Crime and Punishment

[Hive]

okay, i know its a cheesy book reference above ^^ (one that i only read half of btw and gave up out of boredom) lol
however, yea, i think it'd be a good idea to discuss this! i was thinking about this the other day actually. Ethics are my fave subject though just because its directly relevant to how we should act and believe. ^^
Say society has rules for and ethic- how do you go about punishing it and how do you judge poeople? Society will always strive to punish "injustices" even if it goes against science, etc...

The main question I want to ask you guys is this- Do you think that crimes should be punished based on intention? The end result? or shouldn't be punished at all? edit: oh, and also why?
There are so many questions about this though, so i figure i'd say some of my thoughts-

-if we have a criminal who pleas insanity, what separates him from a criminal who isn't insane and does the same crime? the point is that both are caused by neural responses in the brain scientifically, so why is one unaccountable for their judgements and the other isn't?
Is it right to judge anyone even though they don't have choice? how about if they were on drugs? how about minors?

-Should the end result justify a crime even if the intention is not to harm that person? say someone commits vehicular manslaughter (not on purpose) the other family demands reparations, imprisonment, but is the person morally guilty?

-Someone is walking along the sidewalk and accidentally trips into a shopping cart that hits someone off a bridge? Is he morally responsible? and also, someone points a gun at someone shoots and then says, "no i didn't kill them, i thought they would avoid the bullet," or "no the bullet killed them not me etc..." this reminded me of the saw movies because the person intentionally put the people in situations where they would die say 50% of the time and then claim he wasn't at fault at all. but then again they can say it wasn't necessarily their intention for them to die.

-If someone raises the probability of someone dying and meant to kill the person (intention) Guilty of murder, or not?

-also another important question is when we apply ethics is it ok to break those ethics for "the greater good?" say if the government tortures and kills 500 people to make a vaccine to a disease that will supposedly save 1000 people? (and moreso over time.) is that ok? is it ok if its for the "greater happiness of people?"

-is someone who punishes someone who committed crimes just at fault? say an executioner puts someone in an electric chair-= guilty of murder or not guilty? how about if the person was wrongfully convicted.

anyways, your thoughts! also, you don't need to answer all the examples! they were just for thinking, i really want to hear your opinions overall. ^^

edit: personally i've always felt intention should be the main concern...

 

[Xiivi]

-is someone who punishes someone who committed crimes just at fault? say an executioner puts someone in an electric chair-= guilty of murder or not guilty? how about if the person was wrongfully convicted.

I would say not guilty to both cases.

While the executioner may be the one pulling the trigger/injecting the needle/whatever, I still would not place the blame on them. In my mind they are simply doing the job they are employed to do and should not held accountable for that. While I would say that the law or whatever is who is responsible for the death of the person.

 

[Mewter]

Wow, that shopping cart one caught me by surprise. I have no idea what to say to that one. On one hand, they are responsible for their death, and on the other, they didn't mean to do it. Maybe they should just receive a justified punishment(I don't know what it might be) and a bill for the shopping cart.

And the "No, the bullet killed them!" isn't a valid argument to begin with. They'd need the largest body of professionally genius lawyers that ever existed in order to pull a stunt like that. It would be kind of disappointing if someone actually did pull it off, though.

And raising someone's likelihood of dying is practically killing them, anyways. I guess it could be put under endangerment.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

This is a good topic. I'll be writing a lot here later on.

 

[Hive]

yea the bullet one i don't agree with either mewter! ^^ its just, i like to think about what the intention of someone is to judge actions, and i thought it was a good thought experiment bc I was wondering how probabilities affect things- lol what i mean by that is, say you put someone in a situation where they will die 70% of the time (intentionally), if i judge by intention are they responsible if the person dies if they die from it? how about if they don't? I mean they can always say that they didn't mean for the person to necessarily die either ^^ its just all so confusing for me! and i don't really have any answers lol.

 

[cman]

Crime and Punishment is one of my two favorite books! How dare you call it cheesy?!? Especially since you didn't even finish it?? In fact, I have the book sitting right next to me. Take back your words!

Edit- I don't have time to debate this atm, but I'll be back a bit later

 

[aeghrur]

The main question I want to ask you guys is this- Do you think that crimes should be punished based on intention? The end result? or shouldn't be punished at all?
There are so many questions about this though, so i figure i'd say some of my thoughts-

They should be based upon intention and the end result. That's why there are differences between Negligent Homicide, Manslaughter, and say, Purgery, lol.

