many do think what they're doing is wrong but they're hoping the reward is worth the risk and worth doing wrong or maybe the temptations and pressure are persuasive enough crimes of passion are another story

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But when someone robs a bank, they're likely thinking "well it's a very wealthy corporation, they won't suffer" When someone kills a spouse, they think "they were so evil, they deserved it. someone was going to be just as hurt by them as i am and will probably kill them anyways" someone cheating on a test thinks "well if i cheat then i can pass the test to get a better career and help more people in the future" when someone steals a car and sells it they think "my family needs the money more than the people that can afford this nice a car"

by Anonymous 11 years ago

of course they'll justify their actions in their minds that's to ease the guilt but that doesn't mean they don't think the action itself isn't wrong that's why many criminals do feel guilty after the act because they do know what they did is wrong regardless of the justification

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Wouldn't justifying it mean that they don't think it's wrong? I think they're genuinely convinced it's okay, but seeing themselves be persecuted for it later make them question their frail justifications and realize they were wrong. But I don't think they saw it all along

by Anonymous 11 years ago

there's feelings of guilt during the act too that's the conscience telling them it's wrong but the wrong is worth it because of the justifications (in their eyes) again crimes of passion are different in this case many times

by Anonymous 11 years ago

How can one know? I think at some point, people have to be genuinely convinced they're right to proceed. Afterwards, they might think they're just afraid, not guilty, and go by what they felt earlier. But I don't think one can truly do something they think causes more harm that good

by Anonymous 11 years ago

take a rapist for example the person knows rape is wrong think it's wrong as well but the potential for desire overrides it being wrong some will make up plans to take this action and everything same with pedophiles most think it's wrong they're disgusted with themselves but sometimes the potential for desire is enough there are pedophiles who at no point thought it was right

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Oh, I see what you're saying. But there is still probably think there's a moment where they think "Fine, it's okay maybe just this once because I really want to and I can't control myself" It doesn't mean they think it's right, but they think it's acceptable

by Anonymous 11 years ago

hmm I wonder if they've done studies on this

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I wonder. People probably see that it has a bad effect on the world, but they think the benefit to them balances it. But that appearance of balance is the flawed moral

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think what possibly happens is animal instinct kicks in when the desire to do something wrong becomes too much and thought process goes out the window. Then afterwards they realize what they've done and try to cover it up.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Maybe, that could be it. People want something so badly that they refuse to even reason the consequences.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But we as a society agree on what is right and what is wrong. Just because someone deviates from that, for whatever their reason, doesn't make what they did right. It is still wrong, and they must repent for their transgressions.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But repentance accomplishes nothing on a mind that dose not see it as repentance. It's to cleanse the spirit of guilt, and on a conscience where no guilt it felt, repentance is merely causeless suffering. It won't make them feel any better because they never felt bad in the first place. As a society, there's a pretty common consensus, but when people stray from it, they're still wrong to us and deserve to be punished. but they don't deserve to just be beaten senseless for no reason because they did wrong, that will do nothing for them

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So what do we do? Let them go?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Of course not. Society still needs to be protected from them. They should be confined in a place where they can chose to see the error in their ways, be made to do some labor to pay off their living expenses (or come as close as we can), and be kept from causing further harm. But we cannot just torture them because we think they deserve it, that's what I'm trying to say.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

oh you gotta read this http://www.corrections.com/news/article/28290-why-judicial-corporal-punishment-is-better-than-incarceration

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think both have their disadvantages. People with truly flawed morals, in my opinion, do need to be separated from society. I think a life sentence cannot be replaced by physical punishment. However, I think that physical punishment is likely less effective than heavy fining, and people who commit crimes of passion may simply need time to realize what they did was wrong. Hurting them won't make them realize they did wrong, and it works more as a deterrent than a method of punishment. Perhaps we should make prisons look scarier somehow, but we really need to think of a way to prevent bad morals of spreading. That is a serious issue, now that I think about it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

one man stole a dollar from a store because he wanted to enjoy the health benefits in jail

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Wow, that's both sad and ironic. I suppose prison needs to be more deterring, but not through making people needlessly suffer. I don't think it helps people morally, and it will only make them resentful and push them towards misanthropy.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

it seems like the current system creates more monsters and then releases them onto society given the choice of jail time and lashes most chose to get the lashes

