a group of 11-18 year old boys/men beat someone to death. This is happening increasingly
This was a tremendously brutal crime. And while I can, in part, blame the parents, I cannot avoid laying blame upon the youths who perpetrated it since even the most dysfuntional upbringing cannot excuse what is plainly wrong in the eyes of society. All they have to do is say "I don't think I would consider it "right" to have a group of boys beating me to death".. Hey.. that's instanteous awareness of "right and wrong".
The question I think we're both wondering about is where we draw the line with regard to which violators are "salvagable" and able to be restored to some measure of positive social and economic productivity.
I certainly concur that violent criminals should receive more severe sentences than non-violent ones. But I also believe that those non-violent criminals who financially prey upon weak and elderly invididuals deserve a special place in "penal hell"...
Civilized societies are not natural. In fact, civilization flies in the face of "natural law" which is brutal and depends upon dominating and preying upon others. And if society has to protect itself from such individuals by locking them away for long periods of time, rather than hanging them, then I don't see much of a choice.
But that said, I'm a firm believer in mercy towards those who prove they deserve it.
What really causes crime is what I perceive as a societal indifference to the rights of the victim. The legal system is designed to act as a proxy for the victim, which in turn provides a layer of separation between the perpetrator and the victim.. A layer that often provides the perpetrator the excuse that he's robbing an "uncaring and exploitive society" and not a human being who just wants to live their life and raise their families in peace and mutual respect.
I'm a strong believer in restitution where it is plain that someone has received illicit gains at the expense of others. We're seeing that now with Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossing and others. Criminals need to face their victims and understand how their actions have impacted human lives, and not just a monolithic and faceless society.
And I also blame, to a large measure, those who would seek to assert that society somehows "owes" those disadvantaged individuals something. Because that feeds this belief that these criminals can somehow justify their criminal actions.
Each of us, unless we're born into a powerful and/or wealthy family, must struggle to find our place in the world and obtain a measure of economic and social security. Each of us have made a deliberate choice to live within the established rules of civilized behavior and not seek to enrich or empower ourselves at the expense of others.
So for me to find much sympathy for the argument in using this "social victimization" as an excuse for "understanding" criminal behavior, is difficult.
Each of could have chosen to be just as criminal or violent as these criminals. But we didn't. And I don't see why we have to pay a price for their behavior, or expend inordinate amounts of time trying to excuse it.
Now if someone robbed a store to feed his family or himself, that's quite another story.. I can see an argument for mercy, depending on how the crime was committed and whether people were physically harmed as a result.
The current system is certainly not perfect.. But I'm looking for solutions, not complaints. And focusing on the criminals while ignoring the victims and the life-long trauma they often face, seems rather dsyfunctional in itself.
Hope this clarifies my perspective to you.
Hawk |
