Um...wow. I...actually have no counter-statement to that. And I'm finding I agree with you. ._. Have you ever considered going into politics, Lexy?
Naw, I think the reality of politics would beat my 'noble' ideals senseless, as someone who wouldn't ever want to be a spineless yes man or 'career politician'. When you think about it— if you did find yourself in a position of power, and were fresh and raring to change the world for the better— you'd be facing down the might of the Corporate Gods who really own/run everything (including politics it seems) and put money and exploitation before human beings, and there'd be opposition and lobbying in the wings at every turn to every change you wanted to make. Talk about thankless and exhausting and people never being happy. And in the end, would my way even be the right way? In a real democracy, it's the people who decide. Otherwise I would be a dictatorship. I've never wanted to lead people, only help them see different points of view. The ideal world, I think, would be one where we don't need leaders at all, because we would all be able to make sensible and calculated and considerate decisions for ourselves. Actually that's the true definition of "anarchy" or 'an-archy' ("absence of a ruler"); at the moment that sounds horrific because people can't seem to act responsibly and civilly without one. But one day, maybe we won't need one because we'll be properly civilized. Who knows... but hey, just talking about this now, exchanging thoughts and ideas and rationalizing them together, means we are on the road to becoming more like that even now in this moment.
When you start looking back into the reasons behind things, like the girl who murdered your Uncle, things do change some. Or, I should say, the veiw on the situation changes. I don't think that makes the one commiting the act any less guilty or that they shouldn't be imprisoned or something, but here's my question: if someone kills someone else, who are we to punish? The killer or the people who failed to guide them and pushed them to the point where they killed? When it gets philosophical like that, isn't the whole world really to blame? Cuz...that almost makes it feel like life is just meaningless and me failing to be nice to the grumpy dude at the supermarket is going to result in something bad happening. Or...am I just being a pessimist and really paranoid, again?
Well, first of all, I have to think that punishment for punishment's sake is pointless. All punishment (like when raising children) should have a positive purpose, rather than be to satisfy a mob or a desire for revenge. First and foremost you have to section dangerous people from others to protect the innocent; the girl is currently in a juvenile detention centre for the mentally ill. (She's not mentally ill IMO, but her lawyer pulled the mental instability and incompetence card. Doesn't fool me, the girl got top marks straight all through school during the years my uncle was there and was suddenly recognized as an extremely sharp and bright kid by the teachers when he started encouraging her to learn, unlike her mother. I think this is a case of bright kid, bad crowd and utterly diminished responsibility or an attitude of "I can do anything, and it doesn't matter what I do."). I don't know what they are doing with her in that facility now, except to say they will probably evaluate her regularly, let her watch TV and use Facebook and do all the usual things prisoners are permitted to do in this country... but I doubt they will do anything to try to turn her into a productive member of society. When she gets out, which she will soon enough (the sentence was not long due to her age and the verdict of diminished responsibility/manslaughter), she will have absolutely no stake in society. She probably won't get any help to cope or deal, and her mother passed away three years ago. They will let her out, and my guess is she will fend for herself, and fall right back in with a bad crowd, meaning nothing was accomplished by her 'punishment' at all. It's an all-too familiar story here in the UK, which is why we have so many repeat offenders here I think. People go to jail for a punishment that involves waiting, and nothing has changed at all in the meantime. Plus when they get out few people will employ them, there isn't much help for them to adjust, meaning there's even more pull on them to exist outside of normal society/just turn back to crime again.
In medieval times, serious punishment probably had two purposes and was considerably harsher— it sent a message to onlookers that if you commit crimes you're going to be publicly tortured and/or executed and instilled fear of committing crimes into them. And it got rid of the criminals quickly and for good. But these days, I really think we can do better than that. We know stuff like poverty breeds crime in the first place and that crime's more of a symptom than a genuine disease of society. Although some people argue these days for a return to more barbaric punishments, or believe that liberal attitudes have allowed criminals to live better lives than law-abiding citizens, I think that's not a failure of liberal attitudes or liberalism as much as a failure by the State to make punishments meaningful and productive. Locking someone up in a cell and leaving them there is a punishment of sorts, but it often doesn't fix the wrongdoer or make him or her a better person in the process. It's lazy and inefficient and the results speak for themselves I guess. Although it would require some consideration and forethought (and therefore money) I think punishments should be tailored to the person who committed the crime and the crime itself, and in a way that best attempts to rectify their behaviour. Because every person can make a difference when they come out if they are a changed, productive person. Everyone has the ability in this world to affect change and influence for the good, even an ex-convict.
If you're interested, have a look into how Norway deals with their criminals— I was pleasantly shocked to find that they have several 'prison islands' there for the serious criminals, with no walls or fencing... and the prisoners live in their own communities there throughout their sentences. Instead of leaving them to rot in a room, the Norwegians allow them to learn to run their own communities completely, learn to build things, build and repair their own living quarters, cook, farm, and do everything for themselves, and very very few of them ever try to escape from this— I assume because this is a far more productive and stimulating environment in which they are being taught useful skills and how to manage themselves, and they come out the other side as much more responsible/educated by the experience than our prisoners here in the UK seem to do. In Norway they learn how to micro-manage themselves, here they just seem to meet other criminals and get to play about on Facebook or watch TV. I think Norway has a very liberal take on crime and punishment, but also a very progressive one. At the same time, they're also quite progressive in other areas; the State readily helps those people with mental issues, abuse problems, and those in poverty, etc. I assume they recognize it all as an interconnected whole, and that there's no point focusing only on one area to the detriment of the others. As a country I would say it's very conscious of its social obligations, of looking after its people... and the Norwegians I know are aware of this and are very proud of it. The positive breeds more positive, so to speak.
Philosophically speaking, yes, I'd say the whole world is interconnected and we all influence each other. Or perhaps that we are all innocent in our own way— we are only human after all. Even the most beastly killers I may have read about elicit the thought in me that they are mere human beings, flawed, as we all are. That doesn't mean I think they should not be punished— but I think they should be punished to teach them. As a child, I remember not being fully aware or considerate of the pain I might have inflicted on my younger sibling when fighting, for example, until I tasted some real pain myself. It was an unpleasant lesson, but one well learned, and now I think before I might ever inflict pain on someone, in fact, I never do intentionally. So I'm not above the idea of tailoring punishments so that people come to know what it is that they have made others suffer. If they are a receptive and relatively sane (lol!) person like me, they will realise it was not right, and that it was certainly not pleasant, and think before doing it again. I don't think there's anything wrong with that kind of teaching, it's a very natural and effective kind. It contravenes current human rights to do it, but I would waiver them I think, in the endeavour to teach— letting someone sit there and NOT be taught simply to uphold their human rights is useless, I should say.
As for the world seeming meaningless... well, I think it is, in itself. It is entirely up to you— to all of us— to place meaning into it and to live the sort of justice and morals you feel there should be. If you do, they'll no longer be a concept but a reality. That's always gotten me through the idea that the world may be meaningless, because I give it meaning and morality myself in small part through my actions. And if we all do, and we are all interconnected through our actions, then we can spread that meaning. Nothing is trivial; a good act never goes wasted, I think. In fact, good acts are so powerful, in contrast to all that apparent meaninglessness in the world many of us feel. I don't think it's a bad thing that what we do or say can influence others. It think it's great. If your intent is good, and positive, and you direct it in the right places, you really can see 'miracles' happen to people, see them changed from being self-destructive, depressive and broken people to ones with purpose and hope. Because I've seen it happen, I think that's why I believe that the way to fix society's problems isn't to be brutish or fight fire with fire, or give up on people. It's to change them, to remove the source of the ill. Unfortunately it often takes someone with a lot of heart and willingness to sacrifice to devote that time to someone else and change them, and most people do not have the time or inclination to do that for others. But it can be done.
With the death penalty itself, just don't see the point in keeping people locked up who could possibly get out and cause more harm. I don't think most criminals would co-operate with psychologists trying to study them to see the root behind their behaviors so society at large can benefit. (Though, there are some people who have died because of the death sentance who I believe shouldn't have died because they did benefit from incarceration and wanted to turn their life around.)
In the case of serial killers, or thrill killers, I'd be more inclined to agree. People with a compulsion stronger than reason or fear of punishment to kill, and with little actual use to the society that supports them. Still, I think they could be studied and their behaviours and habits recorded. We can't always say what someone will do when they are released again, and I can't say as I'd like to be the one who serves them a lethal injection or a noose because someone somewhere deemed them unworthy of life. But, a decision has to be made with truly harmful, incorrigible human beings and what to do with them, and if I had to make that decision in a position of authority, then I'd have to consider the safety of those innocent above the wellbeing of a person incapable of empathy or responsibility. Generally speaking, all societies require a 'pen' for the small % of individuals who will
always exist for one reason or another that are exceptionally harmful to the rest. And so I don't see any great harm in their incarceration, study and experimental rehab. After all, serial killers or rampant violent sociopaths and psychopaths are (thankfully) comparatively rare.
