Major news: 8 hours ago, two massive explosions went off in the city of Tianjin in northern China. Tianjin has a population of 7.5 million people and these two explosions produced shockwaves of 2.9 and 3.1 on the richter scale (the measurement of earthquake force). Thankfully the explosions went off at 11:30 at night in one of the cities industrial park, so the number of people nearby was far lower than normal. The current death toll is 17 with 32 critically injured and 400+ however that's likely to rise as the clean-up crew starts actually going through the rubble.
I'm honestly a little surprised there isn't a thread about this yet, but what are people's impressions of Donald Trump? Is this run actually serious? Is his performance sustainable? Can he feasibly win the nomination or the presidency? What are the implications of his run and his success if we deem it possible?
No, I don't think the role of the justice system is to absolve people of their wrongs. You do not pass through it and come out untarnished.
Sorry about that, there were a lot of posts flying back and forth. I would hold them in lower esteem than the person who never committed the crime in the first place. That person didn't need a justice system to get them to not rape, they managed to avoid it all on their own.
I would say their atonement is insufficient to erase their crime, because erasing your crime is impossible. Jesse can't unrape that girl, and Chapin can't untraffick those pills. But that's because that's not the point of atonement, or of punishment, or of rehabilitation. They don't erase your past. Instead, when you serve your time, and show remorse for your acts, and work to better yourself, and all that great stuff, the goal is be better than what you were - an active criminal.
Not a problem, just wanted to make sure it got addressed.
I think we'll have to just agree to disagree here, because our views on the purpose on the justice system are completely different. I believe (even if it is a bit naive) that the justice system is supposed to take criminals and make them not criminals, and when that process is complete, to release them back into society. If that is believed to be successful, then their prior crimes are inconsequential. If we don't trust that the process was successful, and therefore still believe their prior crimes are relevant, than the idea that we've reintegrated them into society is hollow and the system must be altered to fix this lack of confidence.
To use a less extreme example, say that when I am 10 I get bullied the neighbor (also 10). I tell his parents and they punish him. From that point on, he doesn't bully me or treat me poorly. 10 years later, should I still think poorly of him since for his past nastiness even though his rehabilitation was clearly successful?
I think that someone previously put it well when they pointed out the bizarreness of saying that these former criminals are fit to serve on a jury, but should be banned for a card game. Either they should be fit for both or for neither, but the current set-up is completely non-nonsensical.
The question is not how much worse a crime is for the victim. The question is about the perpetrator.
If I'm going to put all my faith in the justice system, then he's a registered violent sex offender that the state of Virginia feels is dangerous enough to warrant telling me his address and workplace, along with an up-to-date photo and description. If that's the information I'm supposed to make my decision on, then he definitely deserves to be banned from tournaments.
That being said, I don't feel at all beholden to the justice system to determine how I feel, or how Wizards feels, about a particular crime.
Which links back to my argument that if this is the case, then we should be altering the justice system until it's punishments/rehabilitative measures actually match what people consider sufficient to atone for a crime like rape. Obviously it currently doesn't.
And before you repeat the point that you would always think worse of him because punishment/rehabilitation doesn't erase what he did, please do respond to my final comment on the matter. I think you missed it when Jay responded as you never ended up addressing it.
Quote from Quirkiness101 »
Why would you hold them in lower esteem if you thought that they had truly atoned for their mistake and wouldn't do it again? Doesn't that imply that you think their atonement has indeed been insufficient?
Of course it's about which crime is worse. We're asking whether we should treat one person more severely than the other, and the answer is yes, because one of them committed a worse crime.
I think you and Jivanmukta are disputing whether rape is OBJECTIVELY worse as opposed to SUBJECTIVELY worse.
If someone is rehabilitated, repentant, and will not reoffend, I would certainly hold them in higher regard than someone who is not rehabilitated, who is not repentant and who will reoffend. However, I would still hold them in lower regard than someone who never offended in the first place. This is redemption - to have gone from "Zach Jesse the guy who rapes" to "Zach Jesse the guy who raped". But it's never "Zach Jesse the guy who didn't rape".
