Everyone deserves to be happy. Yes, everyone. amirite?

Time wounds all heels

by Tina68 4 weeks ago

They will lose their freedoms, but in an ideal world they will not lose the capacity to enjoy life. I guess in a practical sense what I am saying is reform the judicial system such that convicts aren't suffering, but do not want to re-offend. I know that sounds impossible, but countries such as Sweden seem to be getting there, with low prison populations, low crime rates, and low rates of re-offence.

by Resident_Car 4 weeks ago

Let me ask you. Do you truly know what causes someone to re-offend?! I do. Desperation to survive, emotional outrage, insanity, addiction and even in very rare cases, genuine evil intentions. There is no way, regardless if you reform a judicial system to be more lenient on people who offend, human flaw will still be there. What you propose cannot exist for too long. The human desire to be better off just a bit more, to reach a higher plain of reality, be better than you or me will come around. Where do you go from there?! Execution? Banishment? Flogging? Or do you just take their toys away?

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

Isn't that the idea of punishment though?

by Nia17 4 weeks ago

I think the only form of punishment should be the temporary (or permanent in extreme cases) loss of freedom. This does not mean that the person will suffer a lasting negative impact on mental health.

by Resident_Car 4 weeks ago

What does a lasting negative impact on mental health mean? A temporary loss of freedom might make someone unhappy, which seems antithesis to your "everyone deserves to be happy" idea.

by Nia17 4 weeks ago

Yes, I concede that a temporary loss of freedom will make someone unhappy. But this should not be the goal of punishment. I believe we can take away freedoms without taking away the ability to enjoy life. I am not saying that we should actively make prisoners happy, but we should make sure they are perfectly able to be happy. It is up to them, as it is up to anyone, to find their own happiness.

by Resident_Car 4 weeks ago

I can't really understand what you are trying to say. It sounds like you are implying that as long as we don't outright kill a person, we can do whatever because its on them to find a way to be happy.

by Nia17 4 weeks ago

We should only restrict the influence that someone can have over others. Things like bad living conditions, bad food, and financial punishment are pretty much certain to cause a loss of happiness. Whereas restricting influence over others is the only necessary aspect of punishment, and will not on it's own prevent a person from being happy.

by Resident_Car 4 weeks ago

What is a bad living condition? Is having a bed and running water enough? Financial punishment like paying restitution for your crimes? Again - I have no clear idea what you are saying. Because it seems like you flip flop between punishment being OK and not OK, depending on a persons own ability to make themselves happy.

by Nia17 4 weeks ago

but we should make sure they are perfectly able to be happy. They are in prison because of the consequences of their actions, why should we go out of our way to make them "happy" after they commit heinous crime? Im not saying to torture them but once they are inside the prison, wether their life inside is difficult or not, they deserve that life. They can seek happiness or try to live a happy life as much as they want inside the prison but i would rather wish happiness to the victims family rather than the criminals.

by Euphoric_Group_9642 4 weeks ago

Ok, so you're saying people can do crimes and then go to prison to live happily.

by kubkarelle 4 weeks ago

There are people who can not be happy without causing harm to others. Society needs to choose which is more important: happiness of one person or happiness of hundreds.

by Keeblerquinton 4 weeks ago

Some people's idea of being "happy" is making others miserable by causing pain, disquietude, and discomfiture.

by Aggravating-Run 4 weeks ago

I don't think Kim Jon Un does.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

I mean I get where you are coming from, I would say he definitely deserves to have his power stripped away, but there is no reason to force misery upon him. Doesn't really help anyone.

by Resident_Car 4 weeks ago

A deterrent? People need to know there are repercussions for their actions.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

The deterrent is the loss of freedom. Convicts should not suffer, but people will still recognise that it is better to be outside of prison if that makes sense.

by Resident_Car 4 weeks ago

they shouldn't be miserable, just take their freedom away?

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

Spot on. I am not completely free, I can't buy a Ferrari, or go to the Maldives tomorrow. But I am happy.

by Resident_Car 4 weeks ago

Losing your freedom is a tad more than unable to afford supercars and livery holidays. I have freedom and can't do those now

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

But you still have freedom. Losing freedom and having a cap on it are not the same. What is even the point you're trying to make? People won't murder people because they then want be able to afford a ferrari?

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

I think one of the things making him cling onto power is fear of the repercussions actually

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

Certainly stick in sloop but I imagine those wanting power dear what happens if they try

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago