• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What role should mercy play in society?

What role should mercy play in society?

  • Society should never be merciful.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    18

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What role should mercy place in society?

Mercy: compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one's power;compassion, pity, or benevolence

Mercy | Define Mercy at Dictionary.com

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?
 
Last edited:
Really depends on what transgressed.
 
Don't like the choices. Society should first try to show mercy unless the person or group involved have proven to be ruthless, unrepentent and merciless.
 
Seems to me it would be foolish to express mercy towards somebody who is likely to continue their destructive pattern of behavior. So without some level of contrition and rehabilitation I see no reason to introduce any act of mercy into the discussion. Some guy going on a killing rampage shouldn't be shown mercy as long as he's actively trying to keep killing. And if it's determined that he's unable to succeed in rehabilitation efforts, what level of mercy is even safe to offer up to him?

The "noble criminal" perhaps deserves mercy...the man who steals to feed his family, the woman who attacks her husband to stop him from beating their children, the crazed father who beats the living hell out of the man who raped his daughter and "got away with it"....but to have mercy upon somebody who is repetitively and intentionally destructive to society of their own will and volition? I see no need.
 
not everybody deserves mercy ,in my opinion...
 
In Christianity, there's a sin called legalism. It means when you understand the letter of the law without understanding the spirit behind it.

Mercy, or more accurately, grace, is about just this. It's about making sure we don't sacrifice intentions for results.
 
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.
 
If one acts merciful towards a transgressor who brutalizes others in such a way as to allow a pattern of continued brutalization, is one actually acting mercifully?

The notion of mercy is similar to the notion of tolerance in that it shouldn't demand the suspension of the sort of moral reasoning required in order to evaluate the big picture.
 
not everybody deserves mercy ,in my opinion...
I don't think anyone deserves mercy, but I do think those who are merciful to everyone and anyone are the most honorable of society. And when I say "mercy", I do not mean simply letting criminals out of jail to harm others again. Mercy can simply mean showing compassion rather than condemnation or choosing to inflict a lesser, but still effective, punishment for a criminal. For example, rather than calling a murderer a monster and wishing him a cruel end, one would still have compassion for him as human being and only wish for the punishment that would protect society from him.
 
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.

Sorry German Guy, you don't get to decide what feelings crime victims have are valid and which aren't. Some surviving members of a murder victim's family may well forgive and not want to see a harsh penalty for the killer. I dare say though, that most loved ones feel worse if the killer (or molester or whatever) is treated too lightly. You may not agree with the death penalty (as an example) but victim's families have a right to their anger.

Retribution is a perfectly valid part of punishing criminals.
 
Seems to me it would be foolish to express mercy towards somebody who is likely to continue their destructive pattern of behavior. So without some level of contrition and rehabilitation I see no reason to introduce any act of mercy into the discussion. Some guy going on a killing rampage shouldn't be shown mercy as long as he's actively trying to keep killing. And if it's determined that he's unable to succeed in rehabilitation efforts, what level of mercy is even safe to offer up to him?

The "noble criminal" perhaps deserves mercy...the man who steals to feed his family, the woman who attacks her husband to stop him from beating their children, the crazed father who beats the living hell out of the man who raped his daughter and "got away with it"....but to have mercy upon somebody who is repetitively and intentionally destructive to society of their own will and volition? I see no need.
Well, mercy, as I see it, does not necessarily mean letting someone continue to hurt people. It's simply the definition in the OP which can be given to someone at many levels. One of the most remarkable examples of mercy I can think of is when several Amish girls were killed by a man in Pennsylvania who then killed himself. Rather than condemning him and calling him a monster and doing all of the things that are common in such cases, several of the families of those who were killed attended the killer's funeral and visited his family to show their forgiveness. That is mercy as well and I think there is value in that.
 
Sorry German Guy, you don't get to decide what feelings crime victims have are valid and which aren't. Some surviving members of a murder victim's family may well forgive and not want to see a harsh penalty for the killer. I dare say though, that most loved ones feel worse if the killer (or molester or whatever) is treated too lightly. You may not agree with the death penalty (as an example) but victim's families have a right to their anger.

Retribution is a perfectly valid part of punishing criminals.
But now you're telling him what he can and cannot think is valid.
 
I don't think anyone deserves mercy, but I do think those who are merciful to everyone and anyone are the most honorable of society. And when I say "mercy", I do not mean simply letting criminals out of jail to harm others again. Mercy can simply mean showing compassion rather than condemnation or choosing to inflict a lesser, but still effective, punishment for a criminal. For example, rather than calling a murderer a monster and wishing him a cruel end, one would still have compassion for him as human being and only wish for the punishment that would protect society from him.

Couldn't agree more. I think the way we treat criminals says a lot about us. They are not "monsters", but it's much harder to stomach that they are humans after all -- they represent the dark sides within ourselves which we would love to split off and forget. That's why we don't care about the conditions in prisons, and that's why we dehumanize criminals.

Nobody was born as criminal (with very few exceptions of people with organic brain damage maybe), and when it's possible to turn an innocent child into a criminal, you can turn a criminal into a good citizen again -- maybe not always, but much more often than people believe. But as many prisons look these days -- can we really expect rehabilitation to succeed? No, we give up on these people. That's an embaressment for a civilized society.

Again, as you say, I don't mean that criminals should get no punishment, or that we should neglect the protection of society from crime out of pity. Society must be protected. But at the same time, I think much trouble could be avoided if there was more emphasis on rehabilitation and prevention.
 
