User Tag List

First 345

Results 41 to 45 of 45

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    6w7 sp/so


    It all depends on the particualr circumstances of a situation; who did the murderer kill, why, the intention, etc. All these need to be considered before hand, then forgivness and release back into society may be done.

  2. #42
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by disregard View Post
    It's your own responsibility to make yourself happy, whether you're behind bars or not. No one "deserves" to be happy. Murderers are behind bars because they've proven themselves to be a threat to society. Remorse doesn't make them any less of a threat. They've already shown what they are capable of (or incapable of -- controlling themselves).

    And who says you can't be happy behind bars? You can read, socialise, exercise, even work. You get taken care of. At least in the States. I don't know if it's possible to be happy in some other countries' prisons.
    I agree with this. If someone felt that murdering someone was the only way they would be happy.. then I hope they were right on that. To give an example.. there was a movie where a guy murdered the guys that raped and killed his little girl. I think even if he were in jail the rest of his life, he'd have made that decision all over again. No one 'deserves' happiness in an objective sense. We take it. People who want to be happy do what they can to obtain that. But our justice system is not set up based on happiness. So you give and take. Its about whats more important to that person. Did freedom make them more happy? Or did murdering that person?

    I've heard of cases where people do things outside of jail just to get thrown back into it.. so I think it is possible to be somewhat happy in there. There was another movie where a man had been in jail so long that once he got out of jail.. he felt like a nobody, got depressed, and off'd himself. He was 'someone' inside jail. He knew that place. He didn't know the world outside. He wasn't happy in it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qlippoth View Post
    I agree with the above that compassion is seperate from being secure. I don't believe in the death penalty either, but let's substitute the murderer for a mistreated dog that mauled a loved one to death. You can have compassion for even a dog as you put it down for general safety. People might be offended compairing humans to animals, but were're really not all that different. And the difference is even less in the conditions where crimes are comitted.
    This was actually what immediately came to mind when I read the title. What does forgiveness have to do with justice? They're separate to me. Of course you feel for the dog given a poor lot in life.. had he a better upbringing, he probably would not have done the thing he did.. but it was still a choice he made, and the consequences are still there. According to our society, even instincts we have instilled in us from nurturing and experiences in our lives are considered choices.

    When I was little.. I did a bad thing. I got in trouble, and got punished.. but I still felt I did a good thing overall. In my head, it was okay.. I didn't hate the punisher (my mother), or the punishment. I knew it was there and that it'd happen.. but I felt it needed to be done anyways. I was happy with the results, punishment and all. No one oblivious to the justice system.. if you murder someone, you know way ahead of time the potential punishments for that. You have to know you'll probably end your life as you know it the day you end another's.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snuggletron View Post
    I've heard forgiveness isn't really for the person who committed the wrongdoing. This is what my mom says; my grandfather was murdered and she said to let go of the hate and anger she had to forgive the person responsible (who later re-married and then was caught plotting to kill her current husband, a family friend of ours nonetheless).

    Happiness isn't the responsibility of others, it comes from within and all that shit, you know.
    Someone defined forgiving someone to me as: the moment you stop allowing the action another person did hurt you. I think it's a really good definition..

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallulah View Post
    Okay, here's my take on it. If you killed someone because you get off on it (serial killers), because they pissed you off or hurt your pride, or because you couldn't be with a person, so why should anyone else, etc, etc...sorry, you'd made your decision. Your actions have consequences. Someone is no longer on the planet because of YOUR actions and YOUR selfishness. Someone's mother/father/sister/brother is no longer around. People are devastated. A precious life has been taken out of the game through a decision you made. THEY (the victims) DO NOT GET A SECOND CHANCE. Since the victim does not get a second chance, I have a hard time giving a second chance to the person responsible. The way I see it, you made your choice about the rest of your life when you made the choice to kill someone. No one made you kill that person.

    Now, of course, not every case is the same, and in matters of true self-defense, etc., the same idea would not apply. There are always genuine exceptions.

    Once you've decided to murder someone, I'm no longer worried about your happiness and fulfillment in life.
    I had assumed up until this point we were strictly talking about murderers.. I think genuine exceptions to the rule cannot even be called murderers.. but its apparent to me now that this area is also gray. I suppose I'll stick to society's definition.. if you weren't charged with the crime, you probably aren't a murderer. Or you got away with murder. @_@ either way..

    Quote Originally Posted by disregard View Post
    Who has total freedom? Almost everyone has to do things they don't want to do and be places they don't want to be to survive.
    This is true. Technically, I can drive as fast as I want. I never do though.. I don't have that freedom, because I value the privilage of driving above the desire to get to where I want to go faster. It's not my values keeping me in line.. If it were, I'd drive everywhere like a bat outta hell. It's restrictions society has on me for the sake of others that keeps me driving the speed limit. If I want to drive, I'll slow the eff down. If I want to be in society, I won't kill anyone and be sent to jail.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moiety View Post
    No one (save for the victim's family) is gonna admit they would execute someone out of vengeance anyway.