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes, I agree that jail has some issues, but I don't think that corporal punishment is the way to go. Dangerous people need to be kept away from society, I think. Letting them brood among others of the same nature is bad, but we cannot just make them hurt and them release the same corrupted bring back into the streets.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

well it would depend on the crime there's petty theft and then there's murder I don't think a thief should have to spend such long years in prison I also thought separating a family member was also a good point it does punish the family for the crime of the individual with jail time

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But the reason for prison sentences isn't to make everybody really upset to deter further crime, it's because these people have a serious chance of attempting crime again, and just hitting them with a stick won't make it go away. It's painful, but it doesn't make people realize they're doing wrong and it's not very deterring either. Small crime, I think, will continue if all we do to criminals is give them a lash.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

if you look at that link it explained how it did deter crime "When executed in public, corporal punishment provides a much better example than prison time. It deters crime effectively. Intense pain fills the offender with a desire to avoid pain in the future. The boredom of prison does not impart the same message. Physical punishment provides offenders with an immediate opportunity to change their behavior and join law-abiding society." and then the negative of incarceration: "Incarceration removes people from the productive economy, cages them, and prevents most of them from working productively or efficiently in the private sector." http://www.corrections.com/news/article/28290-why-judicial-corporal-punishment-is-better-than-incarceration Also "Stable nations using judicial corporal punishment today enjoy significantly lower crime rates than countries that do not." Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/5555500

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I agree that that works better for petty crime, like minor theft, where no serious injury was involved. But not for larger crimes, like robberies in which people were killed, mass shootings, rapes, etc. Something that would result in a life sentence should not be replaced with corporal punishment. It's too big a risk to let them out.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

don't mass murderers face the death penalty?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm not sure. In some places there is no death penalty. The highest punishment is a life sentence (though I think someone facing a life sentence should have a choice to die)

by Anonymous 11 years ago

well people do hang themselves in prison seems cruel to keep someone behind bars for the rest of their life

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's why I think people should have the choice. There should be no obligation to die, however. That's a depressing notion. For some people it may be more favorable to take the life sentence

by Anonymous 11 years ago

that's the problem I think people use too much emotional reasoning when it comes to these things

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Exactly. I've heard many people wish suffering on the Boston marathon bombers, and for them to feel agony for what they've done. This was my response to it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Thanks for posting. I can't disagree with author of this article. We know incarceration often does not rehabilitate criminals. I also think rapists and other sexual predators, once convicted by a jury, should be "disarmed". Still, there's a part of me that thinks corporal punishment is too barbaric. I feel society lowers itself when it resorts to such tactics. Why? I'm not sure. Incarceration is not too nice either.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

you probably view it as barbaric because of social construct also many view methods from ages ago as barbaric even if such methods are effective mostly because they feel that you have to keep changing in a different way than the past in order to advance but in truth, you can still advance while still keeping some old methods just use a combination

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I was thinking there was a good chance my viewpoint was strongly influenced by my cultural upbringing. You make some excellent points. The overarching goal should be to minimize all human suffering. Of course this is an impossible thing to calculate, but it seems a worthy goal. So, if we accept that incarceration is just as painful to the criminal as corporal punishment, but that corporal punishment is a better deterrent, then the choice is pretty clear.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But just to be clear... I am not for physically punishing people who smoke pot.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

OK. Well I agree that we should not torture anyone. But of course torture is relative as well. One man's poison is another man's meat.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But I mean physical pain. I'm referring to going above and beyond separating them from society to protect it. If that's torture to someone, it can't be helped. But making sure that someone is suffering won't make them realize their errors, it will only make them resentful and perhaps more inclined to get away with crime next time. It makes them society's enemies in the end, if they are forced to suffer when they don't have to.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes. I agree - why does this come up? In the US we don't torture criminals as part of their rehabilitation.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

separating family members is torture

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Like I said, it is relative, but OP said he was specifically referring to inflicting physical pain.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

oh okay well I think a petty theft should be punished with lashes instead of being separated from family members and having the family suffer as well

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I know you do. Still trying to digest that one. How about community service, or having to be the victims butler for a week?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

the butler idea is out I don't want my abuser anywhere near me unless I feel they've changed feels unsafe too community service sounds cool but you get that for things like skipping school too often I think theft should be treated with more heft

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The key issue is whether to ensure they're enduring grueling //physical// suffering. When people wish the most gruesome pains on a criminal, would it really be right for criminals to be forced to endure it?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Because in the instance of popular criminals, I always hear people wishing for the criminals to suffer. It's something citizens don't always understand, not the judicial system

