or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Would you want revenge?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Would you want revenge?

post #1 of 69
Thread Starter 
If a man came into your house and executed your family infront of your eyes, would you want revenge? If you were in a room alone with them after the fact what would you do?

Would you get revenge or would you say to yourself "It wont bring my family back and its moraly wrong...God will have his way, it's not my job."

Think seriously about this one, and go with what u would really do... be honest.
post #2 of 69
No idea.

If I had a gun in my hand I would probably kill them and feel miserable the rest of my life.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #3 of 69
I wouldn't call it revenge. I would call it justice.

Would I be right? Probably not.

Would I pull the trigger? Absolutely.

Would I feel that my lack of ability to forgive is a moral failing? Probably.

Could I live with that? Yes.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #4 of 69
Well franckly if something such awfull arrived, I would be desesperate. The death of the bastard who commited the murder, won't cure my pain.

That's said, if I witnessed such thing in front of my eye I will kill him.

I pray to never have the real question to this strange question. In fact nobody should have to answer such questions
post #5 of 69
Shoot him in the balls and let him stand trial.

I hope.
post #6 of 69
"Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."
--Romans 12:17-19

It's the State's job to administer Justice. Outside of that, God is quite able to administer any "vengeance" necessary. The sin would not be against you, or the people killed, it would be against God.

Sorry for the sermon, but people get themselves in trouble when they attempt to 'settle scores', or 'get even'.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #7 of 69
So, I take it you should be all for rehab and if no rehab can be done then keeping them away from society...in other words, against the death penalty, right dmz?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #8 of 69
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
"Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."
--Romans 12:17-19

It's the State's job to administer Justice. Outside of that, God is quite able to administer any "vengeance" necessary. The sin would not be against you, or the people killed, it would be against God.

Sorry for the sermon, but people get themselves in trouble when they attempt to 'settle scores', or 'get even'.

DMZ is just saying whats PC
post #9 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by Cato988
DMZ is just saying whats PC

That just cracks me up. It doesn't seem likely that quoting from the Bible is very "PC" at all these days.
post #10 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
So, I take it you should be all for rehab and if no rehab can be done then keeping them away from society...in other words, against the death penalty, right dmz?

No, not at all -- I have never understood how life imprisonment could be considered humane -- especially as it's carried out in the country. Gangs, homosexual gang rape, extreme violence, being deprived of family, etc., is not humane. We are effectively destroying people at a thousand times the pace capital punishment would. The American penal system is a horrifingly cheap, feel-good way for the populace at large to throw away people like they were garbage --- and then forget about them.

Fine them, kill them, or let them go.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #11 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
"Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."
--Romans 12:17-19

It's the State's job to administer Justice. Outside of that, God is quite able to administer any "vengeance" necessary. The sin would not be against you, or the people killed, it would be against God.

Sorry for the sermon, but people get themselves in trouble when they attempt to 'settle scores', or 'get even'.

What Cato discribed is a situation where you are filled with the greatest rage possible. In this state I will kill him, otherwise I won't. I would not commit a cold revenge, unless justice do not do it's job.
post #12 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
What Cato discribed is a situation where you are filled with the greatest rage possible. In this state I will kill him, otherwise I won't. I would not commit a cold revenge, unless justice do not do it's job.

Are you suggesting that in the state described, you would be unable to control your response?
post #13 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
No, not at all -- I have never understood how life imprisonment could be considered humane -- especially as it's carried out in the country. Gangs, homosexual gang rape, extreme violence, being deprived of family, etc., is not humane. We are effectively destroying people at a thousand times the pace capital punishment would. The American penal system is a horrifingly cheap, feel-good way for the populace at large to throw away people like they were garbage --- and then forget about them.

Fine them, kill them, or let them go.

You heartless bastard!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #14 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
What Cato discribed is a situation where you are filled with the greatest rage possible. In this state I will kill him, otherwise I won't. I would not commit a cold revenge, unless justice do not do it's job.

I know it would be hard -- maybe even impossible to resist, but for me to commit murder myself, even under durest, would mean a lack of Faith.

Another thing -- this question could apply to the little things in everyday life. How often to we try to 'get even' and it get's us in trouble? The whole issue of "revenge" versus "justice" needs to be rethought.

The whole idea of Redemption has been replaced with 'payback' -- I think in many, many cases, that criminals offered redemption, through restitution, etc. -- something that was truly humane -- would turn out for the best.

(But we still have to shoot Ken Lay.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #15 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
That just cracks me up. It doesn't seem likely that quoting from the Bible is very "PC" at all these days.

Using the morals of the New Testament as a personal mirror for your own actions towards your fellow man is. Using the Old Testament as anything like a science guide to how the world was created, how life came around and how it all will end and mixing it up with politics is not.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #16 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Are you suggesting that in the state described, you would be unable to control your response?

I guess so, but I don't really want to know ...

In real life I am cold blooded, but like everybody I have my limits. I never entered in fight with someone in my entire life, but what is discribed here is really disturbing.
Think at the movie Seven, in the end the policeman is mad, and even he knows he should not kill the serial killer, who played with him like a puppet, he has no other choice to do what the serial killer wanted he do : kill him.
post #17 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I know it would be hard -- maybe even impossible to resist, but for me to commit murder myself, even under durest, would mean a lack of Faith.

Another thing -- this question could apply to the little things in everyday life. How often to we try to 'get even' and it get's us in trouble? The whole issue of "revenge" versus "justice" needs to be rethought.

The whole idea of Redemption has been replaced with 'payback' -- I think in many, many cases, that criminals offered redemption, through restitution, etc. -- something that was truly humane -- would turn out for the best.

(But we still have to shoot Ken Lay.)

As I said in my previous post, revenge will not help. Even after revenge the pain will still be here : nothing will give me back my family.
BTW I will sick justice, in memory of the beloved ones. And justice for me, is a nice trial.
post #18 of 69
Oh revenge would be had.

I wouldn't kill the asshole. I would make him suffer everyday of his life from then on...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #19 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I know it would be hard -- maybe even impossible to resist, but for me to commit murder myself, even under durest, would mean a lack of Faith.

Another thing -- this question could apply to the little things in everyday life. How often to we try to 'get even' and it get's us in trouble? The whole issue of "revenge" versus "justice" needs to be rethought.

The whole idea of Redemption has been replaced with 'payback' -- I think in many, many cases, that criminals offered redemption, through restitution, etc. -- something that was truly humane -- would turn out for the best.

(But we still have to shoot Ken Lay.)

So do you feel this applies to nations as well as individuals?

For instance, we are in the process of hunting down alleged al Qaeda members and blowing them up, even if that means blowing up some of their compatriots.

This seems to be generally approved of as representing "justice' for 9/11, although it would appear that a generalized sprit of "vengeance" makes it easier to overlook any little details like "due process", "collateral damage", or "consequences".

And I don't mean to make this about 9/11 and its aftermath; that's just a convenient example. Nations indulge in tit for tat killing all the time.

Are they going against God's will, as you see it?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #20 of 69
yes. i would want revenge. would i have the gall to enact it myself? idk. i presume in the moment emotion would be really strong, and i'd either become enraged or pussy out and cry in the corner sucking my thumb. if i was enraged, i assume the assailant has an extra bullet waiting for me. lose-lose any way i look at it.
post #21 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
So do you feel this applies to nations as well as individuals?

No, it can't -- at some point you have to have the 'health of the community' in view, so at some point the focus has to shift. Paul in Romans mentions that [the Roman] rulers were 'ordained' 'to restrain evil'. We can't imprison or fine people on a personal level, either.
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
For instance, we are in the process of hunting down alleged al Qaeda members and blowing them up, even if that means blowing up some of their compatriots.
This seems to be generally approved of as representing "justice' for 9/11, although it would appear that a generalized sprit of "vengeance" makes it easier to overlook any little details like "due process", "collateral damage", or "consequences".

And I don't mean to make this about 9/11 and its aftermath; that's just a convenient example. Nations indulge in tit for tat killing all the time.

Are they going against God's will, as you see it?

It worked for for 10 weeks in Yugoslavia 1999, why not for AQ? -- seriously, though, if starving 500,000 children to death over nonexistent WMD is okay, then inadvertently killing 13 people pales in comparison. I don't see it as breaking decades of precedence. The 'tender mercies" of 'progress' -- whether of the UN or America -- can be pretty grisly.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #22 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz

.......It worked for for 10 weeks in Yugoslavia 1999, why not for AQ? -- seriously, though, if starving 500,000 children to death over nonexistent WMD is okay, then inadvertently killing 13 people pales in comparison. I don't see it as breaking decades of precedence. The 'tender mercies" of 'progress' -- whether of the UN or America -- can be pretty grisly.

I'm not arguing that my example is unprecedented or even unusual.

Quite the opposite. As I say, nations indulge in tit for tat killing all the time, sometimes as all out war, sometimes as clandestine or strategic assassinations.

However, it's not clear to me what the moral logic is of requiring individuals to defer to God's larger justice while giving groups of individuals a pass (other than someone said so in the bible, but people said a lot of things in the bible that we really don't take to heart).

At what point is my mob big enough to get the group discount? If I and my neighbors suspect a child molester has moved in down the street, and we burn his house down and tar and feather him, is that "Caesar's"?

What if it's just three of us? Ten? Does it take a village? Are nation states granted unique dispensation?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #23 of 69
Adda: it does look like you are trying to pick a fight with DMZ. I think this is a unique thread with an original question (private emotional stance to individual use of violence). Don´t make it like a zillion other threads that already exist on another subject (philosophical attitude toward collective use of violence), please. Besides this is AO, not PO
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #24 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
I'm not arguing that my example is unprecedented or even unusual.

Quite the opposite. As I say, nations indulge in tit for tat killing all the time, sometimes as all out war, sometimes as clandestine or strategic assassinations.

However, it's not clear to me what the moral logic is of requiring individuals to defer to God's larger justice while giving groups of individuals a pass (other than someone said so in the bible, but people said a lot of things in the bible that we really don't take to heart).

At what point is my mob big enough to get the group discount? If I and my neighbors suspect a child molester has moved in down the street, and we burn his house down and tar and feather him, is that "Caesar's"?

What if it's just three of us? Ten? Does it take a village? Are nation states granted unique dispensation?

You raise some good questions, but you seem to be ignoring a fundamental difference between a "mob" (or group of any other kind) and a governmentally enforced legal system of justice in which there are check and balances...right to defend and face accusers...trials by jury...etc., etc. This is an important difference between individual or mob vigilante action. This doesn't necessarily rise to the level of justifying capital punishment. However, let's not disingenously argue that a "mob" is just a small version of a government governed by laws and principles and checks and balances.
post #25 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Adda: it does look like you are trying to pick a fight with DMZ. I think this is a unique thread with an original question (private emotional stance to individual use of violence). Don´t make it like a zillion other threads that already exist on another subject (philosophical attitude toward collective use of violence), please. Besides this is AO, not PO

I hear you, and I'll stop if you want, but I'm really not trying to pick a fight with DMZ.

The thread is presumably somewhat about the legitimacy of revenge, rationalized or otherwise, and the meaning of justice (unless we're just supposes to give our "yay' or "nay" and leave it at that).

So a bunch of questions fly off of that: killing in the heat of passion vs. calculated revenge, something less than killing but more than "justice" (like "making their life a living hell", as has been suggested), the God angle, as DMZ introduced, and the subject of my questioning, personal vs. collective action.

Like, say the killers had killed before and you knew it. You don't have the stomach to simply blow them away, but you hook up with some like minded citizens, also victims of these criminals, and together you kill them all.

Any of the people who would decline to kill in the first scenario cool with group thing?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #26 of 69
I have had some time thinking now so me expand my first post here.

Think about a funeral. Who is crying? Not the dead body but those left behind.

If someone killed my loved ones I would not be sorry for them but for me, because I lost them. They are not aware of anything.

So I am in a room with the person or persons who killed my family. If I killed them I would not have taken away anything they would be around to miss, while I had to live on missing my loved ones and without any action to take to revenge them. The best revenge would not be killing them but having them miss something they value highly, namely their freedom. So the best revenge would be imprisonment for life, forever robbed their freedom.

But this is not nessesarily how I want the laws to function. The legal system has more important roles than private revenge.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #27 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You raise some good questions, but you seem to be ignoring a fundamental difference between a "mob" (or group of any other kind) and a governmentally enforced legal system of justice in which there are check and balances...right to defend and face accusers...trials by jury...etc., etc. This is an important difference between individual or mob vigilante action. This doesn't necessarily rise to the level of justifying capital punishment. However, let's not disingenously argue that a "mob" is just a small version of a government governed by laws and principles and checks and balances.

Right, but my question is more about where "collective action" becomes legitimate, either in the eyes of the Lord, or if you prefer, just in general.

For instance, the government you describe above would have to be something like a constitutional liberal democracy. Is that the only large scale organization that has the right to punish?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #28 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
I have had some time thinking now so me expand my first post here.

Think about a funeral. Who is crying? Not the dead body but those left behind.

If someone killed my loved ones I would not be sorry for them but for me, because I lost them. They are not aware of anything.

So I am in a room with the person or persons who killed my family. If I killed them I would not have taken away anything they would be around to miss, while I had to live on missing my loved ones and without any action to take to revenge them. The best revenge would not be killing them but having them miss something they value highly, namely their freedom. So the best revenge would be imprisonment for life, forever robbed their freedom.

But this is not nessesarily how I want the laws to function. The legal system has more important roles than private revenge.

How about killing their loved ones? Not that I'm implying you'd do such a thing, Anders, but wouldn't that be the most proportionate response?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #29 of 69
Maybe a more fundamental question needs to be answered here.

What is the difference between revenge and justice? Is there any?

Is it the reasons/motives/feelings while doing it?

The person or group executing (no pun intended) it?

It seems we ought to (for the sake of argument) remove this from the highly emotional example provided in the initial post and just deal with what is the appropriate course of action (if any) that should be taken (and by whom) when a person is "wronged" (murder, theft, assault, slander, etc.)?

( or am I derailing too much? )

P.S. And a question closely connected to the orignal one is whether someone is in anyway "out of control" due to their emotional state (and desire for "revenge"/"justice") and whether that justifies their actions.

Okay...I'll stop editing now.
post #30 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Maybe a more fundamental question needs to be answered here.

What is the difference between revenge and justice?

Is it the reasons/motives/feelings while doing it?

The person or group executing (no pun intended) it?

And: is it possible for an individual to dispatch "justice", or is that always just "revenge"?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #31 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
I'm not arguing that my example is unprecedented or even unusual.

Quite the opposite. As I say, nations indulge in tit for tat killing all the time, sometimes as all out war, sometimes as clandestine or strategic assassinations.

However, it's not clear to me what the moral logic is of requiring individuals to defer to God's larger justice while giving groups of individuals a pass (other than someone said so in the bible, but people said a lot of things in the bible that we really don't take to heart).

At what point is my mob big enough to get the group discount? If I and my neighbors suspect a child molester has moved in down the street, and we burn his house down and tar and feather him, is that "Caesar's"?

What if it's just three of us? Ten? Does it take a village? Are nation states granted unique dispensation?

I don't know addabox, those hypothetical situations aren't ever likely to happen -- we all have to make moral choices, and work within, at all costs, our respective governments. And as for changing things, we've been given, historically speaking, way more sway and freedom to mold the government than ever before (except for maybe Athens -- which actually ran on slaves.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #32 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
And: is it possible for an individual to dispatch "justice", or is that always just "revenge"?

In defense of life and property.

(or something along those lines)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #33 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
How about killing their loved ones? Not that I'm implying you'd do such a thing, Anders, but wouldn't that be the most proportionate response?

I did think about that. But I fight "ends justify the means" every day, so I think such an action would end up giving me too much negative karma
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #34 of 69
Hey, if it works for Hamlet...

...oh wait.
post #35 of 69
Very interesting thread.

What if we twist the quuestion a little:

There is a gun lashed to the table in front of you pointed at the bad guy's head. The guy has his gun to your family. If you shoot him, he dies, and your family lives. If you don't shoot him, he kills your family. (Of course, it could be argued that he might not shoot, but for argument's sake, let's assume he will.) Is it right to kill him?

This would not be revenge (pre-venge?), nor would it be what we normally consider justice, but would it be just?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #36 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by Bergermeister
There is a gun lashed to the table in front of you pointed at the bad guy's head. The guy has his gun to your family. If you shoot him, he dies, and your family lives. If you don't shoot him, he kills your family. (Of course, it could be argued that he might not shoot, but for argument's sake, let's assume he will.) Is it right to kill him?

Yes (well at least try to eliminate his ability to harm/kill the family...if killing him is the only way, then yes).

Quote:
Originally posted by Bergermeister
This would not be revenge (pre-venge?), nor would it be what we normally consider justice, but would it be just?

It is really defense (of family). Not sure it fits into either of those other definitions (whatever they may be ).
post #37 of 69
Let's just say if my dearest brother killed your wife, and you killed my brother in retaliation, I wouldn't recommend sleeping tight at night. Violence begetting violence be damned! I want my revenge!

post #38 of 69
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Yes (well at least try to eliminate his ability to harm/kill the family...if killing him is the only way, then yes).



It is really defense (of family). Not sure it fits into either of those other definitions (whatever they may be ).

That is definitly selfdefense and is quite legal according to U.S. law
post #39 of 69
I honestly feel like I'd beat the guy within an inch of his life and ensure that he can never eat solid food again. Killing him would be too kind. There's something very appealing about the idea of walking up to the guy as he's lying in a pool of his blood and asking, "how does it feel?"

"Your ears you'll keep, and I'll tell you why...."
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #40 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
No, not at all -- I have never understood how life imprisonment could be considered humane -- especially as it's carried out in the country. Gangs, homosexual gang rape, extreme violence, being deprived of family, etc., is not humane. We are effectively destroying people at a thousand times the pace capital punishment would. The American penal system is a horrifingly cheap, feel-good way for the populace at large to throw away people like they were garbage --- and then forget about them.

Fine them, kill them, or let them go.

Why isn't improve the system a response? Eliminate drug & prostitution offenses and suddenly half our prison population goes away. Way easier to deal with half.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AppleOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Would you want revenge?