-if we have a criminal who pleas insanity, what separates him from a criminal who isn't insane and does the same crime? the point is that both are caused by neural responses in the brain scientifically, so why is one unaccountable for their judgements and the other isn't?

I think both are accountable for their judgments, just one more so than the other. Going back to death, if one person kills others on purpose, and another is insane and kills them due to recklessness, the charges will be different based on intent.

Is it right to judge anyone even though they don't have choice? how about if they were on drugs? how about minors?

I honestly don't know about the choice one. I can't imagine someone being sent to court because they had to save their family, or someone NOT being tried for murder. >_<
If they're on drugs, they should be judged because they committed a crime due to either negligence or recklessness.
Minors... I think they should be charged, but not as harshly? I mean, it really depends. I can't say anything for sure. >_<

-Should the end result justify a crime even if the intention is not to harm that person? say someone commits vehicular manslaughter (not on purpose) the other family demands reparations, imprisonment, but is the person morally guilty?

Morally guilty? Um, what do you mean by that?
If something of that nature occurred, I believe the person should not be tried for something as bad as murder, but should definitely be tried for negligent homicide and manslaughter. I mean, it does matter if one didn't intend to kill another, but in the end, that one person still took the life of the other. In the end, it could have been avoided, but instead, the other person got killed. Now, on the other hand, if it was the one who died that was reckless, I'd say the charges should be dropped as in the end, the fault wasn't of the person who was driving normally, but rather the reckless driver. It depends upon circumstances I guess.

-Someone is walking along the sidewalk and accidentally trips into a shopping cart that hits someone off a bridge? Is he morally responsible? and also, someone points a gun at someone shoots and then says, "no i didn't kill them, i thought they would avoid the bullet," or "no the bullet killed them not me etc..." this reminded me of the saw movies because the person intentionally put the people in situations where they would die say 50% of the time and then claim he wasn't at fault at all. but then again they can say it wasn't necessarily their intention for them to die.

The shopping cart... LOL. How did he get that? lol. Iunno about that, i really don't know.
Okay, the bullet did it? The bullet can't kill without enough force behind it and for it to be targeted, the force can't be caused without the gun firing, the firing can't be caused unless someone fires it, who fired it? the one who shot the gun, the murderer. I'd say guilty on that one. =/

-If someone raises the probability of someone dying and meant to kill the person (intention) Guilty of murder, or not?

Yes, definitely. Even if the person didn't die, their safety and security was threatened. This is an attack on someone's natural right, their right to life. If the person didn't die, it wouldn't be murder. Even so, the person should at least be charged with endangering another's life or something. If they did, the person should definitely be found guilty.

-also another important question is when we apply ethics is it ok to break those ethics for "the greater good?" say if the government tortures and kills 500 people to make a vaccine to a disease that will supposedly save 1000 people? (and moreso over time.) is that ok? is it ok if its for the "greater happiness of people?"

I doubt it mainly because america is a country very focused around the individual instead of the common good.

-is someone who punishes someone who committed crimes just at fault? say an executioner puts someone in an electric chair-= guilty of murder or not guilty? how about if the person was wrongfully convicted.

No, they shouldn't be. If they are an executioner, it is their job to do so, and it was the courts who convicted the person. If they were rightfully convicted, then he deserved it. =/ If it was wrongfully convicted, it should be both the executioner and the court's fault.

anyways, your thoughts! also, you don't need to answer all the examples! they were just for thinking, i really want to hear your opinions overall. ^^

Overall, I think it should be a mixture of intent+end result. End result might be more emphasized though, due to the fact that your dealing with people's rights being violated. Intent does play in upon the harshness of your penalty. =/

 

[Darxmarth23]

I would say if there is proof of malicious intentions, then they should be punished as such. Besides that i would stay with what we have now.

 

[SkylerOcon]

The main question I want to ask you guys is this- Do you think that crimes should be punished based on intention? The end result? or shouldn't be punished at all?

I think it should be a combination of intent and the end result. Such as, if somebody killed somebody by complete accident (tripped and stabbed them by accident or something), then they obviously shouldn't be punished. It was an accident and the person probably feels horrible.

However, if somebody INTENDED to kill somebody but didn't succeed, they should still be given death row. They tried to killed somebody and failed. They are essentially a failed murderer. I don't want to have to pay his way through jail and give him 3 meals a day. I want him dead -- the world is better off without him.

If somebody intended to harm somebody, but then killed them, then they shouldn't get the death penalty. They didn't mean to be a killer, they just wanted to hurt somebody, for whatever reason. Give the guy some jail time and rehab, and call it a day. It's unfair for somebody who didn't mean to kill to be treated the same way as somebody who meant to kill.

 

[manhunter098]

Not every murderer will try to kill again, the entire purpose of giving people the death sentence is to make sure they cannot harm society any longer, the circumstances and the motive are very important in determining of somebody should should be given the death sentence, and honestly with the way that death row works right now, you really are better off just putting them in prison for life, it will make the impact on society even less because the legal process of sentencing somebody to death often involves lots and lots of wasted money.

And wow, I really did just write that whole reply with only a single period.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Not every murderer will try to kill again, the entire purpose of giving people the death sentence is to make sure they cannot harm society any longer, the circumstances and the motive are very important in determining of somebody should should be given the death sentence, and honestly with the way that death row works right now, you really are better off just putting them in prison for life, it will make the impact on society even less because the legal process of sentencing somebody to death often involves lots and lots of wasted money.

This is why attempting to kill or actually killing somebody should be an automatic death penalty. I shouldn't have to waste my money on keeping them in prison for the rest of their lives.

 

[manhunter098]

This is why attempting to kill or actually killing somebody should be an automatic death penalty. I shouldn't have to waste my money on keeping them in prison for the rest of their lives.

Of course the legal rights they have when they are waiting on death row are what is going to make you spend more putting them there. On top of that why dont we just enslave death row inmates and make them useful, they can pay for their own prison sentence.

 

[Reaver197]

I personally feel that, yes, crimes ought to be punished, and the punishment should be contingent upon both the intent and the end result of the crime. Since there isn't a hard and fast set of rules as for what is moral, and morality is a relative, case-by-case determination, why shouldn't it be the same for considering breaches of morality?

To me, morality is the search for a what I would call a "stable strategy" for how to act and respond to such situations. Essentially, a stable strategy is a position that if everyone took (or, the great majority of people took), would be beneficial on the whole and is self-sustaining. For example, telling the truth is a stable strategy, because if everyone told the truth, it helps everyone else get an accurate understanding of what is going on, and thus be able to make the best decisions for themselves and other people. On the whole, everyone benefits from it, and it encourages a perpetuation of the strategy.

To give an example of an unstable strategy, stealing would be one. Although it can work in current society, that's because, overwhelmingly, most people do not steal to obtain their source of income or needed materials. However, if there were a society in which everyone on practice stole in order to obtain what they needed to live, it would quickly turn into a self-defeating cycle. Everyone would simply be stealing a limited set of goods from one another, which would gradually become a smaller and smaller amount since no one would be producing anything new (as, why should they, it would just get stolen). Such a society would not be able to function and is doomed to failure.

That is why we need laws, and punishments for breaking them. To deter people from pursuing actions that would not be a stable strategy for society.

For the insanity plea, you have to take into account there is the possibility that, from the way the person's mind is structured or formed, it gives them certain compulsions over which they have no voluntary control to countermand. Laws are really contingent upon the idea that people can control themselves not to do certain wrongs. However, it does no help to punish someone who has no control over what they do, since they have a compulsion to do it, punishing them won't fix the problem. They need psychiatric help instead.

Punishing people who were under duress is not very beneficial either, because that isn't the root of the problem or issue. The problem are the people who are forcing someone to do something illegal, probably by illegal means themselves. Like, getting someone to rob a bank or else someone will kill their family.

For drugs, the person had the decision to take the drugs or not. If they decide to voluntarily take drugs, then they are responsible for the actions they perform while under their influence. If you mean medicinal drugs, then maybe the person will not be held as responsible, especially if they were not informed or aware of the affects of a drug. Then, it would be an issue for either the doctor and/or the pharmaceutical who supplied/made the drug.

Minors is an interesting one. Part of the reason why minors are treated differently and less harshly than adults is that children's and adolescent's brains are still developing and maturing. They, realistically, cannot be expected to show the restraint, foresight, and possibly even the understanding of the consequences of their actions that adults do (or should be able to do). However, depending on the severity of crime committed, you should still get minors tried as adults since having a yet fully-developed brain is no excuse for committing something like premeditated murder. It would be a dangerous message to give off that you could be punished less harshly for such an action.

The shopping cart one is kind of silly, but, the person who would actually probably be held responsible for the death of a person from such a case would be the person who left the shopping cart on the bridge in the first place. The tripping into the cart wasn't contingent upon a specific person or action the person took, almost anyone could've tripped or accidentally hit it somehow. The contingent event and action was really more of the person who left the shopping cart there in the first place, thus setting up a situation where such a thing could happen.

