IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I was just reading an article about an ex-CIA officer who was convicted of for drugging, sexually assaulting and filming more than two dozen women in multiple countries over more than a decade. He received only a 30 year sentences, lifelong parole when he gets out, and must pay restitution. It was part of a plea bargain, but the article says that even if convicted he would get only 25-30 years.
This incident inspired my thread, but the topic is broader than just this one incident.
When a person shows that they habitually harm others, this is not a "good person" slipping up. This indicates a deep character flaw. IOW there is a very big difference between a person who kills one other person in a barroom brawl and a serial killer. The former likely regrets what happens, is open to rehabilitation, and will likely never offend again. The latter has no remorse, does not respond to efforts to rehabilitate, and when they are released will return to killing.
So my question is this: WHY IS IT THAT WE RELEASE BACK INTO THE PUBLIC DANGEROUS PEOPLE THAT WILL REOFFEND? A government has many responsibilities, but the first and foremost is the protection of its citizens. We are falling down here.
I'm going to share my personal backstory, but I know that others who have a more traditional view of crime will likely share my distress at the lack of protection.
Most of my life, I have been a staunch proponent of free will. My religious and ethical views depended on people choosing to do right or wrong. However, over the last 15 or so years, this view of mine has steadily been eroded. About a year ago, I had to admit to myself that I no longer believed in free will. (Yes, this transition happened while I was posting in this very forum.) You would think that since I no longer freely choose what we do, say, and believe, that I would be against punishment. But the reality turns out to be more complex than that.
I am as strongly pro law and order as I have ever been, perhaps even more so. It's not that I want criminals "punished," meaning imposing a penalty on the criminal for the purpose of retribution, providing a sense of justice and proportionate response to the crime committed. It's that I want good people protected. There are two ways a sentence can protect. The first is as a deterrence. The thread of punishment quite often influences a person's behavior--it is one of many factors that determine what we do. In fact, for many people, going to jail once greatly increases its deterrence value, and they do not reoffend. The second is that a sentence can remove a dangerous person from society so that they no longer have the opportunity to offend.
There are some people who simply do not respond to deterrence, ever. Here is where my view about repeat offenders comes into play. It's not that I wag my finger at them and say "Bad!" Like I said, they don't choose to be the monsters they are. But they ARE monsters. The only way to protect us from them means removing them PERMANENTLY, either by life without parole, or the death penalty. Anything short of permanent removal is simply failure to protect, and is in my mind extremely immoral.
This incident inspired my thread, but the topic is broader than just this one incident.
When a person shows that they habitually harm others, this is not a "good person" slipping up. This indicates a deep character flaw. IOW there is a very big difference between a person who kills one other person in a barroom brawl and a serial killer. The former likely regrets what happens, is open to rehabilitation, and will likely never offend again. The latter has no remorse, does not respond to efforts to rehabilitate, and when they are released will return to killing.
So my question is this: WHY IS IT THAT WE RELEASE BACK INTO THE PUBLIC DANGEROUS PEOPLE THAT WILL REOFFEND? A government has many responsibilities, but the first and foremost is the protection of its citizens. We are falling down here.
I'm going to share my personal backstory, but I know that others who have a more traditional view of crime will likely share my distress at the lack of protection.
Most of my life, I have been a staunch proponent of free will. My religious and ethical views depended on people choosing to do right or wrong. However, over the last 15 or so years, this view of mine has steadily been eroded. About a year ago, I had to admit to myself that I no longer believed in free will. (Yes, this transition happened while I was posting in this very forum.) You would think that since I no longer freely choose what we do, say, and believe, that I would be against punishment. But the reality turns out to be more complex than that.
I am as strongly pro law and order as I have ever been, perhaps even more so. It's not that I want criminals "punished," meaning imposing a penalty on the criminal for the purpose of retribution, providing a sense of justice and proportionate response to the crime committed. It's that I want good people protected. There are two ways a sentence can protect. The first is as a deterrence. The thread of punishment quite often influences a person's behavior--it is one of many factors that determine what we do. In fact, for many people, going to jail once greatly increases its deterrence value, and they do not reoffend. The second is that a sentence can remove a dangerous person from society so that they no longer have the opportunity to offend.
There are some people who simply do not respond to deterrence, ever. Here is where my view about repeat offenders comes into play. It's not that I wag my finger at them and say "Bad!" Like I said, they don't choose to be the monsters they are. But they ARE monsters. The only way to protect us from them means removing them PERMANENTLY, either by life without parole, or the death penalty. Anything short of permanent removal is simply failure to protect, and is in my mind extremely immoral.
