What role should mercy play in society?

X Factor said:

Now, all of a sudden, you believe a person should suffer for a crime he's committed? That's not what you said earlier?

Click to expand...

I said revenge should not have a place in the legal system.

I did not say the perpetrator should not suffer. It's important that first, society is protected from criminals, and second, punishment must deter other criminals. When the perpetrator suffers in the process, that is absolutely necessary. But he should not suffer for the sake of suffering.

X Factor said:

Lol, well that's just bull****. If you're focused entirely on the criminal and what might make him feel bad, or even telling a victim that they're wrong to be angry or want retribution, than it's apparent where your sympathies lie, and that's fine. For myself, I cannot get the criminal act itself or the victims out of my mind.

Click to expand...

Well, first of all, when considering an entire crime, I don't focus entirely on the criminal. This thread is about one specific aspect which is why it's the focus of the conversation. Second, I've already said that I understand anger and the desire for retribution since I've felt them. I also stated that I believe the decision to give mercy is an individual decision. All of this means that I haven't "told people what to believe". Third, instead of actually trying to understand my position, you've distorted it and just decided that your distortion is what I actually believe. This is all ironic considering that you started off this thread telling another poster that he doesn't get to decide what others feel when you've just done that exact thing to me.

Suffering and pain only beget more suffering and pain. Revenge does not satisfy. When you punish someone, hurting them to satisfy the belief that you are morally superior to them, all you're doing is causing pain. It may make you feel good in the short term, but it turns you into a monster. Treatment of criminals must serve a utilitarian purpose, either protecting the rest of society, or rehabilitation to reform a criminal into a productive member of society. Hurting someone just so we can feel superior destroys the difference between us and the criminal.

The criminal commits a crime. We punish the criminal. Prison reinforces the criminal mindset. The criminal gets out and commits more crime. Then we punish him again. The cycle repeats forever until someone stops hurting the other person. We must be the ones to break the cycle. A criminal seldom feels like he has a choice. No one wakes up and says "I'm going to do something evil today!". In every instance, we, the members of society, have a choice to break the cycle of suffering. And we must be the ones to step up and do it. We cannot be dismissive and say "they should do it instead of us". When we take that position, no one does anything.

No, retribution is not a valid direction to take with a criminal, and to suggest that retribution is what a victim of their family deserves is petty. Retribution, the continuation of violence and pain, done on behalf of a victim or their family is demeaning to them. They are innocent until the moment that harm is done in their name, and then they are tarnished forever. And eye for an eye makes us as much criminals as the person we've convicted.

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 need a whole lot more than "zero patience".
I'd like to be a lot more merciful than I am.And number of people and government have been forgiving of me, and this is very much a positive.
People should try some "mercy", as difficult as this can be.
Les Miserables

German guy said:

But he should not suffer for the sake of suffering.

Click to expand...

And I think some people commit acts that they deserve to suffer for.

earthworm said:

We need a whole lot more than "zero patience".
I'd like to be a lot more merciful than I am.And number of people and government have been forgiving of me, and this is very much a positive.
People should try some "mercy", as difficult as this can be.
Les Miserables

Click to expand...

:lol: Touche.

German guy said:

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.

Click to expand...

i support the death penalty and according to you, i like killing other people:shock: and i am not civilized,why because i believe that

no serial killer deserves to live.....

Ockham said:

Everyone deserves a second chance. People are not perfect by any means. In that case, yes, mercy by our government should exist but not infinitely. It should be just enough to get people back on their feet.... and it should be tightly monitored. Mercy should exist always in the Christian Church. It's a tenant by which they live so all have mercy. In the legal system, mercy should be given when someone messes up for the first or second time.... after that, there's no excuse. In general, I support a much harder and fiercer penal system such that people would want to avoid it, not make it a career move because they have it better inside jail than outside jail. And lastly, for the most heinous crimes - those which pale beyond the most monstrous, mercy should be given by God not by man. The death penalty is warranted and should be carried out in a minority of cases.

Click to expand...

What's interesting is that I have a somewhat opposite take on this. I've always felt that mercy should be given by man and that the decision to not give mercy should only be up to God.

tessaesque said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is where mercy is needed the most, and its the most difficult.
Or, do you think our "no-mercy" American system really works ?

X Factor said:

And I think some people commit acts that they deserve to suffer for.

Click to expand...

Then you are not merciful to the degree I believe people should ideally be. And that was the whole point of this thread, I believe.

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.

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.

German guy said:

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.

Click to expand...

Where did I ever say "we should be using the death penalty frequently and without heavy consideration"? Where did I ever say I fully and unabashedly endorse the death penalty? I didn't. I said the death penalty is more complex than you initially stated. You made a huge, quite frankly insulting leap, and it was completely inaccurate and uncalled for. And now you continue to make assumptions about my stance because....why, exactly?

earthworm said:

This is where mercy is needed the most, and its the most difficult.
Or, do you think our "no-mercy" American system really works ?

Click to expand...

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.

Medusa said:

i support the death penalty and according to you, i like killing other people:shock: and i am not civilized,why because i believe that

no serial killer deserves to live.....

Click to expand...

I don't know that I would say you "like to kill people", but there must be some pleasure derived from knowing that the serial killer is dead.

ThePlayDrive said:

What's interesting is that I have a somewhat opposite take on this. I've always felt that mercy should be given by man and that the decision to not give mercy should only be up to God.

Click to expand...

