What role should mercy play in society?

X Factor said:

Yes, without hedging, I'll say that I took pleasure in hearing of Bin Laden's death, and Dahmer's death, and McVeigh's death and Bundy's death, etc. To my way of thinking, they got what they deserve.

Click to expand...

Bin Laden is a good example for a death I consider in order: He's a mass murderer who resisted arrest and was killed in the process. It sometimes happens that a criminal resists arrest, returns fire and becomes a threat for the people attempting to arrest him. In that case, I agree, they have no choice but killing him. Mercy does not mean you have to risk the lives of even more people.

But I'd rather have seen bin Laden on court. It would have been the perfect demonstration of the superiority of the Western legal system over his terrorist logic: Even heinous criminals get a fair trial.

Now of course the ultimate victory, probably even most satisfying for the victims too, would have been if bin Laden had been broken, expressing remorse over his deeds. But I guess such an outcome was most unlikely either way.

German guy said:

Bin Laden is a good example for a death I consider in order: He's a mass murderer who resisted arrest and was killed in the process. It sometimes happens that a criminal resists arrest, returns fire and becomes a threat for the people attempting to arrest him. In that case, I agree, they have no choice but killing him. Mercy does not mean you have to risk the lives of even more people.

But I'd rather have seen bin Laden on court. It would have been the perfect demonstration of the superiority of the Western legal system over his terrorist logic: Even heinous criminals get a fair trial.

Now of course the ultimate victory, probably even most satisfying for the victims too, would have been if bin Laden had been broken, expressing remorse over his deeds. But I guess such an outcome was most unlikely either way.

Click to expand...

I can tell you honestly, that any expression of remorse from Bin Laden would not have made one bit of difference to me.

German guy said:

If I offended you, I apologize.

I simply don't see how any human can have a good conscience when he claims the power to end the life of another human being. I mean, how can you live with it? Do you simply don't care and say "well, people say it's legal and justified, so it doesn't matter"? Or do you think being offended and hurt gives you that right?

How can any human being claim the right to end the life of another, a gift God has given both of you?

And I don't say this to attack or offend you, I am seriously asking these questions.

Click to expand...

Firstly, I don't share the view on God, so I can't necessarily answer you in that regard. I'm not trying to avoid that question, I just don't have an answer from a religious stand point.

As to the rest. I don't celebrate the fact that Texas has the highest rate of death penalty convictions in the country, or that we utilize it more often than any other state. I don't think that really shows any sort of capability in punishing crime, necessarily.

My view is this: If PersonX maliciously, intentionally, and knowingly takes action to end the life of another in the process of criminal endeavors, that person has voluntarily forfeited their own right to life. If PersonX does so repeatedly, as with a serial killer or career criminal who kills in the commission of other crimes, I feel even more strongly. In the case of the career killer, I advocate strongly for the death penalty. Why? Because most research indicates that you cannot rehabilitate somebody who kills repeatedly. If they can serve no positive purpose to society, and if their existence begets pain, suffering, and extraneous cost from those who are working to better society, then we are more merciful towards the innocent by ending the life of the killer.

On the other hand, we recently had a case here were several guys robbed a man and then shoved him into the path of an oncoming train, resulting in the man's death. I would not support the death penalty for these guys, regardless of age, because they had no prior criminal record of any kind, and it is quite possible that these guys could be rehabilitated, counselled, and converted into more compassionate members of society.

It is a delicate balance, to be sure. But sometimes we have to emphasize logic over our own "guilt". What action will ultimately best serve all parties involved? Are we better served by letting the career killer live? How so?

Would I want somebody who killed my father to face the death penalty? It really depends. Had that person killed before? Was there a confrontation that led to an angry response, or was my dad killed in the process of performing other tasks (like mowing the lawn, pumping gas, etc)? Did my dad know the person or was he a random target? Is the guy even remotely remorseful or is he proud of his death tally? It isn't really "you killed, now you die". It's "you killed, now let's examine your history and the logical possibilities for your future".

tessaesque said:

I don't think our entire system of justice can be classified as "no mercy", nor do I agree with the premise that mercy is most needed in the case of serial offenders who cannot be or refuse to be rehabilitated.

