rape justice?

[tytlyf]

Make marijuana legal and see the prison population/judicial system both benefit from saved spending. Things would be more efficient. Oh ya, the government would get a nice revenue boost.

 

[DallasApple]

I'm in agreement with you regarding the role of prisons, but I see no issue with alcest's proposal regarding nonviolent offenders.

And mine.

It actually disgust me what some people end up in prison for.Then to suggest they deserve to be raped because they screwed up?

I'de like to see the same person say they would be O.K if their child got caught with a bag of weed one to many times and ended up in prison for a couple years being raped all the time. Because after all they "screwed up".And don't want to spend any money keeping them safe in there.

I couldn't sleep at night.

 

[Curious George]

I prefer rehabilitation (utilitarian) because I am a pragmatist. If the point of the criminal justice system isn't to reduce crime, I think it's a waste of money. If we don't care about reducing crime, why bother locking people up in the first place?

Also, I feel that when people turn to crime, there may be a reason for it that can be fixed. For example, if someone steals bread because they're hungry, it's cheaper to give them free bread - thus eliminating the condition that made them turn to crime - than it is to lock them up as a thief.

Crime is positively correlated to things like drug addiction, mental illness and poverty. If we redirect much of our enormous, wasted "punishment" resources into social policies that lower rates of those three things, we can lower crime rates too.

As for why I don't favour punishment, I guess I'm just not a sadist. I don't see the point. I think the only rational reason for lockinLg anybody up is that they pose a danger to others.

While I see the validity in such, utilitarianism does focus highly on the offender and not on justice for the victim. If a person killed and tortured my family I think my first thoughts would not be "let's fix this person" though it may not certainly be the most beneficial view, I do understand the want of an eye for an eye. The emotional connection to justice is inevitable in my mind.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

DA,
I'll be one of the first to tell you that rape behind bars should never happen. It is a disgusting reality of prison culture that should be hunted out and eliminated.

 

[DallasApple]

Make marijuana legal and see the prison population/judicial system both benefit from saved spending. Things would be more efficient. Oh ya, the government would get a nice revenue boost.

And decrimanalize ADDICTION .Which is what we are doing ..criminalizing heroine addicts /crack heads you name it.O.K yeah sure maybe they also got charged with shoplifting ..or thrown in jail for sleeping on a bench or prostitution or whatever..RIGHT now they are "career criminals " "repeat offenders". NOO lets not help them turn around.Lets lock em up to be raped for a little while then toss them back on the street.

 

[Alceste]

While I see the validity in such, utilitarianism does focus highly on the offender and not on justice for the victim. If a person killed and tortured my family I think my first thoughts would not be "let's fix this person" though it may not certainly be the most beneficial view, I do understand the want of an eye for an eye. The emotional connection to justice is inevitable in my mind.

Even if that happened to me, I would still maintain A pragmatic approach. Detain the killer for life to protect others from the danger.

I'm fairly confident because I take after my mother, and one of her kindergarten student and her entire family were murdered by the father a few years ago. She didn't want him to suffer. She was angry that our country has inadequate mental health services to have prevented the killing in the first place.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The idea of raping someone as punishment is sickening. It's also sad that so many people believe that people who do mess up are all bunch of bad people who need to be locked up in a cage like animals. Never a thought as to why the crime was committed, no care if it was a violent crime or if there was even a victim, they must be punished in hell, and when they have served their time they are still bad people who often have to resort to crime to survive, and end up back in jail or prison.
Rather than having and endless cycle that drains tax payer dollars, why not spend alittle more on each prisoner the firs time they are in to help rehabilitate them so you don't have to spend money on the second time they are in, the third time, fourth, fifth, and so on. But it also takes a part of non-criminals to realize that the mistakes some make to end up in jail/prison where just that.

 

[Curious George]

Even if that happened to me, I would still maintain A pragmatic approach. Detain the killer for life to protect others from the danger.

I'm fairly confident because I take after my mother, and one of her kindergarten student and her entire family were murdered by the father a few years ago. She didn't want him to suffer. She was angry that our country has inadequate mental health services to have prevented the killing in the first place.

I am just not so confident, if some lunatic raped and killed you children would you really feel that you would not want them to suffer? I may hope I could maintain my composure but I sincerely doubt my ability to do such under extreme circumstances. I have some good essays by notable philosophers on retributivist theory, I will see if I can't dog some up.

 

[Me Myself]

While I see the validity in such, utilitarianism does focus highly on the offender and not on justice for the victim. If a person killed and tortured my family I think my first thoughts would not be "let's fix this person" though it may not certainly be the most beneficial view, I do understand the want of an eye for an eye. The emotional connection to justice is inevitable in my mind.

Revenge is not justice

Dont get me wrong, I have wanted revenge before and I am not proud of such feelings. In many situations they ar eunderstandable and relatable and may be confused with justice.

But double injustice is not justice. Painting it as it were is dangerous.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Even if that happened to me, I would still maintain A pragmatic approach. Detain the killer for life to protect others from the danger.

I'm fairly confident because I take after my mother, and one of her kindergarten student and her entire family were murdered by the father a few years ago. She didn't want him to suffer. She was angry that our country has inadequate mental health services to have prevented the killing in the first place.

This reminds me of when rakhel and my oldest was going to school in Arkansas, one of her teachers ended up killing his family. As far as I know, he's still in the forensic ward of the Arkansas State Hospital. If the mental health services were in place before, he wouldn't have killed his family and he wouldn't be in a mental ward for the rest of his life since he isn't competent to stand trial.

 

[Curious George]

Revenge is not justice

Dont get me wrong, I have wanted revenge before and I am not proud of such feelings. In many situations they ar eunderstandable and relatable and may be confused with justice.

But double injustice is not justice. Painting it as it were is dangerous.

What is justice, the elusive term has many synonyms and definitions. I do not think that revenge is so foreign to some perspectives regarding justice.

 

[Alceste]

I am just not so confident, if some lunatic raped and killed you children would you really feel that you would not want them to suffer? I may hope I could maintain my composure but I sincerely doubt my ability to do such under extreme circumstances. I have some good essays by notable philosophers on retributivist theory, I will see if I can't dog some up.

As I say, I would want to ensure they could not hurt anyone else. If the reason for their crime was untreated mental illness, I'd be enraged at the inadequacy of support services for the mentally ill. (I already am, actually).

I heard radio interviews of mothers whose (adult) children were killed by two different mentally ill attackers. One was more into punishment. She understood that the killer was not dangerous to society because he is now being treated for his schizophrenia, but she still wanted him to "atone" for his crime by spending more time locked up.

The other was an activist who campaigns for the destigmatization of mental illness and greater support services for the mentally ill.

So it IS possible to lose your own child to a violence and maintain your basic values and a consistent attribution of cause. In fact, I expect it's inevitable. I think that in both cases, the loss galvanized each grieving parent to greater activism promoting causes they already believed in. I don't think either reversed their opinion on the purpose of the justice system because of their terrible loss.

Notably, neither wanted the killer tortured, raped, or subjected to any form of "eye for an eye" type retribution.

 

[Aquitaine]

While I see the validity in such, utilitarianism does focus highly on the offender and not on justice for the victim. If a person killed and tortured my family I think my first thoughts would not be "let's fix this person" though it may not certainly be the most beneficial view, I do understand the want of an eye for an eye. The emotional connection to justice is inevitable in my mind.

Aye, I often think about it, and if someone killed a loved one I'd go nuts. I would, at the very least want that person to die behind bars.

Of course, I thankfully have never experienced such a thing, so who knows how I'd actually act.

For non-violent crimes I agree with rehabilitation, but for violent ones I don't necessarily want them to suffer, but to at least spend a significant portion (if not all of) their lives behind bars.

 

[Me Myself]

I think it`s not reasonable to impart justice as being what you want to do to someone whom you hate or as you are influenced by great anger.

