I agree, for one it makes me sick that our current justice system allows for someone to plead insanity. If your legally insane and hurt someone does it make you less dangerous that if your not legally insane and hurt someone? Should it make you any less accountable?
Yes I agree with that, even if someone is legally insane that does not change the fact of the wrongess of what they did, and they should still be punished for it, becasue them being unsane does not undo thier actions and the suffering of the vicitims and thier loved ones.
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before. ~ Edgar Allan Poe
I partly beleive in persons taking responsibilities for all that happens. But this idea is more of a philosophical or logical argument than of any substance in point of fact.
On the contrary to this we can not totally ignore the fact that there are circumstances in which man becomes helpless and he becomes subdued or falls victims to what others do or to others' actions.
Of course when a man steals he will be accountable for all what happens and yet we can say that when a circumstance makes him accountable for his action like when he was a baby and did know little of what is good or bad and then it is not him and of course his parents who were more accountable for his theft. And his parents are the circumstance that compelled him to be a thief.
“Those who seek to satisfy the mind of man by hampering it with ceremonies and music and affecting charity and devotion have lost their original nature””
“If water derives lucidity from stillness, how much more the faculties of the mind! The mind of the sage, being in repose, becomes the mirror of the universe, the speculum of all creation.
the bucks got to stop somewhere. even if its arbitrary, putting responsibility into the hands of the individual is practical and seems to work for most
It is true a person cannot control every circumstance that happens, but they can control how they respond and act to that circumstance.Originally Posted by blazeofglory
Last edited by Dark Muse; 10-21-2008 at 12:14 PM.
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before. ~ Edgar Allan Poe
if you get your self into a situation you have not right to cry on others shoulders for pity. you got yourself in get yourself out.
000
exactly. whatever you are in some way in control to change something or make something else happen.
000
completely true. its a wonder all murderers dont plead insanity so they dont have to pay for their crimes.
000
[QUOTE=Dark Muse;630875]Ok let me just ask you this. Would you really want your pay check, that you go to work to earn to go to support someone who does not think they can be held accountable for anything that happens in thier life, and do not think they have to be responseble for themselves, so they spend all thier time drinking beer and watching TV, without making an effort to get a job, becasue they beleive that everything that is wrong in thier life is the fault of goverment, or society, or thier childhood sucked, so they don't think they should have to acutally make any effort. They just want to sit around and complian without feeling they have any accountablity to do anything about it.
You want your money to finically support that person? Becasue it is not thier fault, in your view that they don't want to activiely do anything for themselves. They have the right to be supported by others.[/
you take the extremes as examples .why!!
I won't finincally support that person but I can support " INSTITUTIONS " that help these kind of people when they ask for help to change their life .
I won't say as u are saying " let them suffer to learn that they are responsible of their life"!
Give them a chance then judge !
so in that way they won't suffer anymore !!!Yes I agree with that, even if someone is legally insane that does not change the fact of the wrongess of what they did, and they should still be punished for it, becasue them being unsane does not undo thier actions and the suffering of the vicitims and thier loved ones.
when they get revenge ( it is a revenge not punishment since the aim of punishement is reform) of an " insane person"!!!!!
It is a revengeful attitude that is applied in the animal kingdom .
The laws are put to make " human beings " more human not to contribute in the process of their dehumanization!
Becasue the plain and simple truth is that some people do not want to actively do anything to change thier own life, they want everyone else to do it for them. They are unwilling to try and work and think they should get to live off the goverment. They think everyone owes them something and that they should not have to lift a hand.
Some people cannot be reformed. And if someone kills another person, I do not care what thier excuse is, they need to pay for it, end of story.
And I do support revenge, and have no problem with the idea of revenge. Being insane should not be a free pass. They have done wrong there are consequences to those actions.
I can tell you, I do not think the victims family are going to think, oh well becasue he was insane, then he should not really be held accountable for what he did to our daughter, son, sister, father.
The guilty being insane does not make the vicitims any less dead or the family suffer any less.
Last edited by Dark Muse; 10-22-2008 at 02:46 PM.
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before. ~ Edgar Allan Poe
This is an excellent debate, and Muse you are doing a great job of providing a lot of different examples to get your point across.
Muse, you make a solid argument that could be stated in three ways:
1) Everyone should be held accountable for murder, no matter what degree of "sensibility" they have.
2) People who have the "mental capacity" to better themselves should be held accountable and punished if necessary in order for the good of them, and all of society
3) In question form: Do you really want your money to go to provide for these self destructive leeches who do nothing to make the proper adjustments to support themselves. What kind of society does that promote?
First of all, you should not feel like anyone is giving you "the evil eye"
Your arguments are well thought out, and very well communicated.
In response to the forum topic:
People do not see their situation in the same terms you see it from the outside looking in. So many variables result in people making irrational and antisocial decisions-- that can be destructive to themselves or to society. Some external factors (which you and everyone has named political, social, environment), some internal. The internal problems are the most complicated to understand from a bird's eye view.