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Got it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Educate them the way society failed to do in the first place.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

or each person can take responsibility for their own actions society can only do so much everyone's a part of society maybe we failed ourselves

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They should still be punished.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Absolutely. However, that punishment should be to make then see the error in their ways, not to suffer. Suffering only accomplishes something in the form of repentance to clear a guilty conscience, which only works on a guilty conscience. That's why prisons aren't just torture centers, life is confined but not miserable. It's punishment, but it's not needless suffering.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Oh, I get what you're saying now! I guess I agree then.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And punishment for suffering dehumanizes them and will lead them to extremes and commit crimes in the future, in Swedish jails were they are rehabilitated and treated like people, the repeat offenders number is something less then 1/5 in comparison to America or Canada which is 3/5

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't know, I no longer accept statistics. There are too many factors to isolate the only variable that decreases crime rate. Fuzala said earlier that crime rate is lowered when corporal punishment is used.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well if we look to rehabilitate instead of punish for the sake of punishment then we can actually bring people who have commited crime back into society and make them productive and benefit society. Treat a Human like a human and they'll act like a human

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Exactly. We need a way to protect society from criminals, but also protect criminals from the broken values of other criminals. But it's cruel to not let criminals be close to anybody. Maybe allow much longer visiting hours with more privacy, but keep prisoners less close to each other. That way, they're gaining more influence from people on the outside. Maybe have every prison have a therapist who it's mandated to see (but i see a lot of problems with something like that).

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think if there are therapists and you allow education and job opportunities for prisoners and you have like group activities to build social skills. With the exception of murderers and rapists I think need some solitary confinement

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah, people who face life sentences should have access to therapy, but should not be required to rehabilitate. I also think that people facing life sentences should have the choice to die. It's sort of off topic, but that's just what I think. Usually death sentences are more expensive than life sentences, but with consent to die it would be cheaper.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's true, hmm I'm kind of conflicted because I don't like the idea is suicide. But it would be cheaper and they wouldn't be a leach on society

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It's really sad, but somebody who faces a life they can't stand with no hope of ever seeing a better tomorrow should have the choice, at least. Many people hang themselves anyways, at least it could be done painlessly for them

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah, maybe and I don't think they'd ever be able to re-enter society as a normal person anyways

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And since we're talking about a life sentence, it's people who wouldn't be allowed to anyways

by Anonymous 11 years ago

In Canada life sentence is 25 years, I forget that it's longer elsewhere

by Anonymous 11 years ago

the longest sentence I heard is 125 years

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Is it? 25 years is what I remember but I could be mistaken

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I heard it on //Law and Order// "Mr...[blah blah] sentence you to 125 years in...[blah blah]" -bangs gavel- alright so I looked it up and found an even longer sentence "A former TV station owner is sentenced to 1,000 years in prison for sexual exploitation of children. Peter Mallory was sentenced Tuesday in a Troup County courtroom on 60 counts of child exploitation. Each of the first 50 counts carries a 20 year sentence. The last 10 counts carry a concurrent sentence of 5 years. Mallory was also charged with three counts of invasion of privacy and tampering with evidence. Mallory is the former owner of TV 33, a local television station in LaGrange." http://www.wsfa.com/story/21139542/former-tv-station-owner-sentenced-to-1000-years-in-prison so I see the years add up depending on how many times the offense occurred

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Wait, it's a set number of years? i always thought it's just as long as you live, with no chance of leaving

by Anonymous 11 years ago

In Canada the longest you can get is 25 years, but by then they've lost most of their life and they'll never have a chance at a normal life anyways

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Oh, I think it's different in America. But you may be right. I'll have to find out. But still, people in prison facing lengthy sentences should have the choice of suicide, I feel, because - as you said - they're hardly going to integrate themselves back into society

by Anonymous 11 years ago

From what I last remember is that it's like 25 years per life lost, so someone whose killed like 5 people get 125 years in prison, but in Canada it's if you've killed at all

