The sidestepping or at least flawed understanding of justice is being presented on your side of the discussion.
In order for you to hold onto your position, I see you repeatedly expressing some disdain for the needs of society, so much so that you have even dismissed the need for resolution of the injustice created by heinous criminals.
Justice only has meaning as a connection between two or more entities bound in a state of unblemished fairness. Injustice then, occurs when that condition is tainted, when there has been a breach in the relationship so that an entity is left in an aggrieved state.
The resolution of injustice brings a sense of fairness back to both sides of the relationship. The relationship is based in fairness and where unfairness has occurred, repairing that relationship in a way that the perception of fairness is once again established is termed a just resolution.
Example: If you cheat on your wife an injustice has occurred (breach of trust) which must be repaired or the relationship must be dissolved. Loss of trust is hard and sometimes seen as impossible to regain, in which case it is best to end the relationship. The injustice has not been repaired but the issue is resolved by having each entity exit the relationship altogether. Each entity is able to re-establish a relationship with society as individuals rather than as a couple, so society is reconciled with each.
Simply put, where there is injustice, there is an entity causing harm to another entity which presents the need for reparation which will resolve the injustice and reconcile the relationship.
When crime is involved, the criminal is the entity causing harm; whereas individual members of society as well as society at large, is the other entity. The expectation is that harmed individuals or a harm done to society at large is resolved when the justice system has reached an outcome that is fair to both sides of the issue. Society requires the criminal to pay a price, presumed sufficient to reconcile the criminal with society… enough so that we agree this ex-criminal and other members of society are fit to live side-by-side.
Where it is a heinous crime the level of harm done is considered so inhumane that society cannot reconcile with the criminal. In other words the breach is so significant that the relationship between the heinous criminal and society can never again be based on fairness, so it should be dissolved.
You know, imprisonment is not fair to the heinous criminal because it leaves no venue for resolving the violation(s), it leaves the door open for continued atrocity committed by the heinous criminal, which you also know is manifest in the prison and through the criminal’s avenues of outreach to society.
You know, imprisonment of a heinous criminal is not fair to society since it leaves society with no avenue to reconcile the heinous event or to move on since society is bound by a requirement to provide care and comfort to the criminal for the rest of his life.
In order for you to have a reasoned based position on this, you will have to provide a logical explanation showing how your position resolves the grievance society rightfully holds against the heinous criminal. |
