Sanitas
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 459
- Reaction score
- 81
- Location
- The world.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Simple question, no need for complex answers.
Everything has a caviotte. If say, a guy stole because he wants to make money without earning it then throw the book at him and let him see sunlight after the maximum. If someone is trying to feed his kids and can't find a job, mercy, help him get on his feet. A person who kills because they feel threatened, mercy, a person who murders in cold blood, justice.
Honestly, it would depend on the crime in situation. Justice should be given to a serial killer. Mercy should be shown to someone who accidentally killed another.
Gotta pick one though.
Justice. It's all encompassing.Gotta pick one though.
Gotta pick one though.
The world isn't black or white...
How can you pick just one, when one doesn't fit every circumstance?
Justice. It's all encompassing.
Justice is what society decides is the correct amends. For instance, I hate mandatory minimums for many offenses because they cannot possibly factor all things that went into a crime, I believe judges and prosecutors should have as much discretion as possible. Justice for a cold blooded murderer is harsh, for someone who is otherwise a good person but was pushed to kill, well we give leeway. Same for theft, was it to survive or was it to enrich, makes all the difference in the world. Justice is not black and white.If we are talking about criminal justice? Well it is a failure.
I mean what kind of Justice we talking here?
If this is on a legal type tip? I would rather see justice and someone be killed dead for taking a life rather than showing someone who is a serial killer mercy.
No, he should be shown justice and receive the punishment for such an offense, which would be way lighter than the punishment given to a serial killer.Honestly, it would depend on the crime in situation. Justice should be given to a serial killer. Mercy should be shown to someone who accidentally killed another.
This is an absolutely stupid question. Creating artificial constraints for a hypothetical situation ignores reality. I don't know if the OP is referring to the criminal justice system, personal morality, societal morality, or whatever else. Plus it ignores the fact that every situation has its own nuances and unique facts that greatly affect perception and these sorts of judgments.
Simple question, no need for complex answers.
there should be a third option, "Yes, please"
That's kind of what I was thinking, but the openness does lead up to some good debate. If it's Cjustice you're the guy to talk about mercy v justice being a former LEO. It would be interesting to figure out what situations demand what from the practical side of things.Or Rootebega. Rootebega (also, less hilariously, Rutabega) is always a good third option.
Seriously though... the question is simply left hanging there in space unsupported by context. Without context, the question is meaningless.
Justice or mercy for who? for having done what? under what circumstances?
It's almost a "have you quit beating your wife, answer yes or no" question, hanging there alone like that.
That's kind of what I was thinking, but the openness does lead up to some good debate. If it's Cjustice you're the guy to talk about mercy v justice being a former LEO. It would be interesting to figure out what situations demand what from the practical side of things.
While I agree, there's crime and the criminal. For criminals justice really is the only recourse, if say, someone was pushed to it by extreme circumstance and isn't necessarily criminally minded cutting them a break seems a little more palatable.It's been my experience that people almost never learn from mercy; they always learn from justice.