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I've been struggling with a thought lately. Can we really blame anyone for anything? Humans have very limited free will. Say someone rapes someone else. Everyone will jump on the rapist and say it was his fault and that he's a bad person. Did he really have a choice in the matter? Clearly, rape was worth more to him than any potential consequences. In what way is that his fault? It's not like he consciously made it so that his values were shifted that way, and humans are incapable of acting against their value system. Anyone who says they could have chosen not to rape is correct. . . Because they have a different value system, and thus the comparison is irrelevant. It's like putting a child in front of a 250 pound dumbbell and shaming them because they can't lift it. The decision to do bad things is born out of the mind putting one's needs above others'. The priority level of each thing is not something we can consciously determine, and therefore I believe we can't blame people for doing bad things. It's a tough pill to swallow, but I think punishing people for committing crimes and calling rapists/murderers scum and such is wrong on some level. As nice and justified as it feels to treat criminals badly, it's the same as treating gays and blacks badly. They can't help the fact that the crime was at the top of their list of priorities. All we can do is understand this and do everything we can to ensure that a crime is not at the top of a person's list of priorities.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And then I realize that everything I just said is what's //been// said in the post and throughout the comments. I wish my mind would comprehend information faster.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

well it was still nice to get that perspective although I don't agree with the comparison of the child and dumbbell I think most have more control than that but I'm sure plenty of rapists felt bad about what they did they still have a conscience I know from //Law and Order: SVU// this one kid had strong urges to rape little kids he didn't do anything yet but he went to the police to ask for help he was snubbed by one of them but the other one tried to explain to the partner obviously he was looking for help he did end up raping a kid though (the rapist was a teen) and then he got shot by another pedophile who controlled himself all his life (he was an old man) the old man was mad that the teen for not controlling himself so there should be a program for people like rapists and pedophiles to help curb desires and make it anonymous too like AA get help before the deed occurs

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think the dumbbell comparison is accurate. Either you can do something, or you can't. It is impossible to suddenly change what you can or can't do without a big external change. Even though the rapists felt bad, their feelings weren't as important to them as the satisfaction of raping someone in that moment, therefore they had no choice. Exactly, "get help". If you were able to choose not to do something, you wouldn't need help. It brings me back to the dumbbell comparison; the child would have to ask for help to lift it. If they could lift it on their own, they wouldn't need help.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I still think punishment should remain the idea of consequence has stopped many from continuing there are tons of rapists, pedophiles, etc. that have not taken action because of the values they hold and/or the potential punishment there's also the groups of people like sociopaths and whatnot they definitely are need of programs before the deed occurs

by Anonymous 11 years ago

We need //some// form of deterrent. But I disagree with the current practice of treating them like trash for something they couldn't help.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

ah they couldn't help the desires in some ways but for most the actions could've been helped some will stare at children and get their jollies not just once or twice but a daily trip to the park "I'm just looking not doing anything else" at that point you're really playing with temptation and encouraging the desires instead of curbing them you take one little move and it may slowly escalate I don't we should treat those who admit to having a problem badly they just want help but those who have done the deed that's a whole other ball game I have more sympathy for some than others for instance the one who looks physically ill compared the one who is cackling and gloating about it or the difference between someone who truly is sorry and one who's not I don't know if you got this link before from above but I wanted to share and see what you think: http://www.corrections.com/news/article/28290-why-judicial-corporal-punishment-is-better-than-incarceration

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I refuse to believe that someone who murders or rapes another human being was incapable of doing the crime. That's bull. We are all in control of our actions. Sure, some of us struggle with temptation, but we can't give murderers a pat on the back because they couldn't help that killing was their temptation. Sure, it may be at the top of their values. But, unless we have a mental health problem, we all are in control of what we do. If someone harms another innocent person, they should face the consequences of their actions, no matter what.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

