winstonjen

I think that vigilante justice should be avoided as much as possible. They usually involve things like killing drug dealers and crime lords.

As for a definition of evil, I believe that the law should reflect the views of society.

Gamaliel

In some societies they love their neighbors and in others they eat them, do you have a personal preference?...Any discussion of "evil" will ultimately push towards a discusson of "Evil", defined by a moral law revealed by an absolute/personal God...

Celsus

With all due respect, that idea is simply stupid. What if someone had been wrongly convicted, refused to show remorse (since he didn't do it) and then was promptly executed? Anyway, what is your definition of "respond adequately"? How will you know if someone has "responded adequately"?

I believe Amen-Moses asked the pertinent questions here.

Edited to add: Thanks for all the thought out replies, I'm still thinking about this one...

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: joejoejoe ]</p>

Stephen T-B

The English child-killer Myra Hindley prompted this thread; she campaigned tirelessly to be paroled, enlisting the support of several influential humanitarian types after convincing them that she was a changed women, thanks to her conversion by the Roman Catholic Church.
Her rehabilitation - real or faked - was irrelevant.
When she murdered those children, she created two sets of victims: those whose lives she helped to take and those who had loved them (parents, grandparents and siblings.)
The killings condemned this second group to a life-time of grief, coupled in some cases to regret and anger.
There was no parole for them, and every time Hindley’s release was mooted, they were wronged again.
So who was entitled to our sympathy: the locked-up Hindley or her living victims?

Some people who have been wronged by the murder of a loved one are able to forgive the killer. This is a good outcome, but does it mean that after a suitable term of imprisonment, a “rehabilitated” murderer should be set free?

I don’t think so. Society is entitled to say that particularly barbaric behaviour, such as Hindley’s, disqualifies the perpetrator from being part of it ever again. Remorse and rehabilitation may take place but cannot be allowed to enter the equation.

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: Stephen T-B ]</p>

Amen-Moses

So what do we do with rehabilitated criminals?

Amen-Moses

winstonjen

We need this kind of justice.
(read from right to left)

<a href="http://www14.brinkster.com/zodiacrpg/satire.html" target="_blank">http://www14.brinkster.com/zodiacrpg/satire.html</a>

I don't care too much whether or not such a criminal *could* become a reformed citizen, because A) they are criminals in the here and now, and what COULD happen doesn't matter; B) the chances of them reforming are slim; C) they can't reform anyway; D) the moment they hurt somebody else they forfeited their life; E) the human life is insignificant compared to the dialectic of the proletariat, or something like that; F) a combination of the above.

There are certain types of people that I feel humanity would be better off without, such as the malicious and self-serving to the nth degree.

Stephen T-B

Answer to Amen Moses:

It depends on the crime. If it is very heinous, rehabilitation has significance for the criminal but not for society.
That, however, is exceptional. Generally speaking, if a criminal is rehabilitated and has done suitable penance for his crime - whatever that is judged to be – then clearly society will benefit because there will be one less recidivist in its midst.

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: Stephen T-B ]</p>

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by Stephen T-B:
It depends on the crime. If it is very heinous, rehabilitation has significance for the criminal but not for society.

Why? Take for example someone who grows up in the ghetto and becomes a gang member, then kills some other rival gang members before being incarcerated for say 10 years. During those ten years they may learn many skills that could benefit society. Should the number of people killed then be used to decide whether or not they can be released or should it only be based on whether they feel remorse for what they have done?

That, however, is exceptional.

Assuming that you are talking about crimes that defy any sort of rationalising (i.e they were committed on a whim rather than in anger, desparation or percieved self defence) then wouldn't you class those criminals as having some sort of mental illness?

Generally speaking, if a criminal is rehabilitated and has done suitable penance for his crime - whatever that is judged to be – then clearly society will benefit because there will be one less recidivist in its midst.

What if their rehabilitation is at risk from extended penance? Would you rather have rehabilitated criminals released earlier (maybe under restrictions or supervision arrangements) in order to make a positive contribution to society or should penance be fixed and immutable, thereby running the risk of them developing anti-social tendencies purely because of their incarceration?

Amen-Moses