Your faith and criminal punishment

[triple_entendre]

There are many very disturbing things in this post. First, how far exactly does the rehabilitation of a mass murderer go, Clockwork Orange far?

If I recall, the Ludovico technique did go pretty far, didn't really last, so it didn't really work. Even if it did work to change an individual permanently, it made a massive oversight with what was going on in the rest of society -- for example, the retributive violence Alex then suffered. That was part of the problem, the culture of violence, not part of the solution. And those individuals wouldn't do very well to get Ludovico'ed themselves, because that treatment went sort of like: "that person has violent tendencies, so we'll violently make him avoidant towards violence". That's also a problem, because in the advocacy of rehabilitation over retribution, the aim of harming none would go both ways.

The government as a separate entity at all, let alone elevated above the rest of society and empowered to impose itself, was, actually... not something that I considered, at all, until your post. But, I'll roll with it:

It isn't about more government control, it's about changing the methods that most governments already have control of-- the justice system. And it's about rehabilitation being a collective effort, not just one isolated to a government against individual criminals.

What resources do you propose that we not supply? I mean society doesn't really supply anything now.

Wait, were you reading my "lack of resources" part as a proposal? No, no, it's an observation: jails, the way they already are, now and today, take up building maintenance, and electricity, and the time out of people's lives to guard the inmates, food, uniforms-- resources. And that's for a justice system that doesn't really return on investments if certain individuals come out of there with more violent tendencies than they had going in.

As mentioned, the government would still have as much control over the implementation of justice as it always did. It would just, hopefully, have redirected its resources to more effective methods-- but that system is unrealistic because even very wealthy countries cannot afford to... hire a string of therapists for every inmate, say. And then the therapists would have had to have cultivated unconditional compassion for their patients in addition to the therapist's million-dollar education in a subject that will not be effective 100% of the time-- not because talk therapy is not a violent enough method, but because psychology is still developing.

I am free to act, if I act in a manner that is damaging to society, as judged by members of that society, then I am punished accordingly. As a part of my freedom, I also have responsibilities to that society, I vote on representatives, and sometimes on laws, I am expected to serve on a jury from time to time, and I am expected to live within the laws of that society whether I agree with them or not.

Yes, we all compromise. I'm saying that I see a justice system based on death and vengeance as one of those compromises, a quite big one, personally. But that rehabilitation is a downright sacrifice, of time and energy-- one that I, personally, can't make despite my faith-- and that, obviously, the world isn't going to make because it's not a theocracy. And that latter part has actually been okay by me so far. (It's been a little weird, typing this post as if I'm designing such a system.)

Perhaps that society should decide that pagans just don't fit in and that they should be rehabilitated?

That's a bit of a leap. How would advocating retribution over rehabilitation, or even simply discouraging rehabilitation, ensure that your society never considers Paganism a crime?

Or is it that you truly believe that taking another's life respects their boundaries far more than changing their personality? So what I propose, which I see as getting to the root of the issue, you see as digging into somebody else's roots when (in most cases) they could merely be fined, or expected to do community service, or jail time, or even die... and at least those penalties wouldn't rob anything integral to their personhood? I can respect that viewpoint, actually.

[Wickerman]

Perhaps I misread the intention of your post, I'll answer as though I did, correct me if I'm wrong.

The government as a separate entity at all, let alone elevated above the rest of society and empowered to impose itself, was, actually... not something that I considered, at all, until your post. But, I'll roll with it:

It is difficult in a discussion of society to treat it differently, or separately from the government that it exists in. For rules to exist in society someone has to make them, and someone then has to enforce them, that is the function of government. It is by necessity elevated above society, at least in it's function.

Wait, were you reading my "lack of resources" part as a proposal? No, no, it's an observation: jails, the way they already are, now and today, take up building maintenance, and electricity, and the time out of people's lives to guard the inmates, food, uniforms-- resources. And that's for a justice system that doesn't really return on investments if certain individuals come out of there with more violent tendencies than they had going in.

I got the lack of resources part from the following:

One aspect of such a society is the fact that the resources for this can't be fully supplied: whether it be funds, time, focus, space... let alone candor.

It seems that you are referring to crime being prevented by a society that denies criminals (and subsequently everyone else) the time and resources to commit crimes. If instead you are stating that society cannot afford to rehabilitate rather than punish then I can agree with that.