    I posted this thread to question myself as to where people draw the line to what is forgivable VS non-forgivable.
    I think nearly anything that happens in your life needs to be forgiven.. going based on the definition I posted above. I think as long as you don't forgive, you're going to be in pain. That's why religions focus on it so much.. they're onto something when they say that.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  3. #43
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010


    Depends on context of the situation. In general, a lot of murderers end up staying as murderers. Some even repeat murdering before they get sent to jail permanently to rot, or they get injected. Some don't learn, these types of people say that they admit that they have done wrong, but they do it all over again anyways. As for being happy, that is the murderer's issue.

  4. #44
    Senior Member niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    8w9 sx/sp



    But not many people would want to be friends with someone who they knew is a former murderer lol, just saying. So even if they were allowed to return to society, they mostly screwed themselves over in terms of others feeling safe and trusting them. I mean there will be some who are fine with it, but it's hard to say.

    Society is full of problems; most of the time these problems are what help to create murderers. And I think murderers are a fundamental part of society. They help us reflect on the effects of certain mentalities and other causes of disorder. If I were a murderer who wished to return to society, I think that wish should be able to be granted. The main concern here is safety. It would be great if guards could be employed to follow the murderers around for the rest of their lives, operating on shifts. Then again, doing this might imply a lot of different things to the rest of society and how they will act in terms of their regards to obeying the law and not killing people lol. But something has to go wrong for someone to want to kill another person. It's not the same as breaking other laws. Healthy normal people who live healthy normal lives in normal situations should not need to purposefully kill another person. And I think it is possible for what went wrong in this person to be fixed. And when this is fixed they should be allowed to attempt to return to their lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Falcarius View Post
    Falcarius is someone who technically works with patients from a psychiatric hospital as he has probably explained before. These patients are from various medium secure forensic psychiatric wards. Obviously, they are not some drug dealers who liquidated some other drug dealer for transgressing their territory, but rather they have been detained indefinitely for committing serious crimes; like murders and other serious crimes which have mitigating circumstances.

    Falcarius has never understood how diminished responsibility in criminal law works, in his mind it has little logical reasoning involved if any. Considering everyone who takes the life of someone has at least a degree of abnormality of mind, since it is not exactly normal thing people do: what must one do to prove their mind is substantially impaired if the act of murder is not enough?

    One of the patients of the patients Falcarius worked with was locked up for murdering someone, he has mental health problems but he had mitigating circumstances in that there was a degree of provocation. Unlike the latter patient he oddly came across as sensitive, and displayed remorse to both Falcarius and others.

    Another of the patients Falcarius worked with was detained indefinitely for what can be only be described as a premeditated frenzied attack. His life ambition was to become a serial killer with whom he was obsessed. He botched his first attempt, and butchered two people who witnesses his attempt. After spending a few years in a maximum security hospital he was moved to a less secure unit. Now psychiatrists say he is harmless and he will probably be released back into society soon.

    Falcarius understands why the former was released but he does not understand why the latter of the two could even be considered for release. As it is impossible to be certain he will not do it again, especially consideration of how disturbing his crime was. While Falcarius accepts it is right the latter patient is considered low risk now, he thinks it probably best for his own good if he stays in hospital since he highly doubts he could function in society.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Sherlock Holmes View Post
    If psycopath:
    Else, possibly, depending on a variety of factors: Whether they regret their decision, how cruel or evil or dangerous the person they killed was, the circumstances, cold or hot blooded, etc.

    I don't think ALL murderers should necessarily be condemned to a life of suffering, but a lot should. It's all relative.
    I agree with these two posts as they bring up important things to consider. I think the most important thing that should be determined is if the murderer is a psychopath or not. Psychopaths know that they are a danger to society, and so do we. It is just the way they are. In the case of psychopaths, after completing their sentence/some form of temporary punishment, they should be separated from the rest of society and allowed to live as normally, freely, and happily as possible in a community with other psychopaths.

    If the murderer proved medically (is that even possible?) to not be a psychopath, then I would say they can all be returned to society in time. Some murderers may still have psychopath-like skills and/or ambitions secretly, which they could be able to hide from those working with them. These people have to be dealt with very thoroughly. But ultimately, society should figure out some way to be able to let these people to return to the rest of the world in such a way that guarantees security for everyone around them.
    sparkly sparkly rainbow excretions

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatGirl View Post
    holy shit am I a feeler?
    if you like my avatar, it's because i took it myself! : D

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008


    Emotions should not be allowed to get in the way of delivering objective justice. Where guilt is certain, execution should be swift. Our duty and empathy ought to be with the victim, not the perpetrator.

Similar Threads

  1. 2nd typing attempt (does this title need to be more interesting?)
    By Zhuli Lily Askar in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 08-07-2012, 01:23 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-13-2010, 04:08 PM
  3. Does anyone "deserve" to be hit?
    By Oberon in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 100
    Last Post: 03-27-2010, 06:25 AM
  4. Does an INTP have to be socially awkward geek?
    By Aphex in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-23-2010, 09:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO