Socially incompatible is a relative term. A person can be incompatible to the society they currently live in, but the fault may not lie 100% with the person. Which isn't to excuse them or say that they're not accountable for their actions, only that you discount the role of society when you say a person is lost.
While it's true that it's not 100% the fault of a person, but it doesn't change the fact that the person is a danger for the current society they live in. When I said lost, I meant someone who is (very) unlikely to be able to go back to society again. That they might commit more crimes. I didn't imply any religious meaning behind it. It would have been quite ironical from an atheist ...
As much as I respect your point of view, I find your example irrelevant as Stanley Williams was already sentenced to death. Being sentenced to death sure helps to change your mind; but can you affirm that if he had been released, he wouldn't have committed other crimes. You can't. I won't talk more about this because uchronies aren't pertinent and relevant.
Actually, I see a lot of parallels between a murderer and a soldier with PTSD. There are people with PTSD who can be rehabilitated and people who can't, but you don't have the authority to determine that
I didn't say I could, psychologist and scientist can. Let's take a random soldier, who've had an "education" I mentioned earlier and a random murderer who hadn't; the soldier is way more likely to be rehabilitiated. Also I see a difference between killing in the context of a normal and fair war (if wars can be considered as "normal" and "fair"), to defend your family and your country, and kiling in cold blood someone you don't like or someone you want to steal his money.
And I am far more sympathetic to some people who murder out of desperation, mental illness, a history of child abuse, ect. than I am to many soldiers.
Extreme case like nazis aside, I don't agree. As much as I hate war and find army and soldiers stupid, I can't agree. Yes, there are soldiers who are true murderers and total jerks, but if you take a "normal" soldier who fights for what I explained above, and someone who kills out of desperation or mental illness, I find the soldier more legitimate. Someone mentally ill is socially incompatible, that's a fact. Or do you imply that a Jeffrey Dahmer or an Albert Fish are socially compatible ? I bet you don't. Those two were mentally sick though.
Also, punishment doesn't only affect the person being punished, but their families and communities. All of which contributes to creating more murderers, not less.
I agree with you on this point. But if the reason of the punishment is to avoid the person to harm the society more, it is legitimate and has to be done, as much as it affects the family of the criminal. And if the persons forming the family have had the education I mentioned, they're unlikely to murder, as sad as they are.
I don't say that all murderers can't be rehabilited, but a majority can not. I'd rather not take risks and remove murderers, pedophiles and such than releasing them and waiting for a majority of them to commit more crimes. It is definitely harsh, but that's how I think.
I will end this big post on a less pertinent note; imagine your whole family, your girl/boy friend, your children killed by a criminal who had been "rehabilitied" and judged mentally healthy and fully compatible with society. Would you still think the same way ?
I know it's an imaginary example, but in the case of my example, it wouldn't have happened if the murderer had been executed / sentenced to forced labour. That's what I mean by "not taking risks".
last edited at Sep 25, 2016 1:21PM
