Originally posted by rwingettWhile I do not question the Amish folk's sincerity, and agree that it was a powerful expression of
Justice may be necessary, but it is our capacity for mercy that is the greater and more admirable of the two.
A stirring example of this occurred last year when a gunman shot several Amish schoolchildren. The reaction of the Amish community was not to clamor for justice, but to extend forgiveness to the gunman's family. A simple act of mercy under extremely trying circumstances.
forgiveness and mercy, as an individual personally unaffected by the tragedy, I would insist that
justice be served in order to protect the public from this individual's future possible actions.
That having been said, I sincerely pray for that level of mercy were I faced with a similar tragedy,
though I doubt it is in me.
Nemesio
Originally posted by rwingettNo mercy could be given to the gunman... didn't he shoot himself? Justice was pretty much served with no chance of leniency.
Justice may be necessary, but it is our capacity for mercy that is the greater and more admirable of the two.
A stirring example of this occurred last year when a gunman shot several Amish schoolchildren. The reaction of the Amish community was not to clamor for justice, but to extend forgiveness to the gunman's family. A simple act of mercy under extremely trying circumstances.
Originally posted by lepomisYes, the gunman shot himself, so there was no question of either justice or mercy in that specific sense. But the point is that their reaction was not one of outrage, anger, or condemnation. Instead, sensing the shame and associated guilt that the gunman's family probably felt, the Amish put aside the question of justice and turned instead to mercy by asking the family to join them in a process of healing.
No mercy could be given to the gunman... didn't he shoot himself? Justice was pretty much served with no chance of leniency.
I think that as long as our demand for justice overshadows our capacity for mercy, then we will forever be locked into a cycle of violence and retribution. Mercy is the way out of that cycle.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI do not completely disagree with you. Mercy is important. However, this gunman was upset at god because of the death of his daughter. There was no cycle in place that could be broken by the previous use of mercy... in this case.
Yes, the gunman shot himself, so there was no question of either justice or mercy in that specific sense. But the point is that their reaction was not one of outrage, anger, or condemnation. Instead, sensing the shame and associated guilt that the gunman's family probably felt, the Amish put aside the question of justice and turned instead to mercy by askin ...[text shortened]... forever be locked into a cycle of violence and retribution. Mercy is the way out of that cycle.
As I had said before, mercy is important, but can be overused to the point of making punishment too light.
edit; I take that back. If he felt he was punishing god, then it was in his power to show mercy.
2 edits
Originally posted by WheelyIt is indeed relavant to the person's 'worthiness' because his intentions, and his degree of guilt, would have a huge effect on his victim's reactions. For example, consider the hypothetical case of a home invader breaking into someone's house with the intention both to rob the place and to rape the owner's six year old daughter asleep in her bed. Do you think the perpetrator deserves mercy and understanding from the girl's father if he happens to be caught in the act of snatching the girl from her bed, or do you think he would rightly suffer the violent outrage and physical fury of the father? I for one would kill the freaking b..tard on the spot and consider it justice! I wouldn't even consider mercy although that might come later once I've knifed the prick and left him bleeding on the ground with an eye missing. I just MIGHT be merciful and leave his other eye in place.
Personally I don't think the level of guilt of a person or their "worthiness" is relevant to their qualification for mercy. If you have mercy then it is because of your values not the subject's values.
Perhaps you are talking about forgiveness instead. I don't think you need to forgive someone to have mercy.
Another example: Last year in this country, a brain-dead burglar armed with a knife burst into a gun shop and proceded to threaten the owner with bodily harm or death if he didn't hand over the cash from the till. Not surprisingly, the owner pulled a gun out from under the counter and shot the idiot in the stomach. He instantly became a local hero despite being prosecuted by the police for 'discharging a firearm in a public place' blah blah blah, but it was widely considered to be rightful justice and the perpetrator got what he deserved. Besides, the knife-weilding burglar should have known never to take a knife to gun fight. You always lose! Rough justice, but still justice.
Originally posted by wittywonkaSeems like you have set up a false dichotomy that commits the Derridian faux pas of binarism.
"With which concept would you align yourself more: justice or mercy, and why?"
I would be interested in responses from anyone and everyone.
I realize the question is vague, but it is intended as a thought-provoker.
The question [b]is asking you to make a decision without circumstances.
The question is not asking for you to disregard ...[text shortened]... myself more with the concept of mercy, I am not implying that I do not find justice important.[/b]
Originally posted by NemesioIsn't mercy except where it is incorporated in justice, unjust? If equal treatment is a part of the definition of justice then if one receives mercy and another does not then is it not unjust? However if you have a 'merciful' justice system where sentences are equally lower than you consider would be a 'just' punishment then it should still remain just.
