no way justice tastes sweet there's a difference between revenge and justice

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But what is sweet about watching someone suffer when there's absolutely no gain from it? It makes them more sad than it makes us happy

by Anonymous 12 years ago

the way I think about it is if someone takes my eye out I have the right to take his/her eye out if people did decide to get their revenge I wouldn't blame them even though I personally would not take an eye out I think there's greater reward in forgiving

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I can understand why people want to see others suffer, but I don't think it's right. I'm sure you've heard that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. But letting people suffer excessively for crimes does more harm to them than it does good to us, and if someone else's pain is our idea of satisfaction, then I don't know if that's morally sound. I think that is desensitizes us to gain pleasure from others' pain. I don't think it's morally right, because some of their deed was beyond their control

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't see it as enjoying suffering I see it as enjoying a balance yeah that's where I got the taking my eye out from the comment this person made shows the origins: http://amirite.com/752158-convicted-murderers-should-never-be-let-out-of-jail-an-eye-for-an-eye-is-what-i-believe-why-let/1885395

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I feel that that is stooping to the criminal's level of "Because you lose, I win. Because you're in pain, i must be the opposite because we're opponents". Just because they're our enemies doesn't mean we should be happy about their pain. Them being losers doesn't make us winners. If we're happy about them being in pain, then we're losing our morals and our empathy. It's good that they're behind bars and that should earn us peace of mind, but them being in pain does not make us in any better a position

by Anonymous 12 years ago

my main concern in these situations is to protect society fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That's why they still need to be put behind bars. But we shouldn't torture them behind bars until they've suffered as much as their victim. it makes them miserable, it makes us insensitive. Is it right for us to be happy that a rapist is getting raped? That a murderer is getting murdered? I do not think it's morally sound of us to gain pleasure from such a thing.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

In general my view is that it's better not to get revenge but if people were to strive to get it I wouldn't say it was shameful

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It's something that's not right, but you can't expect people to not pursue it because it's so hard to see that it's wrong when you're so angry. You just can't expect it of people. But it's still wrong.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm pretty happy my supposed ex best friend is in jail for stealing my bike, doing heroin, and being a run away. She deserves it and it's better than her being on the streets being a junkie.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You can be glad that society is safe from her, but it's not morally sound to be glad that she is unhappy. It's basically revenge if you are, and it's pretty accepted that revenge isn't morally just.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't accept that revenge is morally unjust. She deserves what she got, she fucked me over even though we were best friends for 5 years. Morals are subjective, and imo, she deserves what she got= me happy.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I guess I can understand. If pursuing revenge is the only way to move on (and I admit sometimes it is), then getting it is a reason to be happy. Without it, we should try to move on, and when we can we should, but I understand that many times people can't without knowing the criminal has suffered. We should let it go when we can, though (still imprisoning the criminal though). I think that it's immoral, but it's so natural that you can't look down on anybody for feeling that way. I still don't think it's right to be happy that somebody else isn't, but it's not expected of everybody to be able to let things go. I think letting it go raises yourself, though, in a way. You get past the wrongs without needing to see someone suffer, and I think that's better, since the suffering doesn't necessarily help the criminal.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Fascinating thing- I'm beginning to think that it's immoral, but it's not always bad (depending on how one feels about it). It may be worse to pretend you're past it while brooding in silence and repressing your anger, if you can't move past it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I think it's perfectly acceptable for us to take pleasure in the suffering of those who do evil things. As has been said but fuzala, justice is sweet. You think it's cool to hurt innocent people? Fine, then I think it's cool to hurt you for that. Makes sense to me.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Doesn't that make you just as low as them? To take pleasure in the suffering of somebody? It only lowers your moral standing to be happy that another person is unhappy. They may have caused suffering, but making them suffer causes more harm than good is it makes you satisfied that they're in horrible agony, because there's more harm to them than good to you (which, when you look at the moral harm it does to you, is none at all, really), then it's not right at all.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What makes the difference is that they did something to deserve their suffering. They take pleasure in harming those who don't deserve it. I take pleasure in the harm of those who do. It's justice, plain and simple.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But what exactly makes someone //deserve// to suffer with a complete absence of any gain from it? Why do they have to suffer if absolutely nothing changes from it? We should be happy when something good happens to the world, not when absolutely nothing changes. It is not in the world's best interests, and there's really no reason to be happy. It's only admitting that we have a desire of harm unto another human being who has only done what they've been nurtured from a cluster of cells to do. Are they really in control? How can we hate them if they have not had anything to make them see the error in their ways? Isn't it just a little sad that the thing that makes us all good people, they don't have? It seems like a lack of empathy to me, now that I finally narrow down on it. That's what it comes down to. I can completely understand if somebody seriously wronged cannot empathize with whoever caused their strife, and I don't look down on them for it, but I don't think it's right to completely fail to empathize with the criminal. Doing something bad does not make them undeserving of empathy