Yes, we all compromise. I'm saying that I see a justice system based on death and vengeance as one of those compromises, a quite big one, personally. But that rehabilitation is a downright sacrifice, of time and energy-- one that I, personally, can't make despite my faith-- and that, obviously, the world isn't going to make because it's not a theocracy. And that latter part has actually been okay by me so far. (It's been a little weird, typing this post as if I'm designing such a system.)

In some ways you are designing a system, or at least proposing one. Or perhaps lamenting that one can most likely never exist. Indeed I did perhaps misread your post.

That's a bit of a leap. How would advocating retribution over rehabilitation, or even simply discouraging rehabilitation, ensure that your society never considers Paganism a crime?

This is from the perspective of reading your post to advocate a preemptive and intrusive approach. If we can rehabilitate a murderer after he has murdered then we could also preemptively rehabilitate him before he commits a crime if we could find him. Following this logic almost any behavior could be justification for preemptive rehabilitation. Remember, I was reading your resources statement as a proposal to prevent crime. Thus I was seeing a pretty invasive government.

Or is it that you truly believe that taking another's life respects their boundaries far more than changing their personality? So what I propose, which I see as getting to the root of the issue, you see as digging into somebody else's roots when (in most cases) they could merely be fined, or expected to do community service, or jail time, or even die... and at least those penalties wouldn't rob anything integral to their personhood? I can respect that viewpoint, actually.

You know, I hadn't really thought my statements through to their logical conclusions, until you mentioned it. You are right, I do feel that it respects a person more to simply end their lives than to turn them into something that they were not. They are what they are, and they have a right to die being who they were born to be. I see things like banishment as far more respective than either killing them or changing them, but there is no place to banish anyone too anymore, so the only options, are to kill that person physically, or as you propose to save their body, but to kill who they are.

[SunflowerP]

There are many very disturbing things in this post. First, how far exactly does the rehabilitation of a mass murderer go, Clockwork Orange far? I mean what, we lobotomize criminals, do we fundamentally change someone from what they were to something that we want them to be? In the case of a murderer that may seem justified, but where does this sort of extreme rehab stop, just murder or do we apply neurosurgery to traffic offenders as well. How about folks who just don't fit in, why wait till they snap, just fix them now.

This seems like you're taking the word "rehabilitation" in a very narrow and specific way.

Sunflower

[triple_entendre]

It seems that you are referring to crime being prevented by a society that denies criminals (and subsequently everyone else) the time and resources to commit crimes. If instead you are stating that society cannot afford to rehabilitate rather than punish then I can agree with that.

Yes, that was exactly what I meant to say.

In some ways you are designing a system, or at least proposing one. Or perhaps lamenting that one can most likely never exist.

All three, actually-- but thank every pantheon that it doesn't get further outside of my head, the way it is, than these posts. I think you made some very good, thoughtworthy points, that refined aspects of my idea of criminal punishment as it relates to my faith, quite a bit. It was quite disingenuous, after all, to say I believe in humanity and then proceed to simplify and dehumanize specific cases.

[Wickerman]

Yes, that was exactly what I meant to say.


All three, actually-- but thank every pantheon that it doesn't get further outside of my head, the way it is, than these posts. I think you made some very good, thoughtworthy points, that refined aspects of my idea of criminal punishment as it relates to my faith, quite a bit. It was quite disingenuous, after all, to say I believe in humanity and then proceed to simplify and dehumanize specific cases.

Well, I did misread, my apologies. I am glad that you did not intend the post as I read it. It is an interesting discussion, one that I come away from truly more enlightened.

As for the original post, I don't think that my religion has any problem with capital punishment.

[Chatelaine]

In light of the recent shooting in Colorado, and other shootings around the world ...

What does your religion have to say about punishment for various crimes?

Is the death penalty acceptable for some crimes?

Despite the laundry list of bloodthirsty examples anti-Christians love to trot out, the Christian faith is essentially against the death penalty, for the same reason it is against murder and suicide: life, your own or another's, was not yours to grant, so it is not yours to take away either. In addition, death is pretty irrevocable, so there are no provisions for miscarriages of justice.

I'm fine with life imprisonment for criminals, myself. (I'd be fine with exile, if there were places left in this world to exile them to.) No making martyrs of them or legitimising their 'cause', not even in their own minds. Just a permanent loss of liberty, in exchange for their victims' equally permanent loss of life. And no cushy cells with TVs and such either. One step up from medieval dungeons would be just right.

[cigfran]

Despite the laundry list of bloodthirsty examples anti-Christians love to trot out, the Christian faith is essentially against the death penalty...

In the US, at least, I've seen this position more consistently held among Catholics than, say, fundamentalist Protestants.