As a country how should we deal with cases of depravity?
- Thread starter Destination
- Start date
deuse said that it's weak that I think it's a good thing that society and law doesn't work on an eye for an eye.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,285
- Location
- Woking
Oh I completely agree with you. deuse should live in 1515 where acts of idiocy were law.
Sounds like you have some things in common with Islam after all.
Most definitely.
I think this is something people don't really get. I have literally no sympathy for the guy if that's what happens to him, it wouldn't bother me if he got cained in prison by some fools with strange moral compasses, who think beating on pensioners is fair game, but children are out of bounds, however I wouldn't say it's "right", I'd just say well that would be a consequence of the actions he chose to take.
This is all under the assumption that he wasn't "suffering" from sort of mental illness that drove him to do the things he did.
How apt, considering how much he cries and whinges about the awfulness of Islam...
The only way of attempting to curtail these extreme acts of depravity are to fix the next generation.
Humans behaviour develops, according to experiences, influences, genetics & chance - while we can't make a perfect system, we do know enough on what can help.
Development of empathy is part of the key, it's a safeguard which prevents certain actions or makes them virtually impossible. We can attempt to reduce poverty (strong correlation with stress when struggling with bills/payment) - which you can't buy happiness, being poor can make some people unhappy/despondent & neglectful.
We can put in place social policies which catch these behaviour issues sooner (it's rare that a person has a great upbringing, never gets in any trouble, then starts murdering people - there are trends amongst killers & criminals which all relate back to early childhood).
Overall we need to ditch the traditional concepts of 'justice' & start to think about what actually works, look at the data - look at the evidence & make rational & sound choices off them. Looking globally we can already see that the depravity of 'human nature' differs vastly pending on location, this points all fingers towards environment & situation - two things we have the ability to mitigate against & control (to a varying degree).
Personally, I do see that kind of person as mentally ill. Nobody woke up one day with sound mind & decided to murder their own children then spend the rest of their life in prison. This is self-destructive behaviour which makes them completely unable to function in society (A definition which fits many other mental illnesses). The only thing is I'd prefer a new term to distinct between say autism & something learned externally.
Humans behaviour develops, according to experiences, influences, genetics & chance - while we can't make a perfect system, we do know enough on what can help.
Development of empathy is part of the key, it's a safeguard which prevents certain actions or makes them virtually impossible. We can attempt to reduce poverty (strong correlation with stress when struggling with bills/payment) - which you can't buy happiness, being poor can make some people unhappy/despondent & neglectful.
We can put in place social policies which catch these behaviour issues sooner (it's rare that a person has a great upbringing, never gets in any trouble, then starts murdering people - there are trends amongst killers & criminals which all relate back to early childhood).
Overall we need to ditch the traditional concepts of 'justice' & start to think about what actually works, look at the data - look at the evidence & make rational & sound choices off them. Looking globally we can already see that the depravity of 'human nature' differs vastly pending on location, this points all fingers towards environment & situation - two things we have the ability to mitigate against & control (to a varying degree).
Personally, I do see that kind of person as mentally ill. Nobody woke up one day with sound mind & decided to murder their own children then spend the rest of their life in prison. This is self-destructive behaviour which makes them completely unable to function in society (A definition which fits many other mental illnesses). The only thing is I'd prefer a new term to distinct between say autism & something learned externally.
Last edited:
No I defend children and not tie bombs to them and blow them up in the name of a child molester.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,285
- Location
- Woking
No one is suggesting that we don't protect children. To think that death is the only solution is small minded and short sighted. I'm very glad that my generation is much more empathetic and not so fixated on punishment.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 May 2004
- Posts
- 4,488
- Location
- Tall building nearby
Law abiding citizen or just put them in general population in prisons.
Other than that I cannot envisage any suitable punishment for such people.
The only way to curtail such behavior is preemptive action but this will never stop all the monsters.
Other than that I cannot envisage any suitable punishment for such people.
The only way to curtail such behavior is preemptive action but this will never stop all the monsters.
Torturing people is not about the person being tortured. It's about the person doing the torturing (and anyone who called for it to be done as they are torturing by proxy rather than hands on).
You want someone tortured because you want someone tortured. It's about you, not him. Making implausible(*) excuses for it just makes you someone who is unwilling to stand behind their position.
* If he didn't know what he was doing, he's not going to be able to understand. If he did know, then he already knows. Either way, you torturing him cannot serve the purpose you provide as an implausible excuse.
A bona fide sociopath could torture someone entirely objectively.
Some people would enjoy torturing victims. Some people do it even when it's highly illegal and carries a high risk of being caught. If it was legal, there would be a queue for the job.
You're right about "usually", but of course this is a case of a self-selecting sample. The only people who'd want the job would be those who would not care (and would do it for some other reason) or who would enjoy it.