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I disagree. I think that some actions constitute forfeiture of human rights. For example, Richard Speck. Raped and killed eight (I think) nurses because he felt like it. In my eyes, that man has forfeited his right to empathy. I don't give a damn what his excuse may be (unless it's insanity and he can't tell right from wrong). Of course I have a desire to harm some human beings. The change that occurs is in the minds of people like me and the grieving families of victims. The gain is that justice has been done and we as a society take that positively.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But nobody is perfectly sane- criminals clearly have different, lacking minds. The same way an insane person may lack the ability to judge their actions, criminals have an extremely impaired conscience. Isn't that resembling insanity? And certain rights are taken away once you're criminalized, but others remain intact- and I believe right to empathy to be one of them. There's always two sides. While there's no good reason to commit that kind of crime, there's an explanation for why it was committed, and I think you'll find that most of the explanation will be of things that people have no control over- so really, they don't chose to be criminals. They chose to commit a crime, but they don't chose to be someone that chooses to commit a crime. And I think that earns them some empathy. That's why it's wrong to make them suffer for being something they never chose to be.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

"They chose to commit a crime". That's all I need.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But they didn't chose to chose to commit the crime. If you want to ignore the significant portion of my explanation and let my point be overshadowed by something that I'm trying to explain, then go ahead. But if you want to actually understand why I feel this way, then I'd recommend trying to see it from my perspective, at least for the duration of my explanation. If they chose to commit the crime, but they did not chose to chose to commit the crime, did they really chose to commit the crime? I don't think so.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I understand your argument, I just skipped over the second part because I don't think it's applicable. I hold criminals entirely responsible for their actions. The way they think may not be of their choosing, but pulling the trigger (or whatever they did) was entirely their decision and their responsibility.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But you're making them responsible for something that they've no control over. They should be obligated to change and feel guilty, because they should feel bad about who they are in order to motivate change. But if suffering doesn't motivate change, then why are we so happy about it? We're making the person a scapegoat for the many environmental and genetic components that come together and control that person. You're attacking the puppet, not the hand behind it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't buy into that way of thinking. You're saying that the person isn't responsible for who they are. Maybe not, but they're still responsible for their actions. I don't believe that genetic and environmental factors are any excuse for horrendous acts.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

They're not justification, they're an explanation. They had no possible way of not committing the crime given the environmental and genetic circumstances. They should take what power they now have to change themselves for the better, but they do not need to suffer for it, and therefore should not. And I think it's wrong to gain pleasure from unnecessary suffering, regardless of the circumstances.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If they have the power to change themselves after committing a crime, then they have the power to not commit the crime in the first place.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That's not true. The catalyst of the change was the guilt of crime, without which they had no understanding of their wrong. Therefore, without the knowledge that they could do wrong, they did not have the power to change.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Guilt wouldn't manifest only after the crime is committed. If the prospect of commiting that crime doesn't shoot up red flags in the person's brain/conscience beforehand, they won't be there afterwards, either. The action doesn't change a person's morality.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That's not necessarily true. That rests on the assumption that they've carefully thought through the crime. However, that's not my point. If the crime was committed, there could not have been anything that could have changed that. There could have been no spontaneous epiphanies because if you run that simulation in one universe, it will happen in any other. In hindsight (and //only// in hindsight) it is clear and definite that there was //no way// for any different reality to have played out without rearranging some particles somewhere along the line. And particles don't just move themselves to more convenient positions for us. Making a convict suffer, in my opinion, is an effort to control the past. You're hurting a person instead of trying to turn them into a person you wouldn't want to hurt. And the latter has indefinitely higher priority. There are other things that are more important to do and putting them off just to feel better about something that already happened demonstrates intent to control something that the world has moved past. It serves no purpose, and there is therefore no logical and morally just reason to make someone suffer instead of trying to rehabilitate them morally.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