You say "NO, I will not tolerate people and their inability to hold them selves accountable-- they will suffer--and they will learn--they must not be let off the hook--otherwise we are promoting their destructive patterns and jeopardizing the community assuming some will imitate them. If I had a choice, I would let them burn themselves so that they may learn--but I will not make their choices for them, and take on their responsibilities."
I think your right. I keep trying to think of an argument against you. But your stance makes a lot of sense. Keeping in mind that you remain sensitive to those incapable unfortunate souls' suffering. That is absolutely crucial. Realize that it is an ugly reality. You say that it would be a hard choice for them to break their pattern--to do something. OK. Then be sensitive enough to feel their pain. Why? Because, everyone's most trivial problems would be cycles of hell, if someone out there didn't touch them or if they couldn't observe a model. Everything in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. It holds true with your belief in the progress of the community as a whole. (I saw a bit of apathy between you and people who have problems they cannot solve (as stupid as they may seem)--that apathy is potentially dangerous, both for you and the community)
Remember, internal problems are complicated. You cannot weigh them. There are simply too many variables.
One last thing, concerning by what means people should be punished particularly for murder. For me the answer to this question is one of the many wonders of the world.
I learned something today that might relate to this and answer it indirectly.
The Roman Empire could have had an industrial revolution way back in 400 ce. They had the technology. Why didn't they have one? Because they relied on slaves to work their lands. Slaves seemed like an absolute necessity.
But what is our case now 200 years after the industrial revolution. We found a way around slavery. And in doing so-- not only did we become morally respectable-- but also a million times more efficient.
I thought a lot about this, kudos to those who read through it
First of all, yes, you have summed up my points perfectly. You truly understand where I am coming from. One of the trends I have noticed in this thread is that certain people seem to confuse what I am saying and perceive that I am simply passing a judgement against anyone who happens to be having a hardship and that I do not think any one should not be helped at all.
This is not true. I have respect for those who are making efforts and actively trying to do something, even if perhaps they run into bad luck, or other problems come up, I am not judging those that actually try to better themselves regardless of their level of success.
My arguments are aimed fully against those who do not make any attempts for themselves to do anything, and on top of that often wish to complain to everyone else, while they are choosing not to take any action whatsoever for themselves.
As for your thoughts about punishment, I would question your statement that we have trully become morally respectable. I do not think any so called "civilization" is ever truly that civilized.
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before. ~ Edgar Allan Poe
yeah, I know what you mean. Great observation.
I was trying to demonstrate that maybe killing people for their heinous crimes is not always the best solution, that there are alternatives in a progressive society. Like prison systems.
But I would definitely scrutinize myself here. Perhaps retribution is necessary. Maybe execution is necessary as long as its not under the tag "retribution." I think in a very simple society. Execution to those who murder is the ONLY way. But maybe there is a more intelligent way to handle those who murder now-a-days. Maybe there isn't a difference. I need to let this one rest.
To the extent that I have been following this discussion, although I sympathize with Dark's sentiments, I think she is setting off *personal responsibility* as an artificial construct which breaks down rapidly when you look at socio-State systems as a whole. Have you read Plato's Republic
or Thomas Paine on liberty?Argument
The argument of the Republic is the search after Justice, the nature of which is first hinted at by Cephalus, the just and blameless old man --then discussed on the basis of proverbial morality by Socrates and Polemarchus --then caricatured by Thrasymachus and partially explained by Socrates --reduced to an abstraction by Glaucon and Adeimantus, and having become invisible in the individual reappears at length in the ideal State which is constructed by Socrates. The first care of the rulers is to be education, of which an outline is drawn after the old Hellenic model, providing only for an improved religion and morality, and more simplicity in music and gymnastic, a manlier strain of poetry, and greater harmony of the individual and the State. We are thus led on to the conception of a higher State, in which "no man calls anything his own," and in which there is neither "marrying nor giving in marriage," and "kings are philosophers" and "philosophers are kings;" and there is another and higher education, intellectual as well as moral and religious, of science as well as of art, and not of youth only but of the whole of life. Such a State is hardly to be realized in this world and would quickly degenerate. To the perfect ideal succeeds the government of the soldier and the lover of honor, this again declining into democracy, and democracy into tyranny, in an imaginary but regular order having not much resemblance to the actual facts.
Or looked at the new emergence of the authoritarianism outside of the traditional West, or read influential utilitarians, like John Stuart Mill?
I am not as well versed in creating philosophical constructs as jgweed or Richard might be, but I think there are a number of issues here being left out of the picture, including corporation, which I mentioned earlier during the "lawsuits over junkfood" sidebar.
To distinguish my unease somewhat further, since I seem inclined towards a civics lesson,, there is a difference, to my mind, between a negative behavior, like killing, and obligation, whether that obligation is to self, or one's relations to others, or the state.
And as to murder, people normally do not refrain from murder due to good behavior, but rather, self-interest--and when that self-interest conveniently ties in to motive, then things get interesting, to enjoy a pun. In other words, I do not harm because I do not want to be harmed. The law is the furtherest thing from my mind, in terms of keeping myself in line.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
