zug wrote:I'd also argue that the desire for revenge is natural and not something "barbaric" that must be "overcome." The desire for sex is natural, and could be called barbaric in a similar fashion (aka, it's not barbaric, it's base and instinctive in a morally-neutral way). They both lend themselves to propagation of the good in our species.
You seem to think, again, that there's something wrong with the instinctive response to avenge wrongs enacted on one's self and loved ones. I think that trying to eradicate or mitigate the effects of this instinct is unnatural as hell. More civilized, possibly, but in a very creepy and impersonal, even alien, manner.
The difference is it's all fair and good for an individual to seek retribution against an individual, but it's poorly weighted when a state seeks retribution against an individual. If I came home to find someone raping my girlfriend, I'd probably attempt to kill/punish the rapist. I may even attempt to kill or otherwise punish the rapist well after the incident. As an individual, I think my feelings of retribution would be justified. But I don't think state-administered punishment for rape should be the death pentalty, or castration, or the amputation of a limb, or any of the other form of cruelty.
When states seek to punish individuals, the results become messy very quickly. States also make bureaucratic errors, and innocents shouldn't be drawn and quartered. States should only seek to protect society, while individuals can seek their vengeance. And if they can't get their punishment in before the criminal is captured by the state, then they may have to settle for compensation instead.
But shouldn't we also consider the nature of punishment? If a student won't submit an essay, the teacher will find suitable punishment with a view to motivate the student to hand-in future assignments. The punishment has a purpose, towards reforming the student. Likewise, if a customer is being a douche, but store policy requires me to submit to their demands, then I'll make the customer wait as long as I can before I help them. The intent of the punishment is to teach the customer some humility, for next time. But if a parent is overcome with stress and kills two of their children, what's the point in punishment? The auntie of the family may want the parent to suffer, but not practical good will come from punishing the criminal. Rather the parent needs help. Jail, also. Such a person is not safe, but punishment won't undo the tragedy, and it's not torture will convince such a person their actions aren't kosher if they don't already know it.
do the crime do the time wrote:Very sad that some people want to protect the rights of people who take the rights of others .
Human beings not monsters you say?
I disagree , these are evil people with no respect for life and no remorse for the actions they have carried out .
People believe that by having "rights" no matter what that person has done is a good thing these people who fight for rights for criminals are damaging society.
Human beings may be monsters, capable of evil and undeserving of rights. But by pretending we're all good, and acting as if it's true, we've managed to coat our societies in this flimsy veneer we call "civilisation". When we hold ourselves upto our imaginary standards of morality and human rights, we get to keep the veneer. Otherwise, we find it chips off very easily.
For example, the British administration of India sometime acted superbly and, at other times, barbariously. When the administration and its courts forgot to remember that the Indian people were human, massacres occured. When they remembered to treat them with dignity and respect, the British were forced to examine injustices in their laws and correct them. A system that empathises with its criminals will never go far wrong; a system that demonizes its criminals will earn a colourful mention in history books.