There is no logical reason for a lot of things that occur in the human mind. If someone kills my family, I'm going to hunt them down and see that they're dealt with in the most unpleasant way possible. I realize that this won't change what happened, but it makes me feel just a little bit better and it restores balance to the universe. Those reasons are enough for me. I'm far too cynical to subscribe to your views about people. I don't believe that any atrocity (I don't like to say "crime", the law is irrelevant) is inevitable. It happened because the responsible party decided to make it happen. Whether it was a conscious or unconscious, hastily made or thought out decision, is irrelevant to me. You made the decision to hurt me, now I'm making the decision to hurt you. If someone walks up to me and punches me, my reaction is to punch them back, not ask why they did it and try to turn them into a person that won't do it again. Besides, if they're maimed, rotting in jail, or dead, I can be //sure// that they won't do it again.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I completely understand why you feel that way towards the suffering of a committer of atrocities, but I do not think it aligns with moral justice. They need to be restrained, that's a given. We're not talking about situations where you can take you chances being punched again trying to turn them into better people. We're talking about situations where the person is restrained completely. They are behind bars. They are not hurting anybody anymore. You can either try to rehabilitate them, or just hurt them and feel good about it, or both (though that would interfere with rehabilitation). I'm saying that rehabilitation comes first, and that if additional suffering interferes with that, then we're not helping the world; rather hurting it and should not be happy that we're taking away someone's chance to amount to something. Maybe that person would someday be released if they've changed, and they will give a homeless person a dollar, or donate an organ, or do something that will change a life. You never know when rehabilitation can make all the difference, and it's not morally just to risk taking that possibility away just because it feels good to know that the same evils that have been done unto innocent people will be done unto those that might still have a chance, at the risk of taking that chance away.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't put much stock in rehabilitation. It may work for minor offenders like thieves, drug dealers, etc. But if someone does something terrible enough for me to want them dead/suffering, I don't think there's a chance of them actually changing their values and the way they think.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

There's still a chance, though. And perhaps in a more refined system that chance if far greater. However, seeking retribution achieves no physical good. For crimes requiring a life sentence (or death sentence), rehabilitation is not an option. But why cause suffering? I don't understand why it's okay to feel good that a person has no chance of ever finding something to make life worthwhile again. They did something bad, but if the world can be safe from them, what does it matter if they're happy? It means something to them, but it should not mean anything to us.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I disagree. If someone does something terrible enough, I want to ensure that they never experience another moment of happiness as long as they live. Osama Bin Laden, for example. Responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians. I would have liked for him to be imprisoned and made miserable for the rest of his life. Shooting him in the head is good too, though. I do see your point. I realize that what I just said is pretty savage and barbaric, but it's still what I think is right. I don't want people like him to find life worthwhile. My goal isn't simply to neutralize them, it's to punish them. And I can think of no punishment more severe than lifelong suffering.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I know it's natural to feel this way, and I understand 100% why you do, but again- I think there should be a moral obligation not to feel this way if there truly is no gain from it. Of course it can discourage other criminals, but not if they think they're going to get away with it anyways

by Anonymous 12 years ago

As I've said, the gain comes in the form of relief and satisfaction in the minds of victims, or even just concerned citizens. I think that is enough to justify my view. Obviously, you disagree.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah, I don't think it's morally justified though, and that the gain is equal than (approximately) to the unnecessary loss of potential happiness and prospect for the convict. Just because they're prisoners doesn't mean they're not worth anything.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Not even remotely true. I always forget how young you are sometimes, but then i see these comments.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

if you are using the age card here someone made a post that somewhat relates I don't think it's annoying but it does get hard to rebut http://www.amirite.com/761058-its-belittling-and-annoying-when-someone-older-than-you-has-a-different-way-of-doing-something-or

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't think it's entirely right to blame this on age. While most younger people think in such ways, it doesn't necessarily make it more adult to think otherwise. There are still countless adults who would believe something like that, and it's a bit off-point to say such notions are limited to youths. While I appreciate the agreement with my side on the post, it's not exactly courteous to disagree so blatantly without offering an explanation. Not that your input isn't valued, it's just that it's not really helpful in convincing anybody of it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You've offered no explanation for your statement so I'm going to assume that you're just an idiot who thought it would be fun to antagonize a stranger on the internet. If that is not the case, please elaborate.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I agree. I've actually been accused of being too humane at times, and I think this is one of them. I think it's equivalent to degrading yourself to their level if you think that punishment is a source of pleasure.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I disagree with that last statement. Their level is this: "I'm going to cause harm to someone that hasn't done anything wrong to deserve it." My thought process is this: "That evil piece of shit kidnapped, drugged, and raped a 13 year old girl. Severe retribution is in order."