Interesting
IMO, man can be God...at times...otherwise, there is no God.....

tessaesque said:

Where did I ever say "we should be using the death penalty frequently and without heavy consideration"? Where did I ever say I fully and unabashedly endorse the death penalty? I didn't. I said the death penalty is more complex than you initially stated. You made a huge, quite frankly insulting leap, and it was completely inaccurate and uncalled for. And now you continue to make assumptions about my stance because....why, exactly?

Click to expand...

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.

German guy said:

Then you are not merciful to the degree I believe people should ideally be.

Click to expand...

Well no ****. :mrgreen: I think we established that with my first post. LOL

And that was the whole point of this thread, I believe.

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.

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...

Some victims are able to forgive, some aren't and some don't have the chance to decide either way because, well, they've been murdered. You're saying that only one victim response is ok, I'm saying that's easy for you to say. How about a little mercy for how the victims and their families feel?

ThePlayDrive said:

I don't know that I would say you "like to kill people", but there must be some pleasure derived from knowing that the serial killer is dead.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily pleasure in their death, but perhaps pleasure in the fact that you now know that person can no longer poison society through death or influence upon others who might later kill. One of the most consistent character traits found in serial killers is their ability to charm and manipulate people. Giving them access and ability to continue doing so, even after imprisonment, allows that person to pose a continued risk through influence. I have yet to hear of any serial killer that was successfully rehabilitated or who benefited in anyway for access to psychological aid. What is "mercy" in respect to such a person? Better yet, when does mercy towards that person affect our ability to be merciful towards those affected by that person?

To me it's about the burden to society. If someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt gets his retrial and still loses, society gets punished.

If he is 20 years old and gets life without the possibility of parole, who foots the bill for his living expenses for the next 50 years? Some could even make the argument that spending 50 years in a box is cruel and inhumane.

X Factor said:

Well no ****. :mrgreen: I think we established that with my first post. LOL

Click to expand...

Yeah, kind of, I guess ... lol

Some victims are able to forgive, some aren't and some don't have the chance to decide either way because, well, they've been murdered. You're saying that only one victim response is ok, I'm saying that's easy for you to say. How about a little mercy for how the victims and their families feel?

Click to expand...

Of course I am in no position to tell them how they are supposed to feel. I simply believe that two wrongs don't make a right, or that one immoral act cannot be cured by another. I believe that will not even help the victims.

ThePlayDrive said:

I don't know that I would say you "like to kill people", but there must be some pleasure derived from knowing that the serial killer is dead.

Click to expand...

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.

German guy said:

. I believe that will not even help the victims.

Click to expand...

And I think it can and does, though, you're right, not every time. Everybody's different and every person who's been victimized should have their feelings respected.

tessaesque said:

Not necessarily pleasure in their death, but perhaps pleasure in the fact that you now know that person can no longer poison society through death or influence upon others who might later kill. One of the most consistent character traits found in serial killers is their ability to charm and manipulate people. Giving them access and ability to continue doing so, even after imprisonment, allows that person to pose a continued risk through influence. I have yet to hear of any serial killer that was successfully rehabilitated or who benefited in anyway for access to psychological aid.

Click to expand...

Well, that's an understandable position. It's easy to see why one would prefer that extremely violent and cunning criminals be prevented from having any potential to influence any other person. However, it's a different position from saying that "serial killers deserve to die" as Medusa said. The former is a more practical one while the latter seems more emotional.

Nonetheless, I still disagree with both positions though I consider both easy to understand in different ways. Mercy and the belief that I do not have the right to take another's life outside of self-defense are more important to me.

What is "mercy" in respect to such a person?

Click to expand...

In this example, it's easier for me to define mercy in terms of what it is not. It is not deciding the person is an animal or a monster or any other thing dehumanizing. It is not wanting the person to be punished cruelly or beyond what will suffice to protect society.

Better yet, when does mercy towards that person affect our ability to be merciful towards those affected by that person?

Click to expand...

Well, I don't think mercy applies to those affected by the murderer or other "bad" person. Mercy, as I see it particularly with the definition in the OP, is about showing compassion to people who have done "wrong" or who are in my power. Victims of crimes have done no wrong nor are they in my power.

X Factor said:

Some victims are able to forgive, some aren't and some don't have the chance to decide either way because, well, they've been murdered. You're saying that only one victim response is ok, I'm saying that's easy for you to say. How about a little mercy for how the victims and their families feel?

Click to expand...

Justice is meant to be impartial and objective. The feelings of a victim actually have no place at all in determining justice. We always talk about the killer that goes free, and the family wants justice. How about when the guy they put on trial was actually innocent and the family just doesn't think so? Hot blooded anger has no place in civilized justice, nor does anything as subjective as the feelings of a wronged person. Making a person whole after suffering a harm is what civil court is for. You can sue someone for pretty much anything they can be put in jail for. You want restitution? Sue them. Of course, you can't get much from a poor street criminal, and you probably can't win against a rich one. But a person has absolutely no right to inflict harm on another person. The same breaking of that rule that the criminal did, you cannot then do in return. If you do, then you are morally the same as he is.

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...

I took pleasure in bin Laden's death although I remember having mixed feelings about it and still do. There is certainly an emotional benefit, whether short term or long term, in seeing the pain or death of someone whose violent actions you were affected by. However, when I feel that joy, I consider it a moral problem - I consider it something that ought to be overcome.

ThePlayDrive said:

I don't know that I would say you "like to kill people", but there must be some pleasure derived from knowing that the serial killer is dead.

Click to expand...

in fact it is just a thing which means justice :roll: