Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by Vince_Ulam, Dec 13, 2017.
The post has been removed. Replace it with 'people who would commit similar crimes'.
I still think that there is room for hope and forgiveness.
I don't accept that either. I think there should be some hope.
Might as well put a bullet in the back of the head if you are going to throw away the keys.
Surely throwing away the keys is no better?
There will be time to reflect on what caused this behaviour when the stories behind their upbringing are revealed. Maybe they went to church schools or had a teacher that looked at them in a funny way?
Maybe they were sexually abused by a member of parliament and were frustrated by the delays in finding justice from the investigation?
Maybe they realised they would never be able to afford a home and took steps to ensure they'd have a roof over their heads for the rest of their lives?
Who knows? I don't, but I suspect there is no such thing as babies being born evil. It's a learned experience from all accounts of evil people I've read about.
Mmmmm - That makes one think Vince! It could happen in self-defence, but deliberately sitting and planning to murder innocent people, including little children - well, there are no words one can think of to describe such an evil act. Doing that and fighting for one's country or defending yourself against attack is quite different.
'Closure' is an emotional state of mind and like grieving will be different for each individual. 'Closure' is subjective and not objective like a legal process. For example, some will emotionally approach closure with compassion and forgiveness, others with feelings of revenge and others somewhere in between, it is personal and would be different between different members of a victim's family. A legal process may not bring closure at all, that's why 'closure' has no place in a legal process, although a fair result of a rational legal process may help bring 'closure'. It is an abstract concept.
The result of a rational. analytical and objective legal process may see justice served. But how it is served is based on precedent to ensure it is fair, not unfair and based on irrational concepts of 'closure', 'retribution' or 'vengeance'. The process must be fair, objective and rational to the accused not just the victim. Justice cannot be served and be fair if it is based on 'closure' being the emotional states of mind of the victim, the victims families or campaigns by the media or politicians on their behalf.
Given the number of times people convicted of crimes have later been found to be innocent, I could never agree with the death penalty. Even one single instance of a person wrongly executed for a crime they did not commit would be one too many, and I feel is a risk not worth taking.
The prison/justice system should be about rehabilitation and safety of the public, not retribution and vengeance.
While agreeing with you and feeling the same way, I always find this argument an uncomfortable one because surely it can also be applied to those falsely incarcerated?
''Even one single instance of a person wrongly incarcerated for a crime they did not commit would be one too many, and I feel is a risk not worth taking.''
I think the only argument is response is at least false imprisonment can be corrected... death cannot.
I think the highlighted point here is crucial. And is one strong, unanswerable, reason why the death penalty must never be brought back.
This may be how it is on Vulcan but here on Earth we do things differently:
'The legal system must uphold fairness in society: both in business and for individuals. We want to ensure justice for victims of crime and better rehabilitation for criminals, with a reduction in the rate of reoffending.'
Law and the justice system, Gov.uk. Accessed 13th December 2017.
I agree ... just that the argument wasn't presented that way... it was presented as ''A social action results in one individual suffering, therefore that social action should not occur at all.''
I included no names here, made no allegations of guilt and this still gets moderated? Are you really going to allow the Report function to be abused in this way, that even a prayer for a bereaved mother, still herself under sedation in hospital, is Reported & removed as against the Community Guidelines?
I am disgusted at this.
The death penalty cannot exist in a civilised society.
1) The death penalty does not deter murderers. In the US the states with DP have more murders than those without (I don't have the statistics to hand, but I am sure they can be easily found).
2) The justice system is not fool proof, it is not 100% objective, it is subject to human error, prejudices and miscarriages of justice. You can release someone from prison, you cannot give them their life back.
3) Sentencing someone of death does not ease the pain and loss of the victim's families, it does however create more pain and loss for the families of the sentenced to death, who are also innocent.
4) You cannot live in a civilised society when the highest power in the state can legally kill people. It doesn't make sense.
More death does not lead to less death.
There are times when it is necessary for the state to kill people outside of judicial executions.
Are you sure about that?
Wikipedia.org, accessed 13th December 2017.
The appeal system may be exhausted. Nobody is calling for a gallows in place of a paddy wagon.
How would you know? It is common for the families of victims to call for an end to their murderer's life.
Yes we can, yes it does:
Here you go:
I would do it myself but I don't have the time. Be interested to see what you get.
Actually one stand out was the murder rate in Washington DC ... 24.2 per 100,000