Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right

[securespark]

In several threads recently, folk here have stated that if they felt wronged by someone, they would commit crimes against them.

I think this is dreadful.

I have not set up a poll, but how many think this is acceptable?

And how many find it abhorrent?

Please be honest. I want to see what the ratio is for and against.

 

[godsoftandjoearedull]

Depends on what the crime is. Say someone 'keyed' my car, or damaged/stole a material possession it wouldn't lead me to 'take revenge' so to speak.

If someone interfered physically/mentally/emotionally with my family then I would have to consider my options....

 

[hi1]

The don't take the law into your own hands only works if the punishment is seen to be sufficient for the crime. Last 3 days saw a case where 2 yobs got 3 years for manslaughter, attacked a man who fell over and banged his head, subsequently died. His life is over, they will do 18 months of the 'sentence' and come out and carry on. If i was a relative i'd be waiting for them. If the citizen has to hand over his desire for retribution to the state and be subject to the law then the citizen has to have confidence that the law will protect him and his and at present the law is not fulfilling its side of the bargain.

 

[sooey]

Absolutely agree with hi1, we should bring back corporal and capital punishment. Then we could birch the bstrds before hanging them.

 

[sooey]

That should wake the loony up, haven't seen him on here for a while, where are you BAS.

 

[roughcaster]

Spot on again Sooey, we'll put that on the list of "things to do" after the revolution.

Roughcaster

 

[^woody^]

Laws are a formalisation of natural and moral justice, which have developed from, and have become the culture of the people over time.

Everyone has an inbuilt instinct to what is right and wrong, and this instinct is tempered by a control mechanism that normally prevents us as individuals from carrying out our own justice.

Laws which society thinks are 'wrong' and carry little punishment are not obeyed, and this is the same down to an individual level.

So, it is not the law itself which makes people behave, but rather it is the peoples belief in the authority/validity of the law which makes the law work.

When people are wronged, they expect the law to help them and for the wrong-doer to be punished to fit the wrong done. If this does not happen then the law is side-lined and a more basic retribution is carried out. And if enough people within society do this, then the law is wrong.

So, the question is, when is the law so wrong that it must not be obeyed?

Do you blindly follow a law that is wrong, that does not meet societies needs?

Or do you refuse to follow a bad law, and thus force its change?

Be a sheep or a shepherd?

 

[Shytalkz]

There are other ways of getting your own back in an entirely legal way, which has just as much of an effect on the waste of oxygen that's causing familial difficulties....

However, there is nothing as satisfying as giving the little shi'ites a good shoeing.

 

[Chud]

However, there is nothing as satisfying as giving the little shi'ites a good shoeing.

Oh no - Don't bring religion into it!

 

[holmslaw]

That should wake the loony up, haven't seen him on here for a while, where are you BAS.

i've been playing with him in the electrical forum.

 

[2scoops0406]

Trouble is with rebtribution, is that objectivity changed to subjectivity, you are also acting as judge jury, and potential executioner.... what if you decided to give someone a "slapping" back because they hurt one of your family and you accidentally killed them? Is the victim unlucky because "they started it" or are you guilty of murder? What is an appropriate punishment for a crime? surely that view varies by individual, in short, in matters of revenge you are batting on a very sticky wicket.

 

[JohnD]

Laws are a formalisation of natural and moral justice, which have developed from, and have become the culture of the people over time.

Everyone has an inbuilt instinct to what is right and wrong, ...

sadly that's not true.

Cultural norms vary, and so do the laws which arise from them.

Thus in England it has been though correct to hang children who steal a hankerchief, to burn catholics, to hang murderers, to imprison homosexuals. It has also been though right not to do these things. The laws are (eventually) changed to reflect partial changes in attitudes, and attitudes subsequently change more because people are inclined to think that the laws must be right. "Natural and moral justice" did not change, but attitudes and laws did. In some places, the genital mutilation of children is considered normal (e.g. in the USA) and in other places the stoning to death of (female) adulterers is considered necessary.

In some places a woman who reports that she has been raped can be punished for having extramarital sex during the rape.

 

[Shytalkz]

Trouble is with rebtribution, is that objectivity changed to subjectivity, you are also acting as judge jury, and potential executioner.... what if you decided to give someone a "slapping" back because they hurt one of your family and you accidentally killed them? Is the victim unlucky because "they started it" or are you guilty of murder? What is an appropriate punishment for a crime? surely that view varies by individual, in short, in matters of revenge you are batting on a very sticky wicket.

Can't argue with that at all - but meting out a good schlapping does give one a nice warm feeling....

 

[mattylad]

If someone tries to assault me or my family I will guarantee that they will end up in hospital. they will "feel" the consequences of their actions at the time because I know very well how the legal system does not work.

 

[joe-90]

but meting out a good schlapping does give one a nice warm feeling....

So does peeing down your leg.