The "bullet killed them, not me" argument is a false one. The person knowingly operated a piece of machinery that would lead to someone's harm or death, particularly since that's what a gun is designed to do, lol. The person was the one who instigated an action that led to someone else's death, and it wouldn't have if they hadn't performed that action.

The probability one, is that saying that someone intentionally set up a situation that could've led to someone's death, but it didn't? Though they won't get convicted to murder, but they probably would be convicted for conspiracy to murder or whatever it is when someone is found to be actively planning to cause the death of someone.

The vaccine example is an interesting one. I don't know, realistically, if you would ever have a situation where a government would need to torture and kill a group of people in order to produce a vaccine to save a greater amount of other people. But, the idea of sacrificing a lesser amount of people to save the greater amount, in a great variety of situations, might be the more prudent and ethical choice to make, but only if you have no other choice. In the creation of a vaccine, it seems there are other ways to obtain it without needing to cause the death and suffering of a group of people.

As for the executioner being guilty of murder, a group of people had to decide before hand that someone deserved the punishment of death, so the particular person who carried out the actual execution is pretty much trivial, as everyone (or mostly everyone) has agreed that they must die. If it turns out they were wrongfully killed, the responsibility would be on the group of people who decided for the person's death.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I'm deeply dissapointed by people saying an executioner isn't guilty. He obviously is. I find it ridicoulus using "It's his job" as an argument. So what? He consciously takes a person's live - it doesn't matter whether it's his job or not. It is murder.
Just because some random son of a ***** decides that it is OK to punish criminals with their death doesn't mean it is. Somebody who establishes such a perverted law is just as much a murderer as the person who executes it.

-is someone who punishes someone who committed crimes just at fault? say an executioner puts someone in an electric chair-= guilty of murder or not guilty? how about if the person was wrongfully convicted.

Murder is a crime - employment shouldn't matter. A person, who performs the barbarian act of killing somebody by putting him on an electric chair is a murderer just like a person who shoots somebody. All executioners are criminals.

No crime deserves death as its punishment.

...

To answer the actual question of the topic: It's not so much the intention that should matter but rather the degree of responsibility. If you kill somebody in a car accident because you were on drugs you're still responsible, even if you didn't do it intentionally.
The person in the shopping cart example on the other hand barely as any responsibility for what has happened, especially since he didn't even leave tha cart on the bridge.

 

[illinialex24]

Murder is a crime - employment shouldn't matter. A person, who performs the barbarian act of killing somebody by putting him on an electric chair is a murderer just like a person who shoots somebody. All executioners are criminals.

No crime deserves death as its punishment.

That is an ethical issue for the last thing, but someone who is doing what the government is telling him to do and is doing a job that requires him to kill people does not deserve to die. Its harsh but still.

 

[manhunter098]

I'm deeply dissapointed by people saying an executioner isn't guilty. He obviously is. I find it ridicoulus using "It's his job" as an argument. So what? He consciously takes a person's live - it doesn't matter whether it's his job or not. It is murder.
Just because some random son of a ***** decides that it is OK to punish criminals with their death doesn't mean it is. Somebody who establishes such a perverted law is just as much a murderer as the person who executes it.:

I hate to say it but its not murder, not by any definition. Righteous killing (be it religious or nationalistic, or in the name of justice) has always been a part of human history.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

That is an ethical issue for the last thing, but someone who is doing what the government is telling him to do and is doing a job that requires him to kill people does not deserve to die. Its harsh but still.

What? I never said anybody deserves to die. This also takes executioners into account...even though I consider them criminals.

I hate to say it but its not murder, not by any definition. Righteous killing (be it religious or nationalistic, or in the name of justice) has always been a part of human history.

"Righteous killing" doesn't exist.

 

[manhunter098]

"Righteous killing" doesn't exist.

As far as history is concerned there is.

 

[BFDD]

No killing is ever righteous or just, but unfortunately it is sometimes necessary. Some people will always be a danger to others the only way to keep innocent people safe is for that dangerous person to die.

Executioners are not criminals. They act completely within the law. You can only argue that what they do is immoral. However I do not consider them immoral because they are acting under the information given to them. That information is that the person they are executing is dangerous to others. As long as they truly believe that the person they are executing would continue to harm others if they continued living.

I would also like to point out that he was just doing his job is not a reasonable argument. If I hired a hitman to kill someone, we would both be guilty even though he was just doing his job. I should also point out that Nazis were also just doing their job. And at least the Nazis could attempt to argue that if they didn't follow orders they could be executed. The executioner could not even make that rather weak claim.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

As far as history is concerned there is.

