a bomb. I am angry at this person, so I want him to die. All it takes is for the higher, rational faculties that typical keep things in check to lean the same way or to disappear completely. It's not uncommon for people to form themselves around 'villain' archetypes, but it's often for ironic contrast to a culture or system of values that they have found cause to dismiss.

Considering a prisoner gets more spent on them for food a day (£3) than a member of the army (Currently £1.90), isn't that wrong?

 

I found an average of £2.30 for prisoners, got a source on the army?

 

I was just reminded of this when I remembered someone I know has a friend in the British Army who mentioned the foods nicer than at home (Both in training facilities and sometimes in action or "on tour", but that depends obviously) now either his mom couldn't cook for shit or they're finding incredible ways to spread £1.90.

 

But that story is literally irrelevant and I'm joking, still reminded me I wanted to know where this info came from?

This makes me want to re-read Crime and Punishment.

 

I think murder is wrong no matter why or who is doing it. The law says 'don't muder', but we'll murder you if you murder. The death penalty is barbaric and what if on the off-chance that person was innocent, somehow? It's better to err on the side of caution, always.

 

This is a huge thing that I relate to personally. I have an uncle who was imprisoned for 17 years for various crimes he didn't commit. He was eventually exonerated. Now, he was only sentenced to life, but what if he had been given the death penalty and had been executed? It's hard enough to think of the consequences that took place due to my uncle's wrongful conviction, but I can't even imagine all that would've taken place if he had gone under lethal injection, just for people to find out later that he wasn't at fault. What would the state say in response to that?

 

Anyway, even without that personal connection, I'd still be against the death penalty. It's like what Nick said: "You're not allowed to kill people, but if you do, we have complete license to break the rules as you did and kill you for killing someone." It doesn't make sense.

 

Someone once argued with me that those who commit such heinous crimes deserve to die and that their lives aren't as important as the general public who follow the law. Really? Who are you to make that decision? It shouldn't matter whether they've committed a crime or not. They're still human beings, and as such, they have as much right to live as you do. Am I saying they should roam around free? No, of course not. They're broken the law, knowing they could punished for it, and therefore they should be punished accordingly. The taking away of life, however, is simply not the answer.

There are reasons why people break the law, and whilst life imprisonment is sometimes the best strategy, murdering them is never the answer.

 

 

And that's insane, Violet!

^ I've changed a critical part of my post, as it wasn't accurate. I looked it up to make sure I was right, and I realized I wasn't. While my uncle was indeed sentenced to life in prison, it wasn't for murder. Also, while it was additional evidence that eventually exonerated him, it wasn't DNA; it was some very critical reports that were left out of my uncle's original trial. I apologize for misleading people, as that was not my intention. I was simply trying to remember what I was told, and I suppose I misremembered certain information.

Wow, CPing just doesn't want to work in my favor right now. Telling me stuff didn't post, then goes around showing that it has posted...PFFFT.

That's a good point. I think someone that almost killed someone, or was proven to have the intention to, should be considered the same as someone who actually did kill.

 

Interesting point. However, isn't the ideology of capitol punishment a life for a life? Therefore despite a crime we all would find totally abhorrent but which didn't amount to murder, and despite our feeling that it may warrant the death penalty, it would still be better to follow the parameters set out by the law in acknowledging that even with malice aforethought, the person did not commit murder, even if the intention was there.

 

However, in terms of a prison sentence, attempted murder, fitting into one of the classifications, can carry prison terms equal or within the same range as those set out for murdering someone.

Imagine if there was an argument that rapists should be raped (like there is for murderers should be killed).