It is my default attitude to reatly distrust any position or important decision I may do if I feel under this powerful emotions.

If I killed someone who killed a loved one and I did so out of spite (not for self defense or defense of others as deemed by law), I still diserve prison.

That`s it.

 

[Curious George]

As I say, I would want to ensure they could not hurt anyone else. If the reason for their crime was untreated mental illness, I'd be enraged at the inadequacy of support services for the mentally ill. (I already am, actually).

I heard radio interviews of mothers whose (adult) children were killed by two different mentally ill attackers. One was more into punishment. She understood that the killer was not dangerous to society because he is now being treated for his schizophrenia, but she still wanted him to "atone" for his crime by spending more time locked up.

The other was an activist who campaigns for the destigmatization of mental illness and greater support services for the mentally ill.

So it IS possible to lose your own child to a violence and maintain your basic values and a consistent attribution of cause. In fact, I expect it's inevitable. I think that in both cases, the loss galvanized each grieving parent to greater activism promoting causes they already believed in. I don't think either reversed their opinion on the purpose of the justice system because of their terrible loss.

Notably, neither wanted the killer tortured, raped, or subjected to any form of "eye for an eye" type retribution.

I quite agree that it is possible, I certainly think it is easier when there is a issues such as mental illness involved. issues can allow for something tangible at which to point one's finger. However, other people have very different concepts of justice and I am reluctant to simply say that is wrong, or even that I would feel a certain way after experiencing such a tragedy.

 

[Curious George]

I think it`s not reasonable to impart justice as being what you want to do to someone whom you hate or as you are influenced by great anger.

It is my default attitude to reatly distrust any position or important decision I may do if I feel under this powerful emotions.

If I killed someone who killed a loved one and I did so out of spite (not for self defense or defense of others as deemed by law), I still diserve prison.

That`s it.

For many people feelings are a daily part of their decision making. I can imagine people might suggesting ignoring emotions and feelings is just as unreasonable.

 

[Aquitaine]

I think it`s not reasonable to impart justice as being what you want to do to someone whom you hate or as you are influenced by great anger.

It is my default attitude to reatly distrust any position or important decision I may do if I feel under this powerful emotions.

If I killed someone who killed a loved one and I did so out of spite (not for self defense or defense of others as deemed by law), I still diserve prison.

That`s it.

Oh of course I don't support the idea of basically turning vigilante and hunting others down for revenge, but if someone (who wasn't mentally ill) intentionally murdered a loved one, I would never want to see that person released from prison, and I would gag at the idea of said individual being "rehabilitated" and then released.

 

[Me Myself]

For many people feelings are a daily part of their decision making. I can imagine people might suggesting ignoring emotions and feelings is just as unreasonable.

I dont say ignore, I believe in understand and assimilate and organize in proper ways. Digest may be a more appropiate word though.

Oh of course I don't support the idea of basically turning vigilante and hunting others down for revenge, but if someone (who wasn't mentally ill) intentionally murdered a loved one, I would never want to see that person released from prison, and I would gag at the idea of said individual being "rehabilitated" and then released.

Sure, me too. But no one gains anything by torturing further IMHO.

 

[Aquitaine]

I dont say ignore, I believe in understand and assimilate and organize in proper ways. Digest may be a more appropiate word though.



Sure, me too. But no one gains anything by torturing further IMHO.

Torturing further? Oh no I'm not advocating for torture in prisons lol!

 

[Curious George]

I dont say ignore, I believe in understand and assimilate and organize in proper ways. Digest may be a more appropiate word though.



Sure, me too. But no one gains anything by torturing further IMHO.

But many might suggest that three hots and a cot is even too good for a child rapist. There are plenty of people who would suggest that some criminals deserve the rape they might suffer in prison. if adequate supervision, three meals, and a place to sleep is too good, how can we even begin to talk about programs such as therapy?

You have states that further injustice does not equate to justice. How is a child rapist being best and killed or raped injustice? Does justice only qualify as such when it is legal?

And how can we justify spending money on counseling a child rapist who is raped in prison?