Is the system flawed? Most assuredly. Does that mean the solution to the problems we face sits in absolute mercy for the most heinous offenders? Absolutely not. Rehabilitation, which is and of itself merciful, should be our first course of action when it is logical and safe. When it is not, or when it fails, mercy may not mean the same thing to you as it does to me.True, most true.

Click to expand...

We seem to be heded to a Texas "sytle" no-mercy justice system. I hope this is not true...
I'd scrap rehabilitation and concentrate on prevention...
Rehab may work with the young, the very young....this is tricky...How to overcome what it took years to do...

German guy said:

I think mercy is liberating. When you make it to forgive someone who hurt you, that sets you free. That's of course very idealistic, and requires a lot of strength and moral integrity from any human being. But my whole point is, I was asked what place mercy should have in society, and that was my answer: Ideally, within all of us.

Click to expand...

I think it is also. I believe that being merciful as a human is good for the one who is merciful, however, I don't believe it is rational to believe that showing mercy to heinous murderers really accomplishes anything for them, besides keeping them locked up like animals.

German guy said:

And it's no big achievement when you can be merciful towards someone who loves you, or someone who never bothered you or even did you no harm -- the real achievement is when you can be merciful towards the person who inflicted pain on you.

Click to expand...

That is true, and the benefit is for you, not the one who inflicted pain on you. Showing someone mercy may help them improve as humans as a result of them having extended time, but it's not because you showed them mercy, but much more likely because they eventually achieved some semblance of conscience from within.

ThePlayDrive said:

What role should mercy place in society?



There are many opportunities for us to show mercy to others in society. Our society is filled with criminals, deceptive politicians, narcissistic celebrities, people whom we deem immoral and others who act in ways that society considers negatives. Much, if not most, of the time, these people are met with fervent condemnation. It's cool to say that you hate reality stars. It's common to believe that murderers should be killed. It's normal to argue that bigots deserve nothing but disdain.

But mercy is rare. Should it be? What role should it have in society? What role does it have in your decision-making process?

Click to expand...

we should be as merciful as possible to the.point of not enabling bad behavioral patterns.

Sent from my YP-G1 using Tapatalk. My YP-G1 is a very nice device that hardly ever explodes or shoots jets of burning acid at my face. Samsung has done a good job in that respect in building it. However one has to consider hamsters in regard to android as cyborg hamsters are very cool. Imagine how fast an Android hamster could run in their exercise wheel for example.

lizzie said:

I think it is also. I believe that being merciful as a human is good for the one who is merciful, however, I don't believe it is rational to believe that showing mercy to heinous murderers really accomplishes anything for them, besides keeping them locked up like animals.




That is true, and the benefit is for you, not the one who inflicted pain on you. Showing someone mercy may help them improve as humans as a result of them having extended time, but it's not because you showed them mercy, but much more likely because they eventually achieved some semblance of conscience from within.

Click to expand...

I think rehab can be successful to some degree too, if more efforts were taken. Not all criminals of course, and not all cases can be rehabilitated. But quite a few could probably become productive members of society again and even good people, if they were given the chance, instead of just locking them away and "treating them like animals". At least more than currently.

But I don't see how people could be convinced to use resources for such efforts, as the majority seems to dehumanize criminals, considers them monsters that should be locked away like animals, and even support for those in need who (still) abide to the law gets labelled as "evil socialism".

People don't want to help criminals. They want to punish them and lock them as far away as possible.

German guy said:

I think rehab can be successful to some degree too, if more efforts were taken. Not all criminals of course, and not all cases can be rehabilitated. But quite a few could probably become productive members of society again and even good people, if they were given the chance, instead of just locking them away and "treating them like animals". At least more than currently.

Click to expand...

I don't know how much experience you have with the criminal element, but within many of our prisons and jails, it's the inmates treating each other, and those who work within the system, like animals. Anyone who hasn't worked with them would likely be appalled at the depravity happening within the prison walls. Unfortunately, many of them are the product of our social welfare programs, and they were raised without any decent role models.