I do not see them as having a tremendous amount of interrelation.
Nemesio
I have always held that they Christian concept of a Just God is in conflict with the Christian concept of a merciful God if the mercy is not dished out in equal measure to all.
Of course throughout all this the question of what is justice and why is punishment meted out are important considerations.
Originally posted by SpastiGovYou're not talking about mercy as far as I can see. Mercy is when you know someone deserves a red hot poker up the jacksy but you don't do it out of final compassion for another person even if that person has done nothing to make you think they deserve it.
It is indeed relavant to the person's 'worthiness' because his intentions, and his degree of guilt, would have a huge effect on his victim's reactions. For example, consider the hypothetical case of a home invader breaking into someone's house with the intention both to rob the place and to rape the owner's six year old daughter asleep in her bed. Do you t ...[text shortened]... ver to take a knife to gun fight. You always lose! Rough justice, but still justice.
You're talking about the impossibility of forgiveness which is a completely different things. At least in my view.
Originally posted by lepomisYou take the example too literally. The exact chain of events that led to his rampage is not important. What is important is that we too readily accept the justice of 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' as being appropriate behavior. Our desire for punishment and revenge blinds us to the possibilities of mercy that may exist. Our attempt to hold on to that anger and redirect it back at the person who has wronged us is ultimately a destructive cycle. We need to let go of that anger and exercise mercy whenever possible. As someone once said, you need to turn the other cheek.
I do not completely disagree with you. Mercy is important. However, this gunman was upset at god because of the death of his daughter. There was no cycle in place that could be broken by the previous use of mercy... in this case.
As I had said before, mercy is important, but can be overused to the point of making punishment too light.
edit; I take that back. If he felt he was punishing god, then it was in his power to show mercy.
So while justice may be necessary, it is a grim business that profits us little. Mercy is what should be aspired to.
Originally posted by rwingettI do not understand what you are saying for sure. I do not live were justice is doled out an eye for an eye. Pedophile rapists are only sent to jail... which is showing them mercy. I believe criminals need to be punished. The revenge that you talk about has nothing to do with justice and mercy in the court systems.
You take the example too literally. The exact chain of events that led to his rampage is not important. What is important is that we too readily accept the justice of 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' as being appropriate behavior. Our desire for punishment and revenge blinds us to the possibilities of mercy that may exist. Our attempt to hold on ...[text shortened]... e necessary, it is a grim business that profits us little. Mercy is what should be aspired to.
Originally posted by wittywonkaIn game theory there is a problem called the Prisoner's Dilemma, and one of the most effective stategies for playing such games is called 'Tit for Tat':
"With which concept would you align yourself more: justice or mercy, and why?"
I would be interested in responses from anyone and everyone.
I realize the question is vague, but it is intended as a thought-provoker.
The question [b]is asking you to make a decision without circumstances.
The question is not asking for you to disregard ...[text shortened]... myself more with the concept of mercy, I am not implying that I do not find justice important.[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
You could call it the strategy of 'Justice'.
But there are even better strategies -- see the article for details, but the names give you the idea: 'Tit for Tat with forgiveness', 'Tit for Two Tats'.
These you could call strategies of 'Justice tempered by Mercy.'
Of course, human society is more complex than this simple game, but I always found it fascinating that the notion of showing Mercy has nothing fundamentally to do with being 'soft' or 'unfit' -- it's part of a sound, winning strategy. Within limits, of course.
Originally posted by lepomisWe no longer literally take an eye for an eye, but too often that is the motivation underlying our application of justice. We have abstracted the one 'eye' into a jail sentence and consider ourselves right and just. At its barest minimum, perhaps we are. But a system of justice that exists only (or primarily) to exact punishment is an impoverished one. Until we can construct a system of justice that embraces mercy as its central goal, we do ourselves little credit. We should aspire toward mercy and redemption first, and a cold, punishing justice second.
I do not understand what you are saying for sure. I do not live were justice is doled out an eye for an eye. Pedophile rapists are only sent to jail... which is showing them mercy. I believe criminals need to be punished. The revenge that you talk about has nothing to do with justice and mercy in the court systems.
Originally posted by rwingettCould you give me a real world example of that? I feel we have a very good system of showing mercy to criminals.
We no longer literally take an eye for an eye, but too often that is the motivation underlying our application of justice. We have abstracted the one 'eye' into a jail sentence and consider ourselves right and just. At its barest minimum, perhaps we are. But a system of justice that exists only (or primarily) to exact punishment is an impoverished one. Unti ...[text shortened]... dit. We should aspire toward mercy and redemption first, and a cold, punishing justice second.