See, we need understanding. You aren't demonstrating it. I think you, on paper, should demonstrate more understanding than I. We are only in control of our actions within the set parameters of our values. We are animals that do things based on cause and effect. I submit to you that if doing the cause is more important to a human being than avoiding any of the effects, it is impossible not to do the cause. Let me give you an example. Person A wishes to murder person B. Person A does not care about getting caught afterwards, does not care what anyone thinks of him, does not care about any potential suffering to Person B, and does not think he would feel guilty after. What is preventing Person A from murdering Person B? Nothing. If there is nothing preventing it from happening, there's no reason for it not to happen. Therefore, it will happen each and every time the scenario is run. The only thing that would change it is introducing a change into Person A in which he suddenly cares about something else more than murdering Person B. However, changing values is not something we can consciously do without external interference. The point is, it is not Person A's fault that he murdered Person B. There was no way he could choose not to, as he had no reason not to; every human action requires a reason.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't believe that. This may sound far-fetched, but I believe that we are all genuinely good at heart in the beginning. I think when we give into a bad thought here and there, we begin to slip, but there is a time when you can choose to think on it or not. Either way, although there are grey areas, I think we all know the general difference between right and wrong. But if someone does murder tons of innocent people because it is something he "values" then he is sick, to be honest. I feel like there is true evil in a person that commits crimes like that, because I feel like they do know right from wrong and they have just chosen evil again and again. I do not feel sorry for these people because they had an initial choice in the first place. Mental health issues are a totally different story.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I do not believe in good or evil. I only believe in regard for others and selfishness. The only thing we can hope is that each individual's life culminates in a way that their regard for others out-weights their selfishness. I happen to be a crazy sexual deviant as well as having a lot of homicidal rage dwelling within me. That's my selfish side. However, I have a high regard for other people. I don't like being upset, and I do my best not to make other people upset. I try to make people comfortable, and I try not to create bad situations for them. Along with the threat of guilt preventing me from doing something bad, I am afraid of getting caught doing something bad. As long as my regard for other people holds out, I will not do anything bad. The only reason I have this regard for people is either because I was born with it, or because my mother spent so much time teaching me to be good. Either way, I never made a "choice" to be good or bad. I just happened to turn out like I did. Just as I can't help my terrible urges, I can't help that I won't act on them. I get that it's nice to think everyone is responsible for themselves, because it's human nature to need to blame something for a bad thing that happened. It's not right, though. People can't help it, and what we need to do is try raising them so that they won't turn out bad. It won't always work, but it's a step toward finding something that does work.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So you don't believe people are In control of their own actions?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Sorry to jump in here but that not what I read Mike saying. He said - absent any reason not to do it (including an understanding/disregard of the consequences) he will do it. It's still a choice. He chooses to do what his twisted logic compels him to do. It would be illogical for him NOT to do it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Exactly. It's a choice, but we're programmed by our experience and our values and our genetics to decide a certain way. There is no chance involved. It's difficult to call it "choice" when it's up to us, but it's pre-determined by who we are.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Oh okay, I understand what you're saying now

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I just want to clarify- the post isn't saying they shouldn't be punished because they're not in control It's saying that it's wrong to make them suffer just because it makes us feel good. We shouldn't be happy when a criminal is in pain, because they're just misguided. They should still suffer, but so that they can change for the better.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

my main disagreement is with the first sentence I think they do agree with the law

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Hmm, perhaps you're right. Or at least there's no way for me to know that. Actually, it's not that they think the law is wrong, they think that it's worth it despite the bad it causes. The law kind of implies that it's not worth the bad it causes, and that implication is what criminals disagree with. They don't think it should be forbidden, but they know that it causes a lot of bad

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okay, I see what you're saying. I agree with that.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But then again, you said in the post that they should not suffer in repentance for their crime. They should. Even if they think what they did was right, I still think they should suffer, like they made their victims suffer. It's justice. It may not snap the criminal into shape, but if someone harmed someone I loved, I would want that person to suffer like my loved one did. I think that's justice. I actual could care less if the person who harmed my loved one learned or not. I would love them too, but I could not just say, oh they thought it was right, they couldn't help that they had a crappy childhood, we need to teach them what is right.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But if it won't teach them what's right, then what's the point? It'll merely give people pleasure to see someone suffer, and I think that's wrong, even though it feels so right. There's no actual gain from it, other than the satisfaction of seeing pain, and I don't think that's a morally sound way to seek satisfaction.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think you would be surprised how much a person's enviroment effects them. I believe everyone is born pure and they learn evil. For example Paul Bernardo a serial killer in Canada he used to kill and rape women, however he had a sick childhood, so I wonder if his childhood is what led him to be this way, or if he was truly that way? I think everyone is a product of your environment. (I'm not saying excuse criminal acts because murder is disgusting and shouldn't happen same with rape and other forms of violence inflicted on an innocent person)

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No I definitely agree that a person is strongly influenced by their environment. But you're right, that doesn't excuse their actions. We can't pity murderer or rapist just because they were thrown into a bad environment and not taught well. I'll use Frankenstein for an example. The monster was thrown into a horrible life and was never loved or accepted, but at a certain point in his murders, you can't keep feeling sorry for him. He knows what he's doing is wrong because he does feel sympathy for his victims, but his resentment towards his "father" is his justification for the acts. Sure, he may have had a horrible life and was never loved, but if he knew right from wrong, I can't feel bad for him, ya know?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I just think that perhaps the reason this person is so damaged is because of the environment they were raised in, like if they had another life if they would still be this disgusting? Idk