I would love to see some actual rehab of prisoners, but that's a very difficult bill to fill. In our country, the very idea of religious and spiritual expression has become demonized, and some exposure to something purposeful and meaningful is something that alot of prisoners would likely benefit from. We can't go back and fix their broken childhoods, so trying to rehab them would be a huge challenge, and frankly, I don't know if we're up to the task.

lizzie said:

I don't know how much experience you have with the criminal element, but within many of our prisons and jails, it's the inmates treating each other, and those who work within the system, like animals. Anyone who hasn't worked with them would likely be appalled at the depravity happening within the prison walls. Unfortunately, many of them are the product of our social welfare programs, and they were raised without any decent role models.

I would love to see some actual rehab of prisoners, but that's a very difficult bill to fill. In our country, the very idea of religious and spiritual expression has become demonized, and some exposure to something purposeful and meaningful is something that alot of prisoners would likely benefit from. We can't go back and fix their broken childhoods, so trying to rehab them would be a huge challenge, and frankly, I don't know if we're up to the task.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's certainly a very hard task. I don't have much experience with criminals (just the relatively harmless types, like petty theft or so), just the horror you read in papers or see in tv documentaries about the topic. Well, and that uncle of mine who shot my grandpa, set his house on fire after his release from prison and killed himself.

I read in some cases, it's even a mental illness (be that bi-polar disorder, psychosis et al) that coincides with very bad life conditions ("bad childhood"), and to the degree treatments are found for such conditions, the less likely are these people turning to crime. But IIRC, I read that especially in the US, even many criminals with organic illnesses are locked away instead of treated the way medicine can today. It's pretty sad, I believe, when some seriously ill people who could be treated get no treatment, but instead just harsh punishments. Makes me think the line between victim and perpetrator is sometimes thinner than we think.

I read that in Germany, at least young perpetrators get much attention regarding rehabilitation, with mixed success. The idea behind it is that young people (up to age 21) can still be changed and formed more easily than older criminals. The relapse rate is allegedly indeed considerably lower than in the US, where sometimes even children and mentally challenged people get sentenced to death/punished to the same extent as adults. But this rehab approach is not successful in all cases, of course, and you hardly ever read about those who make it, but the tabloids focus on the few relapse stories -- with the result you have a mob that constantly keeps demanding harsher punishments.

There are even pedophile child abusers who are released at some point and make it without a relapse -- they voluntarily accept chemical castration, counseling and other programs of that kind. Yet the topic is so loaded that once the neighborhood learns their new neighbor once was convicted for pedophilia, he life is over.

It's certainly a tightrope walk -- how do you weight the rights of potential victims against the rights of criminals who have paid the price for their deeds? Assuming for a particular group of criminals, the relapse rate is 25%, but 75% will not return to crime after a release. Is it wrong to run a 25% chance of endangering more people? Is it right to deny three former criminals their freedom, just because one other will relapse?

It's certainly a very tough question. I don't have an answer.

@lizzie:

Oh, and yes, of course I think spiritual offers should be made to inmates. Religion has been proven to be an effective traditional means to help people coping with both extremely harsh experiences and guilt. (And it may even save their souls, if you believe that. )

What you say about the conditions in prisons is indeed horrifying. Sometimes, it makes me think that even if the prisoners was not fully a criminal yet when he entered prison, he certainly will be one when he leaves it. Some may say these conditions are what they deserve, but I think even from a pragmatic point of view, conditions in prison should not be so bad that it makes people even worse who are released at some point.

The stick only leads so far, sometimes you need a carrot too. I believe people who endure much evil are more inclined to return evil to other people, than people who experience mercy and love.

lizzie said:

I don't know how much experience you have with the criminal element, but within many of our prisons and jails, it's the inmates treating each other, and those who work within the system, like animals. Anyone who hasn't worked with them would likely be appalled at the depravity happening within the prison walls. Unfortunately, many of them are the product of our social welfare programs, and they were raised without any decent role models.

I would love to see some actual rehab of prisoners, but that's a very difficult bill to fill. In our country, the very idea of religious and spiritual expression has become demonized, and some exposure to something purposeful and meaningful is something that alot of prisoners would likely benefit from. We can't go back and fix their broken childhoods, so trying to rehab them would be a huge challenge, and frankly, I don't know if we're up to the task.