That's the "holding a grudge" attitude I was talking about. Why would you hold them in lower esteem if you thought that they had truly atoned for their mistake and wouldn't do it again? Doesn't that imply that you think their atonement has indeed been insufficient?
No, judging people's character by their actions is not "spite".
I fail to see the difference*. If you are satisfied that they have been properly punished/rehabilitated, that they are repentant for their crimes, that they will not commit their crimes again, and you still feel that their character is lacking, then doesn't that undermine the idea that redemption is even possible?
*Upon further investigation, spite may have been a poor word choice. Bearing a grudge is more in line with what I meant.
The point of punishment is deterring people from committing crimes. The point of rehabilitation is preventing them from committing again in the future. Neither hinges on us not holding crimes against those who commit them.
If we're satisfied that the punishment/rehabilitation has been successful, is continuing to hold the crimes against them anything more than spite?
Just because someone has served their punishment does not mean we must forget what they did. Nor does someone being rehabilitated mean we pretend they never did anything in the first place. A rapist who has been rehabilitated becomes a rapist who will not rape again. They do not become someone who never raped.
We needn't forget, but we also shouldn't hold it against them. Otherwise, what's the point of punishment/rehabilitation?
Quote from tiax »
I asked others previously in the thread, if you feel we're beholden to justice system to determine how we treat Jesse, doesn't his presence on a registry of violent sexual offenders indicate the justice system still feels he is a danger? If you're so willing to say, "he served his three months in work-release, good enough for me!" you should also say, "the system says he'll be a registered offender for the rest of his life, good enough for me!"
That was the point of my original post. If we as a society don't feel that this man's punishment/rehabilitation was sufficient to atone for his crime, then the law should be changed accordingly. If a criminal is released but society still views them with disgust and mistrust, then clearly there is a disparity between the justice system's intent and execution.
Because a life in jail is not the same as people disliking you? I don't understand how this is even a question.
If you view jail as punitive, then people should remain in jail until they have been sufficiently punished so as to atone for their crimes. Therefore, on release, the crime in theory has been "paid for". If you view jail as a means of rehabilitation then people should be held there until society believes they've changed from their past ways. Therefore on release, the person you're releasing is supposed to be a new individual who is no longer a criminal and the crime isn't relevant.
In this case, the rapist in question served the time the justice system administered and has had 10 years without repeat offense. If society is not willing to look past his crime, doesn't this suggest that he should never have been released in the first place? I suggested a life sentence as the time that had passed seemed to be irrelevant to several posters, and I assumed that no amount of time would be sufficient.
People often don't want to associate with those who have committed heinous acts, even if they don't feel at risk for being victimized. I would rather not hang out with a rapist, even though I feel quite confident they wouldn't rape me.
Why not just give all rapists life sentences and then we wouldn't have that problem? If no amount of time will allow people to see past a crime like rape, why even reintroduce rapists into society?
Anyone seen this yet? I watched it with my family last night and was honestly super impressed. Super emotional and honestly WAAAAAAY better than the most recent stuff they've been putting out.
@BlinkingSpirit:
You have shown that you don't have a full grasp of the basics of evolution. You don't understand what arbitrary means and act like I'm the one who does't understand. You only need to read the wiki article you linked yourself a bit more closely.
My position is "worthless" because you don't see the differnece between two completely different things. Sorry, but I don't see a reason to continue with this nonsense. You are wasting my time.
Google the word arbitrary and you get this definition: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
That seems pretty close to Blinking's points. Where is there a misunderstanding?
-Cal had so many great moments for this one. He may have been really messed up inside, but he honestly did care about Skye and it finally came through. I teared up a little when he mentioned that he only had one "Best Day Ever".
-Farewell, sweet Raina. I always wondered what her payoff would be, and I have to say it was satisfactory in the end.
-Chopping off Coulson's hand was a slight surprise. Wonder how that's gonna get dealt with in the next season.