Sorry German Guy, you don't get to decide what feelings crime victims have are valid and which aren't. Some surviving members of a murder victim's family may well forgive and not want to see a harsh penalty for the killer. I dare say though, that most loved ones feel worse if the killer (or molester or whatever) is treated too lightly. You may not agree with the death penalty (as an example) but victim's families have a right to their anger.

Retribution is a perfectly valid part of punishing criminals.

I think when it comes to the death penalty, it's pretty simple: Either you like the thought of killing people, then you support it. Or you dislike that thought, then you are against it.
 
I don't think anyone deserves mercy, but I do think those who are merciful to everyone and anyone are the most honorable of society. And when I say "mercy", I do not mean simply letting criminals out of jail to harm others again. Mercy can simply mean showing compassion rather than condemnation or choosing to inflict a lesser, but still effective, punishment for a criminal. For example, rather than calling a murderer a monster and wishing him a cruel end, one would still have compassion for him as human being and only wish for the punishment that would protect society from him.

It's not being very merciful to crime victims or their families to essentially say to them that the death of their loved one doesn't mean anything and isn't worthy of punishment.
 
If one acts merciful towards a transgressor who brutalizes others in such a way as to allow a pattern of continued brutalization, is one actually acting mercifully?

The notion of mercy is similar to the notion of tolerance in that it shouldn't demand the suspension of the sort of moral reasoning required in order to evaluate the big picture.
Well, mercy doesn't require that you let people continue to hurt others. It requires compassion to varying degrees. And yes, one can be merciful while also allowing someone to continue harmful behavior.
 
I think when it comes to the death penalty, it's pretty simple: Either you like the thought of killing people, then you support it. Or you dislike that thought, then you are against it.

It isn't that simple at all, actually. But if you want to simplify it and ignore the complex dynamics that's definitely your perogative....it's just mildly dishonest, is all.
 
It's not being very merciful to crime victims or their families to essentially say to them that the death of their loved one doesn't mean anything and isn't worthy of punishment.
But I'm not saying that to them. If you believe that my showing mercy means that I don't think the death of your loved one means anything, then that is your interpretation of my behavior that I am not and cannot be responsible for.

Moreover, another family might see it differently. They may believe that wishing a cruel end to the person who murdered their loved one is disrespectful to their loved one. So if I don't give mercy, then I am being disrespectful. So which family do I pander to? The one who believes in mercy or the one who does not. The answer is that I pander to neither and let everyone make their own decisions while I make mine.
 
It isn't that simple at all, actually. But if you want to simplify it and ignore the complex dynamics that's definitely your perogative....it's just mildly dishonest, is all.

No matter if you are a common murderer or just taking joy out of executions -- there are always reasons, legal or illegal. But they are just excuses for not being civilized. Apparently, you simply love the idea of killing other people. It's really that simple.
 
It isn't that simple at all, actually. But if you want to simplify it and ignore the complex dynamics that's definitely your perogative....it's just mildly dishonest, is all.

On top of that, you allow the murderer to win: He manages to turn even more people into murderers, destroying their souls.

I don't know how I would react. Maybe I'd kill a person harming a loved one too. But I know that wouldn't be right, and I am not sure I could live with it. And I don't understand how any merciful, good person could possibly live with it.
 
But now you're telling him what he can and cannot think is valid.

No, I'm countering his suggestion that there should be no consideration for the crime and how it's impacted the victims or their families itself in determining punishment. Even if we could be 100% sure that we could keep someone from repeating their crimes, the crime itself deserves punishment.
 
No matter if you are a common murderer or just taking joy out of executions -- there are always reasons, legal or illegal. But they are just excuses for not being civilized. Apparently, you simply love the idea of killing other people. It's really that simple.

That statement, GG, is not only completely based on ignorance and your own prejudice, it's also absolutely untrue. If you want to have a legitimate discussion on the complexities of the death pentality I welcome it. But if you want to parade around on a sanctimonious high horse spewing ignorancing and generalizations then any respect I had for will continue to diminish rapidly. You know nothing about my stance or opinions on the death penality.
 
Good question. :)

Imo, mercy is something that should be practiced at the personal level, as long as it isn't detrimental to the one showing it. At a societal level, it's difficult to say, as it tends to get tied into the legal and justice system, where it's essentially useless if the laws and penalties for breaking them become blurred.
That being said, once a criminal has paid his debt to society, I think he/she should have that debt completely forgiven, and not be tagged for life with a criminal record.
 
No, I'm countering his suggestion that there should be no consideration for the crime and how it's impacted the victims or their families itself in determining punishment. Even if we could be 100% sure that we could keep someone from repeating their crimes, the crime itself deserves punishment.
See, but you're still saying what we should think. If you believe that it's not okay for GG to say, "this is how it is", then why is it okay for you to reply, "no, this is how it is." (FTR, I don't have a problem with either one of you saying "this is how it is", but I don't understand why he can't say it, but you can.)
 
That statement, GG, is not only completely based on ignorance and your own prejudice, it's also absolutely untrue. If you want to have a legitimate discussion on the complexities of the death pentality I welcome it. But if you want to parade around on a sanctimonious high horse spewing ignorancing and generalizations then any respect I had for will continue to diminish rapidly. You know nothing about my stance or opinions on the death penality.

If you really hated the idea of killing a human being, you know, seeing and feeling life leaving his body, holding his hand while he dies from your hands, or operating the switch yourself -- then you wouldn't "parade around on a high horse spewing" advocacy of the death penalty, but be much more ambivalent towards it.
 
Back
Top Bottom