The driving force of (human) history is not reason but rather war and violence. As far as history is concerned these things are commom. Does that mean that it's all right and good?

Executioners are not criminals. They act completely within the law. You can only argue that what they do is immoral. However I do not consider them immoral because they are acting under the information given to them. That information is that the person they are executing is dangerous to others. As long as they truly believe that the person they are executing would continue to harm others if they continued living.

Replace the word "Executioner" with Nazi. You basically put them on the same level as this paragraph is 100% true no matter which of the terms you use.
The law allows executioners to kill people that are considered criminals - they're acting under the information that the person they're about to kill is dangerous to others and they truly believe that it's the right thing to do.
The law allowed Nazis to kill people that are considered criminals (Jews) - they're also acting under the information given to them and they truly believe it's the right thing to do as well.

So you basically put executioners on the same level as a Nazi. I couldn't agree more.

 

[manhunter098]

The driving force of (human) history is not reason but rather war and violence. As far as history is concerned these things are commom. Does that mean that it's all right and good?

Right and wrong are quite subjective, but since throughout history it has been agreed upon by most cultures that there are beneficial reasons to kill people.

 

[BFDD]

Except that Nazis killed millions based on how they were born not based on their actions.

Could you explain why killing a dangerous person is immoral? You say that nobody deserves to die and I agree but sometimes it is an unfortunate necessity to save the lives of the innocent.

And do you believe all things deserve to live or just humans?

 

[Hive]

i agree with gheb here. i think that executioners do have some degree of guilt when they execute someone. The law is a bad excuse imo. And do they really do it based on their actions? i don't think so, many times even if the punisher has doubts they will still do it bc it is "their job". Why are actions justifiably punished and other things not? If someone decides to believe in, say, judaism, or decides to take care of kittens does that suddenly make it ok to punish bc it is a choice instead of an action (religious exections have happened many times in the past, according to the law. but that doesn't make it ok, does it?)? Death penaltys are not always just, and don't always save anyone from harm, many times they are simply instilled for vengeance (which to a point is understandable, but...). So imo just bc it is someone's law or someone's job (expecially when they have the choice to be there most of the time) that doesn't make it ok.
there are times when, yes, I can see how punishing someone in some way at least needs to be done to protect others (though i am against the death penalty), and its hard to do that without people being involved... so really my conclusion is this (since i base things on intentions) if the executioner's intention here is to carry out his job only bc it is the only way to protect others from imminent danger (and their is objective proof of such). then i can at least understand that, even if i disagree with him. however, if someone kills someone bc its just their job, or its just the law, even doing it if it doesn't protect anyone (or serve a precedent to discourage others from murder), or just to do it for vengeance, or money, or if they do it without really knowing if the guilty person is even guilty, then imo that person should be held accountable for his actions. :/ Death should never be taken lightly, it MUST be a last resort.

 

[aeghrur]

"Righteous killing" doesn't exist.

No, but there is a need to protect citizens rights.
If you have a rapist of children, are you really going to just lock him up?
If he gets out on parole, do you really believe he won't **** again? It's not an impulsive decision or a mental problem that they ****, it's their CHOICE. Really, someone like that is better dead because they have absolutely no positive effects upon a society what so ever and in the mean time threaten others' right to safety and security.
It might not be righteous to kill someone like a rapist, but it would be beneficial towards protecting peoples' rights, as is the government's job.

 

[BFDD]

Why are actions justifiably punished and other things not?

Because people choose their actions. People can not help being born into something. If someone actively chooses to murder someone they should be punished. Depending on the frequency and type of murder they should receive the death penalty.

Death penaltys are not always just, and don't always save anyone from harm, many times they are simply instilled for vengeance

I wouldn't ever call the death penalty just, I would only call it necessary. It is true unfortunately that sometimes it is used for vengeance, I don't like the current system of the death penalty in the US, but feel it should be revised not removed completely.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

I'd say that any sort of act should be judged solely on its intentions (in an ideal world). This includes acts that were intended for destruction that had positive effects and the other way around as well. If everyone were to judge one another's actions based on their intentions alone, think how much more actual justice would be served.

In the case of something such as drunk driving, however, wisdom also becomes a major factor. A man could naively seek to drown his sorrows and accidentally kill someone in a car accident because he lacked to judgment to stay off of the road. There's a fine line between what harm should be judged as intentionally inflicted and what was accidental. This relies, essentially, on people not being morons. Stupid people are the death of all Utopias.