Click to expand...

Let me point you towards the growing movement for restorative justice. It aims to do exactly what you're hoping for, though through education and therapy-type activities, as opposed to religion. It has been tried a bit in the last few decades in states like California and Pennsylvania, with promising results, most notably a lower recidivism rate.

Sensei says, "mercy is for the weak." :2razz:

ThePlayDrive said:

What role should mercy place in society?



There are many opportunities for us to show mercy to others in society. Our society is filled with criminals, deceptive politicians, narcissistic celebrities, people whom we deem immoral and others who act in ways that society considers negatives. Much, if not most, of the time, these people are met with fervent condemnation. It's cool to say that you hate reality stars. It's common to believe that murderers should be killed. It's normal to argue that bigots deserve nothing but disdain.

But mercy is rare. Should it be? What role should it have in society? What role does it have in your decision-making process?

Click to expand...

It depends, very situation dependent.

German guy said:

What you say about the conditions in prisons is indeed horrifying. Sometimes, it makes me think that even if the prisoners was not fully a criminal yet when he entered prison, he certainly will be one when he leaves it. Some may say these conditions are what they deserve, but I think even from a pragmatic point of view, conditions in prison should not be so bad that it makes people even worse who are released at some point.

Click to expand...

I fully believe the bolded to be true. As for the conditions in prison being bad, it's mostly (in my experience) that the prisoners make it bad for each other, and it's allowed to happen by those running the prisons. I may be wrong, but I suspect that it's prisoners' *rights* that are mostly responsible for this travesty. Imo, prison should be run like a tight ship, with no allowances for sleazy and downright disgusting behaviors, but that is mostly what you see there.

I voted for "Society should sometimes be merciful." of course

sometimes :shrug:

everything is circumstantial though

I've only read the first 40 posts, so forgive me if this post is redundant or out of sync with the direction of the thread.

I think the premise of this thread is confusing mercy with compassion. I cannot grant mercy on someone unless I have power over them. If someone is starving and I have a sandwich, he is at my mercy. If I give him the sandwich, I am showing him mercy.

If someone has killed a child, I have compassion for the child's family and the killer's family. If someone has accidentally killed a child, I may even have compassion for the grief-stricken perpetrator. I am in no position to show mercy to any of these people, because I have no power over them. A juror may show mercy. A judge may show mercy. A D.A. may show mercy. I cannot. I can only show compassion.

That may be why this thread veered wildly from the get-go. We as a people can show compassion. We are not in a position to show mercy.

DiAnna said:

I've only read the first 40 posts, so forgive me if this post is redundant or out of sync with the direction of the thread.

I think the premise of this thread is confusing mercy with compassion. I cannot grant mercy on someone unless I have power over them. If someone is starving and I have a sandwich, he is at my mercy. If I give him the sandwich, I am showing him mercy.

If someone has killed a child, I have compassion for the child's family and the killer's family. If someone has accidentally killed a child, I may even have compassion for the grief-stricken perpetrator. I am in no position to show mercy to any of these people, because I have no power over them. A juror may show mercy. A judge may show mercy. A D.A. may show mercy. I cannot. I can only show compassion.

That may be why this thread veered wildly from the get-go. We as a people can show compassion. We are not in a position to show mercy.

Click to expand...

Well, the thread is asking about society not just the individual. The criminal justice system is part of society. Moreover, citizens also have the potential to impact the laws that determine punishment. Consequently, when asking, "what role should mercy play in society?", part of that question is, "what role should mercy play in the criminal justice system?". Another part, as written in the OP, would be, "what role should mercy play in determining how we mold celebrities reputations?"

Mercy is the exact thing I'm talking about.

German guy said:

WHen it comes to the legal or penal system, I think mercy should play a role and revenge should have no place in the legal system. But as was said above, that doesn't mean, of course, that criminals should get away with their crimes, or be allowed to continously pose a threat to society.

But I believe in second chances (or third chances, for that matter) even for horrible criminals. Punishment should first of all serve the goal of protecting society, second the goal of rehabilitation of the criminal, third as deterrence for others -- it should not be a means to force revenge on the perpetrator, IMO.