-NOOOOO JEMMA!
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/12/explosion-chinese-port-city-tianjin
Duh
Not a problem, just wanted to make sure it got addressed.
I think we'll have to just agree to disagree here, because our views on the purpose on the justice system are completely different. I believe (even if it is a bit naive) that the justice system is supposed to take criminals and make them not criminals, and when that process is complete, to release them back into society. If that is believed to be successful, then their prior crimes are inconsequential. If we don't trust that the process was successful, and therefore still believe their prior crimes are relevant, than the idea that we've reintegrated them into society is hollow and the system must be altered to fix this lack of confidence.
To use a less extreme example, say that when I am 10 I get bullied the neighbor (also 10). I tell his parents and they punish him. From that point on, he doesn't bully me or treat me poorly. 10 years later, should I still think poorly of him since for his past nastiness even though his rehabilitation was clearly successful?
I think that someone previously put it well when they pointed out the bizarreness of saying that these former criminals are fit to serve on a jury, but should be banned for a card game. Either they should be fit for both or for neither, but the current set-up is completely non-nonsensical.
Which links back to my argument that if this is the case, then we should be altering the justice system until it's punishments/rehabilitative measures actually match what people consider sufficient to atone for a crime like rape. Obviously it currently doesn't.
And before you repeat the point that you would always think worse of him because punishment/rehabilitation doesn't erase what he did, please do respond to my final comment on the matter. I think you missed it when Jay responded as you never ended up addressing it.
I think you and Jivanmukta are disputing whether rape is OBJECTIVELY worse as opposed to SUBJECTIVELY worse.
That's the "holding a grudge" attitude I was talking about. Why would you hold them in lower esteem if you thought that they had truly atoned for their mistake and wouldn't do it again? Doesn't that imply that you think their atonement has indeed been insufficient?
I fail to see the difference*. If you are satisfied that they have been properly punished/rehabilitated, that they are repentant for their crimes, that they will not commit their crimes again, and you still feel that their character is lacking, then doesn't that undermine the idea that redemption is even possible?
*Upon further investigation, spite may have been a poor word choice. Bearing a grudge is more in line with what I meant.
If we're satisfied that the punishment/rehabilitation has been successful, is continuing to hold the crimes against them anything more than spite?
We needn't forget, but we also shouldn't hold it against them. Otherwise, what's the point of punishment/rehabilitation?
That was the point of my original post. If we as a society don't feel that this man's punishment/rehabilitation was sufficient to atone for his crime, then the law should be changed accordingly. If a criminal is released but society still views them with disgust and mistrust, then clearly there is a disparity between the justice system's intent and execution.
If you view jail as punitive, then people should remain in jail until they have been sufficiently punished so as to atone for their crimes. Therefore, on release, the crime in theory has been "paid for". If you view jail as a means of rehabilitation then people should be held there until society believes they've changed from their past ways. Therefore on release, the person you're releasing is supposed to be a new individual who is no longer a criminal and the crime isn't relevant.
In this case, the rapist in question served the time the justice system administered and has had 10 years without repeat offense. If society is not willing to look past his crime, doesn't this suggest that he should never have been released in the first place? I suggested a life sentence as the time that had passed seemed to be irrelevant to several posters, and I assumed that no amount of time would be sufficient.
Why not just give all rapists life sentences and then we wouldn't have that problem? If no amount of time will allow people to see past a crime like rape, why even reintroduce rapists into society?
Google the word arbitrary and you get this definition:
Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
That seems pretty close to Blinking's points. Where is there a misunderstanding?
-Cal had so many great moments for this one. He may have been really messed up inside, but he honestly did care about Skye and it finally came through. I teared up a little when he mentioned that he only had one "Best Day Ever".
-Farewell, sweet Raina. I always wondered what her payoff would be, and I have to say it was satisfactory in the end.
-Chopping off Coulson's hand was a slight surprise. Wonder how that's gonna get dealt with in the next season.
-NOOOOO JEMMA!