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It doesn't make you quite as bad as them, but it still lowers you. Let me ask you- why is it okay to feel good about it? The fact that they did something wrong does not make them complete enemies of society- there is still hope for them, and it's bad when that hope gets taken away. What does retribution //do//? It has to be so desirable for a reason- and I don't see it. It feels good, but it doesn't make it good. The fact that the person isn't innocent makes it //feel// good, but the fact that, in practicality, you're lowering someone's chances of being able to reenter society makes it bad in practicality.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes, retribution is in order. The criminal deserves what's coming to him and must be punished but I still find it wrong that the thought of a fellow human being suffering brings happiness to others. Relief and satisfaction would be understandable, but happiness and joy? I find that barbaric. It reminds me of how people in ancient times were entertained by ordinary people like them fighting each other to the death. Perhaps that example is a bit extreme, but that sort of attitude reminds me of our darker and primal side and how easily that could come out even in these modern times.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But the entire point of punishment is to rehabilitate the wrongdoer for the protection of society. If retribution made any progress in accomplishing that, I'd be all for it- but it only makes them worse. What reason is there to seek retribution if not for our own satisfaction?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

??? Yes, I agree that punishment should serve as rehabilitation if possible. I do believe that some criminals are mentally unsound and cannot properly be rehabilitated, though I may be in disagreement with you on that. I'm not quite sure how to respond to your rhetorical question though.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I think that all criminals can be rehabilitated, but it's not always in our power to do so, and sometimes there's no guarantee and public safety must be put first. But your statement that "retribution is in order" shows that you think there is reason to seek it. I ask you to find that reason, since you're claiming it's there. The only conceivable reason that comes to my mind is that an innate desire for revenge prevents someone affected from the crime to move on. Then, it should be done for their sake. But that innate desire is not justified morally, though I agree that it's present. Sometimes resisting it can bring more harm than good, but that still doesn't morally justify the innate desire itself.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Retribution should be taken because I think it's the right thing to do for the victim as well as society as a whole. As you said, public safety is important and by showing the criminal that crime leads to punishment, we may be able to prevent such a crime from being committed ever again. Of course, this may be naive because sometimes people who commit these crimes could care less about others and no amount of punishment will guarantee rehabilitation. But overall I guess I would say that some sort of penalty is necessary because it would be unjust to simply let the criminal go unpunished. I would love to here more about this from you; you seem to know a lot more about this topic than I do.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Punishment needs to be deterring, but past a point it becomes deterring enough. A criminal will commit a crime no matter what the punishment if they think they can get away with it. And //why// do you consider it the right thing to do for the victim and society? It makes us feel better, but //why//? Shouldn't we feel obligated //not// to take satisfaction from something that doesn't make the world a better place in any way, and perhaps worse?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Me personally? I think it's the right thing to do because justice should prevail. It makes us feel better because it gives a sense of relief that perhaps we have done the right and moral thing by punishing those who have done wrong. Plus it gives us contentment in that maybe we have done our part in helping justice succeed. I still agree with the post though: it's wrong to be happy with others' suffering.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But justice prevails when the criminals are caught and society is safe, and when they can be rehabilitated, not when we make them suffer just because we think it somehow shows that we're better than them. I'm saying it //shouldn't// make us feel that way. Because it's //not actually accomplishing anything other than giving us a false sense of justice//. We like to know that we won and they lost, and by making them suffer we're just basically being sore winners. It's basically bragging and sending a message to other criminals (which is unlikely to deter them). It sounds so noble to call it justice being upheld when its better to let the criminals can actually focus on rehabilitation instead of resenting morally sound society as a load of sore winners. Forcing them to suffer won't do them any good. It won't do us any good. There is no justice being upheld when we're abusing our power over them to make them suffer so that we can feel satisfied and comfortable when it's completely unnecessary and without benefit to anybody.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The day they televise executions, that program will have the highest ratings in the history of media. Human nature is to relish in things like that. We're fascinated by it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But shouldn't we feel obligated not to feel good about something that doesn't help the world in any way, shape, or form, and perhaps makes it worse?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

In an ideal world, sure. But human nature doesn't allow for such feelings.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Isn't the whole point of our existence to strive to make it an ideal world? That is more natural than anything else to us. Human nature makes it uncomfortable to resist such feelings, but it is certainly not impossible not to feel this way. While few can successfully resist the urge completely, we should all fight an urge that we admit is morally and overall detrimental to society. We can't just not try just because human nature goes against it. Human nature changes; that's how it came about in the first place. It's the same way we resist the urge to punch someone in the face when they're annoying- we really want to, but it's not always right and it won't help anybody. That's why we resist the urge to, and that is no different from the subject at hand.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The only reason that I resist the urge to punch annoying people is because bad things will happen to me if I do punch them. At school, I'll get suspended. In the real world, I'll get sued. If those consequences didn't exist, I'd punch whoever I felt deserved to be punched. The whole point of our existence depends on who you ask. I say that there is no point to our existence; our existence is whatever we make of it. I can't speak for others, as our minds are sometimes unique, but the way I feel about this issue isn't an "urge" that I can fight. It's just how I feel and I see no logical reason to attempt to change that. I don't agree that these feelings are detrimental to society. The only person hurt by my desire for retribution is my victim, who is deserving of it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But what about all I said about the possibility of rehabilitating the victim? Surely you must see that such revenge would make rehabilitation significantly less likely?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I guess I'm too cynical, too barbaric, and too impatient to put much stock in that. I think there's a certain point when the crime committed is so severe and the person's mind so twisted that rehabilitation isn't an option. Like the guys who kidnapped the three women in Cleveland and kept them chained up for ten years. I don't consider rehabilitating them to be a viable option. They should just be killed.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It's different at that point because they're too dangerous to risk rehabilitating anyways. I suppose the consolation is much due to the victims and their families, but aimlessly torturing the guys would be inhumane. I suppose it would serve as a valuable message to others thinking about replicating the crime. Here's where I resolve: It's okay to be satisfied that a criminal is suffering in a way that helps rehabilitate them. But it's natural of us to feel satisfied when they suffer far more than that. I can understand such feelings, but they should not be acted on. Those who feel that way should feel obligated not to, or just not to influence others to feel that way until a common mentality is formed of not being happy about unhealthy suffering. Healthy suffering is okay to be pleased by, though.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What distinguishes healthy suffering from unhealthy suffering?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Whether or not it's mild enough to make the prisoner know they're being punished and give them the opportunity to feel guilt over time, instead of making them suffer and be angry at humanity for punishing them so cruelly.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I need to ask this, have you ever suffered from a traumatizing event in your life due to someone else's poor decision making? If not, then of course it's so easy for you to think and feel this way. When I was nine, I watched my friend's mom, whom I knew since birth, get shot in the chest and nearly killed by her ex-boyfriend. Ten years later and not a day goes by that I don't forget. Forced me to grow up fast and still affects my feelings and actions in my personal relationships. So if something were to happen to this guy in prison, no matter what it is, you think I'm going to feel sorry for him? I won't be the one to dish out punishment but I certainly won't lose any sleep over it. If you have had to unfortunately go through a terrible experience and still feel this way, then I applaud you.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I think that it's so natural a feeling that I certainly do not look down upon anybody who feels this way. But I don't think it's morally justified to be happy about another's pain, regardless, when that pain does not do anything good for anybody. The most extreme situation I've ever not enjoyed the suffering of a criminal for (and i admit it completely pales in comparison to the story you shared) was that when I first heard that the surviving marathon bomber was suffering a gunshot in the throat, my natural instinct was to be happy that he was suffering. But then, the more I thought about it, the more disgusting my instinct for pleasure seemed. I do not personally know anybody killed or injured in the bombings, so I can understand (but disagree with) anybody who feels differently. And I do not look down upon them. I just don't think it's right to enjoy, especially when you imagine yourself in the criminal's place.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I wouldn't go so far as to say that I take pleasure in and enjoy their pain. I guess I'm more indifferent. As long as the shooter in my case and the marathon bomber are caught (dead or alive), I'm content. I would be more emotionally charged if these people were innocent.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm not saying that it's reason to feel guilty if their suffering was unavoidable (not that you implied otherwise, I just wanted to clarify just in case). I think that we should be indifferent to unavoidable suffering on a criminal's part. I don't think that easily avoidable suffering should be allowed or taken pleasure in, however. I know it's weird and hard to hear, but I think criminals still should receive a due amount of empathy. Isn't it a little sad that whatever it is that you and I have that make us decent people, these people never got? And is it their faults? They still deserve punishment, but that's why we should take no pleasure in it. They made no choice to be evil, and now they suffer. The whole notion is sad.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If I think about the Saw movies, then I guess I could see your point. Ignoring that they are fiction, and even though a lot of the victimes are not good people, I still cringe at the gruesome parts. Needless to say that I don't enjoy this series of movies.

by Anonymous 12 years ago