Some claim we need this revenge to make victims feel comfortable again. I don't believe it does. On the contrary, revenge consumes the soul of the victim, takes his or her humanity away from the victim and allows the crime to win.

Click to expand...

Second or third chances for speeding or smoking dope or for stealing a pack of gum... sure. For Murder? Hell no. There should be no second chances for murder, rape, kidnapping or molestation. The Death Penalty is a perfect punishment for those types of inexcusable crimes against society.

ThePlayDrive said:

What role should mercy place in society?



There are many opportunities for us to show mercy to others in society. Our society is filled with criminals, deceptive politicians, narcissistic celebrities, people whom we deem immoral and others who act in ways that society considers negatives. Much, if not most, of the time, these people are met with fervent condemnation. It's cool to say that you hate reality stars. It's common to believe that murderers should be killed. It's normal to argue that bigots deserve nothing but disdain.

But mercy is rare. Should it be? What role should it have in society? What role does it have in your decision-making process?

Click to expand...

I think we should only correct an individual to the point where it helps them and society. To hurt or destroy another for the sake of punishment only is strictly vengeance and a crime in itself. If a criminal shows no remorse or acknowledgement of wrong doing either from ignorance or stubbornness, then they may need to be separated from society for everyone's protection, until they learn. To temper justice with mercy is to consider the individual and societal needs of humanity.

If you're eluding to mob thinking or social judgement, then it's a similar case as with law but a completely different approach. People need the freedom to express their likes, dislikes and opinions. The only way to influence society is by example. Judgement is merciless because we end up judging ourselves.

tessaesque said:

Seems to me it would be foolish to express mercy towards somebody who is likely to continue their destructive pattern of behavior.

Click to expand...

the question then becomes, is it mercy to enable them?

the problem with "mercy" is that it get's confused (as I think it risks doing in the OP) with "inactivity", "passivity", or "enabling".

cpwill said:

the question then becomes, is it mercy to enable them?

the problem with "mercy" is that it get's confused (as I think it risks doing in the OP) with "inactivity", "passivity", or "enabling".

Click to expand...

The thing is that in my OP, I specifically defined mercy and the definition does not include inactivity, passivity or enabling.

ThePlayDrive said:

Well, the thread is asking about society not just the individual. The criminal justice system is part of society. Moreover, citizens also have the potential to impact the laws that determine punishment. Consequently, when asking, "what role should mercy play in society?", part of that question is, "what role should mercy play in the criminal justice system?". Another part, as written in the OP, would be, "what role should mercy play in determining how we mold celebrities reputations?"

Mercy is the exact thing I'm talking about.

Click to expand...

In which case, your OP makes no sense to me because the actual definitions of the word you chose cannot be wielded by society as a whole, since society as a whole has no power over individuals. Society may have compassion, but it has no ability to show mercy in the context you have chosen.

Paschendale said:

Let me point you towards the growing movement for restorative justice. It aims to do exactly what you're hoping for, though through education and therapy-type activities, as opposed to religion. It has been tried a bit in the last few decades in states like California and Pennsylvania, with promising results, most notably a lower recidivism rate.

Click to expand...

Frankly, religion and psychology are fairly similar disclipines.

DiAnna said:

In which case, your OP makes no sense to me because the actual definitions of the word you chose cannot be wielded by society as a whole, since society as a whole has no power over individuals. Society may have compassion, but it has no ability to show mercy in the context you have chosen.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by "the context I have chosen". There isn't much "context" - it's just a question. The question is, "What role should mercy play in society?" Questions like this are asked all the time. It's simply a more specified example of the question, "What moral or ethical standards should society exhibit?"

In any case, the vast majority of people who have answered seem to think the question makes sense since they answered it and their answers are phrased in ways that make it clear they understood the question as I intended it, so I don't know what else to say.

If a man kills another man in cold blood, then no mercy should be there at all, obviously.
However if a man kills another man who raped his daughter or committed some other irreversible horrible act on his family... I'm pretty sure most people agree the man may be so overcome with emotion he isn't thinking clearly, and the other guy deserved it.