Originally posted by agrysonThat is interesting... If they could perfect a rehab program we would not have to deal with length of imprisonment issues. If you are found guilty of a crime, you stay in prison until rehabilitated. You could be in there for 2 months or a lifetime.
If they haven't been rehabilitated, keeping them in there a little longer simply adds to their integration issues after, which could undo the good work. Maybe after rehabilitation is deemed successful, move them to a lower security prison? They serve their sentence to completion, but are being prepared for reintegration into society. Good for them and us that way.
Originally posted by agrysonWould you be for keeping every covicted felon in jail until they are completely rehabed?
If they haven't been rehabilitated, keeping them in there a little longer simply adds to their integration issues after, which could undo the good work. Maybe after rehabilitation is deemed successful, move them to a lower security prison? They serve their sentence to completion, but are being prepared for reintegration into society. Good for them and us that way.
Do you think every criminal can be rehabilitated?
Will you take personal responsibilty for any crimes commited by those you've deemed rehabilitated?
Originally posted by WheelyMercy and justice seem to be relative concepts. Not so long ago mercy was exemplified by allowing a victim sentenced to be burnt alive to be strangled just before the flames started to tickle him.
You'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.
You're talking about the impossibility of forgiveness which is a completely different things. At least in my view.
Originally posted by AlcibiadesI mostly agree which is why I keep adding "in my view" to things. However, I'm pretty sure that a constant theme of mercy, even using your example, is that it is an unnecessary feeling of humanity.
Mercy and justice seem to be relative concepts. Not so long ago mercy was exemplified by allowing a victim sentenced to be burnt alive to be strangled just before the flames started to tickle him.
I believe that justice should come before mercy.
Now we should define justice and define mercy.
Mercy was and still is a very useful sentiment for species survival. When one of our ancestors saw another of his species in danger of being eating and helped him, a giant leap in survival was made. However, when someone breaks the law, mercy can be dangerous. It creates a precedent ("if X got away with it, should we allow Y to escape justice as well"😉. Then mercy is no longer a survival instrument but the opposite.
One should suffer the consequences of his actions, and after the penalty is served or in special circumstances be shown mercy.
Originally posted by ZahlanziI don't think that is mercy. That's just common compassion. For me they are not the same thing. I think an essential element of mercy is that the receiver could be considered as not deserving receiving it.
Mercy was and still is a very useful sentiment for species survival. When one of our ancestors saw another of his species in danger of being eating and helped him, a giant leap in survival was made.
Originally posted by Wheelywell since you put it this way let me argue again.
I don't think that is mercy. That's just common compassion. For me they are not the same thing. I think an essential element of mercy is that the receiver could be considered as not deserving receiving it.
this might be dangerous. i mean i understand mercy if you catch a guy stealing from your store and letting him go. but a guy who kills someone should not be getting any mercy because it contradicts the greater good.
and anyway, mercy is like candy. it is good at sometimes, but never in excess, never in certain circumstances, most of the time will rot your teeth and most important you can do without.
Originally posted by Wheelywell, allowing a criminal to go free and giving him the possibility to commit crime is against the greater good.
Sorry, i don't follow you. Which greater good?
if we serve justice without mercy, we can say he paid his debt to society and we have no right to detain him any longer. if he decides to commit crime again, that is his choice
Originally posted by ZahlanziI don't think anybody is suggesting that mercy means letting people go free.
well, allowing a criminal to go free and giving him the possibility to commit crime is against the greater good.
if we serve justice without mercy, we can say he paid his debt to society and we have no right to detain him any longer. if he decides to commit crime again, that is his choice
Originally posted by Wheely"I think an essential element of mercy is that the receiver could be considered as not deserving receiving it."
I don't think anybody is suggesting that mercy means letting people go free.
This is how i interpreted these words. Perhaps you meant something else?
Originally posted by ZahlanziThat's not how I meant them.
"I think an essential element of mercy is that the receiver could be considered as not deserving receiving it."
This is how i interpreted these words. Perhaps you meant something else?
I was saying that, for me, if you don't do something to hurt someone that you could reasonably be justified in doing then that is "mercy". It was just a description of my understanding of "mercy" and that it is different than "justice".
Originally posted by Wheelywell yeah, when taken separately. but this thread is about whether to show justice or mercy and that means that in order to show both, a certain amount of justice must be sacrificed. How much justice should be sacrificed, we are here to debate
That's not how I meant them.
I was saying that, for me, if you don't do something to hurt someone that you could reasonably be justified in doing then that is "mercy". It was just a description of my understanding of "mercy" and that it is different than "justice".
"if you don't do something to hurt someone ". this circumstance doesn't call very loudly for justice. i mean i can think of jay walking and smoking in public and i don't know, loitering in which cases this applies.
i think the question is for cases in which you do hurt someone. FOr example, a guy is drunk and kills his wife. Does he deserve mercy, or better said should we show mercy because he was drunk?
Originally posted by jammerI guess on reflection, I think it is a good idea to keep criminals in prison until fully rehabilitated.
Would you be for keeping every covicted felon in jail until they are completely rehabed?
Do you think every criminal can be rehabilitated?
Will you take personal responsibilty for any crimes commited by those you've deemed rehabilitated?
I do not think every criminal can be rehabilitated, a degree of willingness is required on their part which cannot be forced upon them.
Given that I'm not making a personal decision to release them, (that's the point of a justice system, to take the "personal" out of it) but yes, the justice system should take responsibility for a failure in rehabilitation and thus amend its procedures and methods to improve in future.
Originally posted by agrysonOK, will you take personal responsibilty for your justice system?
I guess on reflection, I think it is a good idea to keep criminals in prison until fully rehabilitated.
I do not think every criminal can be rehabilitated, a degree of willingness is required on their part which cannot be forced upon them.
Given that I'm not making a personal decision to release them, (that's the point of a justice system, to take the "per ...[text shortened]... a failure in rehabilitation and thus amend its procedures and methods to improve in future.
Will you be responsible for those selected to decide who is/is'nt "fully"rehabiltated?
For those that can never be fully rehabilitated, will you be responsibile for taking food from poor children in need in order to maintain such as these?