gazza Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 So is nearly 3 years excessive for an act which could be interpreted as attempted manslaughter? A simple question but perhaps the answer is complicated. This person did what he did whilst part of a mob and people in such situations often behave in ways they would never do otherwise. Did he really intend to kill or injure anyone? Or did he just do it without thinking about the possible consequences? And what good might a spell in prison do him if, normally, he would never do such a thing? can people use that to get off drink driving as well . or how about mob rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 [can people use that to get off drink driving as well . Doubt it, Gazza - the argument is that you deliberately incapacitated your faculties and hence are responsible for your condition and its' consequences. I doubt that you can forbid people from joining with large numbers of others to protest against something. That's why effective management of "mobs" is needed. or how about mob rape. I don't think enough people would be involved to justify the description of "mob" so don't count on this one if you get caught! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 So is nearly 3 years excessive for an act which could be interpreted as attempted manslaughter? A simple question but perhaps the answer is complicated. This person did what he did whilst part of a mob and people in such situations often behave in ways they would never do otherwise. Did he really intend to kill or injure anyone? Or did he just do it without thinking about the possible consequences? And what good might a spell in prison do him if, normally, he would never do such a thing? I am not convinced his actions were a result of this 'mob mentality'. Not saying I am sceptical, but I would be curious to know whether he is actually just an idiot or not. I do think too much is made of this mob mentality thing, certainly by the media, as if the actions of the students was inexplicable, irrational, or the result of some naughty people there too. It might simply be that he was inclined to do something that was stupid because he thought he could escape the potential consequences with there being so many people around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 He should have been given a life term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 He should have been given a life term. "...as we forgive those who trespass against us..." Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 He should have been given a life term. "...as we forgive those who trespass against us..." Amen. Forgiveness and punishment are not strange bedfellows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 One can forgive a person for the hurt that they have done to one but still impose punishment for their own future good, so that they pay for their actions, and disincentivised others from breaking the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Forgiveness and punishment are not strange bedfellows. Erm - so your saying if you forgive someone you can still punish them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Forgiveness and punishment are not strange bedfellows. Erm - so your saying if you forgive someone you can still punish them. Under some circumstances it is the right thing to do. There are times when a person must be made to pay for their actions although the person injured forgives what has taken place. One example. http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/39I-forgive-bomber-and-pity.3907583.jp It involves the difference between justice and vengeance. It can also be of benefit to the guilty to be punished by helping train them not to act in a criminal manner as well as give them an opportunity to repent in return for the knowledge that they have been forgiven by the victim plus it follows the principle of forgive the man, but not the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Erm - should I derail this thread into theology. Many people point to the immorality of Jesus for forgiving people without consequence for the victim. Person A is wronged by Person B, Jesus turns up and tells Person B that they are forgiven for what they've done. That can be strongly against justice. But there is also a flip side. Person A is wronged by Person B, but forgives them, but the state (or God if you want to expand the discussion) still punishes them. Is there justice in this? I partly agree with Spook that forgiveness and consequence are separate things. I also think forgiveness has to be a two way process - true forgiveness requires the perpetrator to seek the forgiveness of the victim - which the victim can then provide. Without this exchange any partial forgiveness will be incomplete. I'm not convinced arbitary forgiveness is for the good - whether a third party (Jesus) forgiving a perpetrator, or a victim absolving their victim - both ignore the wider consequences of a wrong action. As such I agree with Spook - a victim can forgive someone, but they still be punished - but that punishment comes from the state which is neutral and impartial to the victim's & perpetrator's attitudes to the offence. Theology gets very tied up with this sort of thing. Things which cause no offence to any one - thought crimes - are punishable; punishment is withheld not due to the forgiveness of the victim, but due to the plea of the perpetrator, punishment comes not for the action but for not acknowledging the majesty of the judge; and the victim is entirely usurped, replaced by a judge who decides whether there is a case to be answered entirely independently of what the victim thinks. Such things have kept theologians going for thousands of years. I prefer secular justice, where a community attempts to wrestle with what wrongs are done to it, and how to deal with the victims and perpetrators of such deeds. The theology rests entirely on sand, as even the most ardent believer should acknowledge, as any idea of a deity has to admit that they are ineffable and work in mysterious ways, beyond our human ken to understand, and so we will always be left not trully understanding the motives the religious ascribe to the forgiveness, or otherwise of their Lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alias Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 One can forgive a person for the hurt that they have done to one but still impose punishment for their own future good, so that they pay for their actions, and disincentivised others from breaking the law. Ah yes, a life sentence would be totally justified for his own 'future good'. He did something without thinking (although I agree with the punishment), and you're posting without thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 One can forgive a person for the hurt that they have done to one but still impose punishment for their own future good, so that they pay for their actions, and disincentivised others from breaking the law. Ah yes, a life sentence would be totally justified for his own 'future good'. He did something without thinking (although I agree with the punishment), and you're posting without thinking. Yes, his actions were so outlandish and unthinking that spending time in prison only to be released on license and in the knowledge that if he did step out of line would see him being returned to prison would be for his future good by imposing a need to consider his future actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Something very wrong, however, with removing every shred of someone's freedom and threatening to do if they step out of line in particular ways. Some people surely find that the prospect of this deters them and maybe the threat deters others. But to treat someone so inhumanely for a year is no good. And what problems might ensue from this? Whose to say that imprisoning might numb him to the potential threat of prison in the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Something very wrong, however, with removing every shred of someone's freedom and threatening to do if they step out of line in particular ways. Some people surely find that the prospect of this deters them and maybe the threat deters others. But to treat someone so inhumanely for a year is no good. And what problems might ensue from this? Whose to say that imprisoning might numb him to the potential threat of prison in the future? Some people have to be trained. If they prove unable to be trained then they must be chained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.