English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I wonder whether we should allow people to give themselves up for some crimes and get a clean slate, on the basis that they pay some penance and risk huge punishment if they commit further crimes.

I think it is unhealthy for people to feel guilty all the time, or if not that, to feel like they have something hanging over them. Either thing surely cannot be good for recovery and return to productive life within 'normal' society?

2007-05-15 07:08:48 · 9 answers · asked by Jeremy D 5 in Social Science Psychology

Ah, here we go. An example of what guilt can do.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvjUJGAAYl2LP_hmlV8eU0wWxgt.?qid=20070513124451AAwPxih

2007-05-15 07:11:12 · update #1

Confession to a higher power does not solve social or criminal issues, nor does it achieve anything for the victim of a crime.

Nor is it an option available to all people.

2007-05-15 07:20:52 · update #2

Vantil, have you ever considered that laws can be changed? Or do you think our laws are somehow universally and eternally 'correct'?

2007-05-15 07:44:00 · update #3

What is the purpose of punishment? Is stigmatisation somehow supposed to stop others from committing similar crimes. Has this worked so far?

2007-05-15 07:45:44 · update #4

9 answers

This is a very intersesting concept.

Getting people to confess for a lesser punishment might seem like letting them get away with it. However,trying to solve crimes take time and money. Also if they confess there is no need for a trial, which would save time and money too.


Sounds like an idea worth exploring further to me.

2007-05-15 07:40:16 · answer #1 · answered by Peace 4 · 0 0

I think confession of sin should take place between the sinner and God alone (see 1 John 1:9). A person who is truly repentant will seek to make restitution to the person they have wronged. The Catholic concept of a criminal going to confession and getting absolution of their sin and then the priest is expected to keep this to himself should be a crime. How can it be considered biblical and hence morally right to cover up a crime that is being investigated by the government that God has instituted to punish such offenses (see Romans 13:1-6)? Guilty feeling though are a good first step in a person coming to Christ for forgiveness of sins and eternal life. However, becoming a Christian doesn't mean that now you shouldn't be held accountable to the law for felonies or misdemeanors that you have committed. We are forgiven but not above the law.

2007-05-15 14:25:33 · answer #2 · answered by vantil23 5 · 0 1

One of the biggest problems are all the people out there who guilt and repenting and a higher being mean nothing to.
How would you tell if someone did feel bad it or if they were just putting on a act?
And in a few ways it is already in progress,
That is why a lot of (probably most) first timers for smaller crimes get little or no jail time, they admit doing it, plead guilty and promise to behave in the future. and in alot of states those same people's crimes are withheld from their records as long as they don't get into trouble again.
And even alot of the people are not let out on parole until the workers (judges, officers, whoever) believe they are truly regretful and sorry for what they have done.

2007-05-15 17:02:48 · answer #3 · answered by Aurain_Lorraine 2 · 0 0

I think confession of sins are a good thing, though it needn't be done in the traditional Catholic way. Go talk to any therapist or counselor in the country, and ask them whether being honest about our mistakes is a good thing, or if hiding them and holding them in is better. Talking about your wrongs and errors and being honest is always better than lying and pretending like nothing is wrong.

There is no reason you cannot apply this to religious situations. There does not have to be any guilt. In fact, if you are referring to the Catholic church, although it is true that some people suffer from guilt, the Church does not actually call for that at all. The idea is to get rid of the burden of your sins and to be forgiven. Nothing wrong with that. Guilt usually arises when people are not serious about it, or if they have difficult comprehending how the system is supposed to work. It does not always work this way, of course, but that is the fault of individuals, not the concept itself.

The truth is that in any context, religious or not, there are consequences to your actions. What is wrong with accepting those consequences and freeing yourself of the burden of them by confessing your sins? Once you've done it, you get to move on with your life, free of guilt. Even if you are not a Catholic (I, myself, am not), a little confession can be good for you, even in a normal, secular society. The fact is that even in a normal society without religion, some people will be burdened by guilt. Religion ultimately has nothing to do with that.

2007-05-15 14:24:23 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 0 0

I think that many people who are in jails don't belong there--some were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, some have mental disorders, some have committed 'petty' crimes.

I also think that community service would be effective in the cases of small time criminals--maybe some counseling along with that. These days, they are trying to put everyone in jail--or fine them excessive amounts.

I have a lot of guilt about things in my past - they weren't criminal acts, but insensitive acts toward others. I think that this guilt contributes to the panic/anxiety/depression that I've been medicated for--for over 20 years--though the doctors agreed that I was born with a chemical imbalance--this guilt certainly couldn't have make it better.

2007-05-15 14:22:29 · answer #5 · answered by Holiday Magic 7 · 1 0

I believe that you are advocating the idea that after a person pays his debt to society, his criminal record should be expunged and he should be able to move back into the mainstream of society and not suffer any further repercussions from his past deeds.

I disagree with this approach. I think that the safety and health of a society usurps the needs of one individual. We must protect society from people who continually break the rules. To me, the type of retribution you seem to be advocating only emboldens the perpetrator to continue to commit unlawful acts because he eventually will realize that unlawful acts don't carry a stigma to them, and thus carry no feeling of guilt or need for retribution.

In most serious crimes, the criminal must be stigmatized at some level for life.

2007-05-15 14:37:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Guilt works in all kinds of ways. But I'm not sure if you mean huge guilt, like murder, or little guilt, like not helping around the house, ever, when I was a teen with the blues.
Guilt, as long as it punishes the person and then is let go so that the person can treat people decently again and smile about it, is just fine.
It's learning how to let go of guilt and be that better person that is so darned hard!

2007-05-15 14:20:53 · answer #7 · answered by starryeyed 6 · 1 0

If you have commited a crime it is probably best to pay for it sooner rather than later, it's harder to admit to something later on when someone else has been accused or hurt.
If you don't tell, the punishment will probably be worse than when it first started...

2007-05-15 14:22:45 · answer #8 · answered by Gracie 3 · 0 0

Confession to a higher power maybe a good idea as long as you repent from the sin.

2007-05-15 14:17:34 · answer #9 · answered by Teacher 6 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers