Thought this would be an interesting debate . .
Is justice served when a victim feels vindicated and recompenced for the crime
Or
when a criminal serves their time (emotionally and physically) . .
Or perhaps both . .
In both circumstances we need an acceptance by both partys that the crime was committed and the resonsibility of emotionally "paying for the crime" rests with their shoulders. .
If a criminal doesnt feel anything for their sins and doesnt care about going to jail then they havent really been punished for their crime. So how do we evaluate the sincerity of a persons apology?
Well repeat offenders are the first obvious port of call and the main answer to that riddle . .
Theres an arguement to be made that a victim can choose to continue to be a victim (emotionally) longer then they need to. Im not saying I subscribe to this line of thought but there is a relevant point in that we can prolonge the agony of a crime by allowing it consume our lives.
The sense of injustice may never leave a person, irrespective of what punishment is bestowed on a criminal. I would love to know if the death penalty (for rapists , murderers) etc makes family members and victims feel better. There is a great arguement for it, if it does. Once a person knowingly, pre medidatedly (is that even a word!) takes the law into their own hands, their fate should not be considered based on the laws of whats decent and fair, but whats fair for the victims.
A person who drink drives and kills another is differant from a person that goes around killing people for fun. I know there is more room for discussion on this one point alone, but generally I would argue that generally anybody mistakingly killing somebody will have the torture of living with that burden the rest of their lives. While this may not fully console those left behind, it is a punishment that the death penalty would only set them free from!
Is there an arguement for doing new drug trials and all sorts of ugly things to certain criminals. I think so, I certainly know that anything goes in my eyes if somebody intentionally kills or rapes somebody close to me. I dont consider myself a violent person, but I do believe in the concept of fair justice which isnt a couple of years bed and breakfast courtesy of the state .
BUT what really upsets me most is that the system does protect the guilty more then it protects the innocent. Innocent until proven guilty is a fair given, but once convicted you should be hammered, particularly if its beyond reasonable question that you comitted a crime. Whether its gangsters in the papers with a smile or criminals laughing and threatening victims in public, the system may have the best intentions but sometimes you have to call a spade a spade and say somethings not working right when the Garda are left helpless watching criminals (whom they know have comitted certain crimes) continue on their merry lives without repurcussions.
When somebody very blatantly, intentionally, obviously (without question) breaks the law they should really pay for it. I wouldnt rule out mutilation or torture. Life should mean life and hard labour (whether it be digging holes that dont really need to be dug or being forced to watch nothing but the weather channel!).
Is the death or freedom of one person worth sacrificing for the safety of others, most definantly if that person has made the choice to intentionally make life difficult for others. You give up your right to be treated like a citizen of the state when you choose to break its rules.
There are obvious flaws to my line of discussion here which I accept and I know its an extreme example but sometimes, to see the lunacy of living by liberalism to the letter, you see the true hypocracy of the laws that a majority of us follow.
In all cases there will always be people who use the system for their own benefit. But does anybody really believe that those who commit the most heinous of crimes really pay for their sins. Physically and mentally I dont really think they do.
Is justice served when a victim feels vindicated and recompenced for the crime
Or
when a criminal serves their time (emotionally and physically) . .
Or perhaps both . .
In both circumstances we need an acceptance by both partys that the crime was committed and the resonsibility of emotionally "paying for the crime" rests with their shoulders. .
If a criminal doesnt feel anything for their sins and doesnt care about going to jail then they havent really been punished for their crime. So how do we evaluate the sincerity of a persons apology?
Well repeat offenders are the first obvious port of call and the main answer to that riddle . .
Theres an arguement to be made that a victim can choose to continue to be a victim (emotionally) longer then they need to. Im not saying I subscribe to this line of thought but there is a relevant point in that we can prolonge the agony of a crime by allowing it consume our lives.
The sense of injustice may never leave a person, irrespective of what punishment is bestowed on a criminal. I would love to know if the death penalty (for rapists , murderers) etc makes family members and victims feel better. There is a great arguement for it, if it does. Once a person knowingly, pre medidatedly (is that even a word!) takes the law into their own hands, their fate should not be considered based on the laws of whats decent and fair, but whats fair for the victims.
A person who drink drives and kills another is differant from a person that goes around killing people for fun. I know there is more room for discussion on this one point alone, but generally I would argue that generally anybody mistakingly killing somebody will have the torture of living with that burden the rest of their lives. While this may not fully console those left behind, it is a punishment that the death penalty would only set them free from!
Is there an arguement for doing new drug trials and all sorts of ugly things to certain criminals. I think so, I certainly know that anything goes in my eyes if somebody intentionally kills or rapes somebody close to me. I dont consider myself a violent person, but I do believe in the concept of fair justice which isnt a couple of years bed and breakfast courtesy of the state .
BUT what really upsets me most is that the system does protect the guilty more then it protects the innocent. Innocent until proven guilty is a fair given, but once convicted you should be hammered, particularly if its beyond reasonable question that you comitted a crime. Whether its gangsters in the papers with a smile or criminals laughing and threatening victims in public, the system may have the best intentions but sometimes you have to call a spade a spade and say somethings not working right when the Garda are left helpless watching criminals (whom they know have comitted certain crimes) continue on their merry lives without repurcussions.
When somebody very blatantly, intentionally, obviously (without question) breaks the law they should really pay for it. I wouldnt rule out mutilation or torture. Life should mean life and hard labour (whether it be digging holes that dont really need to be dug or being forced to watch nothing but the weather channel!).
Is the death or freedom of one person worth sacrificing for the safety of others, most definantly if that person has made the choice to intentionally make life difficult for others. You give up your right to be treated like a citizen of the state when you choose to break its rules.
There are obvious flaws to my line of discussion here which I accept and I know its an extreme example but sometimes, to see the lunacy of living by liberalism to the letter, you see the true hypocracy of the laws that a majority of us follow.
In all cases there will always be people who use the system for their own benefit. But does anybody really believe that those who commit the most heinous of crimes really pay for their sins. Physically and mentally I dont really think they do.