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Environment affects us all, but there are still genetic factors. However, I think environment usually plays a stronger role

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah. I tried to make this post say that they should be punished, but it shouldn't make us happy. I think I made it sound like criminals shouldn't be punished for it because of that, and I didn't mean to say that at all

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I know what you mean. A person being in physical pain would never bring me joy. But in a way, it would give me peace knowing that justice was served.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But I think any kind of satisfaction from another's pain is unjust. It's not really solving anything other than giving people that sense of justice, which I think is somewhat immoral

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think every action has an equal and opposite reaction. And I strongly believe in justice. I believe we should treat others how we would want to be treated, and if we harm them and make them suffer, we should suffer too.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But why? What's the point? The only reason I'd ever want to suffer is to clear a guilty conscience. if I don't feel guilty, suffering will only make me miserable. And if that won't make someone see the error in their ways, then what point is there to it? Maybe if it will, then there's a point, but there are better ways to teach people a lesson than to hurt them.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What would you do to them then? If someone killed an innocent person or maybe even multiple people and they are set in their ways that it was the right thing to do and they feel guilty for it, you would just lock them up and forget about it? Maybe try and make them change their ways? You wouldn't try to make them repay for all the lives they ended? How is that fair at all to all of those innocent victims?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'd separate them from society, try to make them understand their errors, but I would not make them suffer without cause. It's actually a very tough question. But do you agree that the only benefit to making them suffer is that it will give people satisfaction? I do not think it's morally just to be happy that somebody is suffering. I'm guilty of it myself sometimes, but I truly think that the only important thing when it comes to punishment is protecting society and giving them as good a chance to change as possible. And it's very hard for me to think, because it makes me mad to think about criminals not suffering, but I think it's right nonetheless.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I get what you're saying. You're a much more compassionate person than I am haha

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It's not easy to admit to myself. it feels so natural to feel good about a criminal's suffering. I wonder why it's so natural. It's almost bred. When we play games as kids, we associate our enemies losing as ourselves winning, when here it's not exactly the case. When a criminal suffers, it doesn't mean that we won against them. It just means we gave in to their game and stooped to their level of causing harm unto the opponent to make yourself a winner

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think it's because people need a sense of justice, and can't accept that bad things //just happen//. If something bad happens, we need to blame something, so we blame the person who did it. We also can't really blame them if we're under the impression that they couldn't control their actions, so we believe everyone is completely in control. Since they were in control and still chose to do something bad, clearly they were bad people and deserve to be punished. That perceived justice gives people a sense of satisfaction. Everyone would lose their minds if they couldn't blame people for the bad things that happen because their expectation of justice would be diminished.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Every time I read this I change my mind. So I am unvoting.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Isn't that even worse? If they think they're right, they'll do it again.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They should still be punished- I guess I didn't convey that strongly enough- but we shouldn't force them to endure as much pain as they've caused, because that's not the goal of punishment. The goal is to rehabilitate and protect society from them. If we were to just make them suffer for the duration of their confinement in prison because we're happy that they're getting what they deserve, it's wrong because they're suffering needlessly. It would make us worse people to enjoy others' suffering, while they would be miserable. I think there's more harm than good done. it's almost like seeking revenge on them for what they did.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

We want them to remember the bad experiences in prison so they never do that stuff again, even if they see nothing wrong with it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It's useful as a deterrent, but we shouldn't do it just because it gives us satisfaction of revenge. They should not have a nice time, but they shouldn't suffer excessively, just enough to be humanely deterred. Good call though, I forgot to say that.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'd like to clarify that I'm not saying criminals should not be punished. They should at least be kept away from society for its protection. I'm saying that it's wrong to wish horrible suffering on a criminal for what they did, because it's not going to help them and they still don't accept that they've done something wrong. The suffering will be pointless, and it's wrong for us to feel good just because a wrongdoer is in pain.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Like spanking a child.. it doesn't teach them //why// their action was wrong but only that they may be punished again **if they're caught**. Of course, out of pure disgust for their actions, I've thought some people should rot in prison for the rest of their existence, but what does it really accomplish?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They should face prison for the rest of their lives, but isn't it just as cruel to be happy that they're suffering as it is for them to see others happy to suffer? They should be in prison, but there's no reason for us to make them suffer excessively

by Anonymous 11 years ago