Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
It isn't quite so easy. It seems things were lost in your glossing. The punishment should fit the crime, of course--debt to society, and all that. Before I explain, let me put your thoughts a different way: If we blind and scar the criminal, the victim is still blind and scarred. But now there are two sets of families and friends who must bear the burden of having a loved one who has survived and must live after such a violent experience. This too fails to re-establish harmony, and has only increased suffering. (I will leave out, for the moment, the wider practical and ethical concerns in regard to a mode of social/governmental punishment that practices an eye for an eye.)
|
If you rehabilitate him and he does community service, the victim is still blind and scarred, you cant change the victims circumstances, so i dont see that as a factor. if we blind and scar the criminal, there ARE two sets of families who have to deal with it, it HAS increased the suffering of mankind overall, but i think it would deter future similar attacks and would definately keep him from doing it again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
What is more just, then? In my opinion, it would be more just to punish the criminal in such a way that both attempts to rehabilitate him and forces him to improve the life of the victim and the well-being of his community. This can be done through payable damages, community service, etc. Payable damages can be sums of money (I don't know anyone who can't use money). Community service can include anything from picking up litter to helping the homeless find work and a place to live, helping feed the impoverished, or working with at-risk kids to prevent them from becoming criminals themselves...or a number of other important jobs that work to widely improve a community. We see this happening in Western courts. I'm not sure how this works in religious or other courts that may differ from ours.
So you have a choice:
- Eye for an eye...make the criminal suffer as did his victim.
- A punishment that forces the criminal to pay assets to the victim and to perform a certain requirement of community service (even if it is while incarcerated). Also, if it is fitting, make him take courses or enter programs to help change his negative behaviour.
Tell me, what would serve best to restore harmony to the community? |
the vicitm said she didnt want the money, i dont think the criminal could do anything to satisfy the victim (which is her issue to deal with, another whole topic), so i dont count the victim as part of my decision.
of the two options you offer, the second one definately sounds a lot nicer and better. its what western courts are doing now. i just dont beleive in it, i dont think rehabilitation works 90% of the time. And so, since it hasnt really worked for so many years, why dont we try the extreme approach, make the criminal suffer a similar fate as the crime. perhaps if criminals knew what could happen to them, they would not commit the crime as quickly, and THAT would help restore harmony to the community.
i base my decision off of what an afghani told me once. he had shot up and killed some folks, when i confronted him, he told me he knew the americans couldnt hurt him, we coulndt do anything to him but put him in a cell with his friends and feed him and take care of him, so he wasnt afraid, didnt care, and would wait to be released to do it again.
funny thing, a somali told me the same thing in somalia back in 92.
same thing was told to me by an iraqi. but then we told the iraqi we would turn him over to the iraqis, and he freaked out and was quite cooperative. he knew the iraqis would fuck him up if they got thier hands on him.
the true threat of personal harm, no matter how unpleasant and cruel it seems, to me has proven effective, so i am in favor of it.