Atheist, answer this please.?

Question

Should a victim be satisfied if the person who did them wrong is convicted, trialed and sent to jail or executed. Are they shallow or weak minded if they think the punishment doesn't fit the crime. What would you say if a victim's family ask why did this happen to my loved one? Why should they accept or be satisfied with your answer? Is it apportiate to tell the victim family that the person who did this was abused or had a chemical imbalance? Should they feel less angry or hurt because of this.

Godbotno,,,

I repeated it just for you. Too bad you don't understand or don't want to answer.

I want the an atheist perspective. Is there something wrong with that?

So the families feelings should be only be considered marginally? Okay. Plus a chemical imbalance or abuse should be acceptable? Okay too. These answers are interesting, please keep them coming.

I am not confusing anything with anything. I wanted to know what atheist think about this question. If I was confusing the two, I would of said "Why would an atheist believe this to be true"

I put a question to you, don't use the whiney "don't treat me like a victim" approach.

Vorenhut...

Wasn't that nice of me to pose the same question and not put "Do not mention God or religion". You can thank me later.

Mr. Danger,
I am doing the asking. Post your own question, if you like. So it would be okay if some one told the kids that the person who did this was abused or depressed at the time. So it would be okay if someone told them that, if their loved ones didn't put themselves in an environment where that could of happen, that incident wouldn't of happened.

So things just happen because of madness huh. Accountabliity is only done according to the law. The law should be the acceptable form of accountability.

Jim,
That was a well thought out response thanks.
"The victim can only be satisfied to the extent that any reasonable and responsible citizen is satisfied, that a just and appropriate sentence has been applied according to the law on which we have all agreed".

That is still a "you should be happy now" answer. A victim's family is not going to be satisfied because they got justice in court. Even if the person get's life or death, your response is a bandaid response.

Surely you would not say, "Now he is in jail for life, we all agreed to the sentence. Aren't you satisfied now?". The family will still want to know why and how come the system didn't protect their loved ones.

I can understand why some don't get the question.

Saying bad things just happen, is not a answer. It certainly isn't a logical one. Sounds more like a shrug of shoulder and a "C'est la vie". That isn't an answer that is avoidance.

Answer 1

* I'm an old fashioned guy. An eye for an eye, I say. What that means is that the punishment should fit the crime. And I don't believe in lame excuses -
"I was a poor, abused child."
"I was high and not in control of myself."
"The man always kept me down."

B---S--- !! There's justice and there's retribution. I believe both are valid.

Answer 2

No. Punishment cannot restore the harm done to the victim or comfort their loss and grief, no matter how horribly a criminal might be made to suffer.

The purpose of punishment is to deter crime through fear - no more or less. A criminal has set himself against the good of society and has no cause to complain if the rest of us take him and make an example of him.

Those who contemplate doing harm to their neighbour will fear the consequence more if it is sure and reliable, meaning that those who are actually guilty are punished and do not escape. Punishment can be made more fearsome if guilt is established with certainty and if the punishment is proportionate to the wrong that the guilty person has done, because society can apply greater and harsher punishments if the law-abiding can be confident that only the guilty will be punished. These are the reasons for us to be diligent in ensuring that convictions and punishments are just.

If someone has done harm unintentionally, then justice calls to punish him less than one who commits a crime wilfully. To the extent that the person's comprehension and intent to commit a crime is diminished, it's proper that his punishment should be reduced.

The victim can only be satisfied to the extent that any reasonable and responsible citizen is satisfied, that a just and appropriate sentence has been applied according to the law on which we have all agreed.


Desi, thanks for your response. No, I'm not saying that the victim should be happy. I'm saying that that cannot and should not be the function of criminal law.

Answer 3

Justice is something for society to sort out and tragic as situations are, it's not up to the victim to choose the punishment nor do I like the idea of retaliation, vigilante justice etc.

Victims often will never know why a crime was committed against them, so if the person does have a history of abuse or mental illness then it can be important for them to know, it will not change anything but some victims might prefer to know.

Bad things happen...nothing we can do about it...I don't quite get the question?

Answer 4

The Law is never fair. On both sides.

So hypothetically, let's just say this man/woman was abused as a child and has some kind of chemical imbalance. He/She has chose to kidnap my 8 year old sister and violate her in the most animalistic sense. To the extent where all i have left is the lifeless limp body of my baby sister in my hands. Due to the condition of the perpetrator, he/she is given a life sentence.

Free food, a roof over the head, tv ( obviously a form of entertainment). All these paid for, by the tax-payer. You and me. I am supposed to accept the fact that he/she was not of sound mind, while carrying out what the little voice in his/her head told him/her to do?

Why can i not get the satisfaction that, life from that undeserving, vile animal is taken out? Because maybe, just maybe... the person has a familly too?

Because, they are after all human too?

I don't agree with the Law. Death Penalty should be imposed on rapists, murderers and perpetrators of heinous crimes.

Giving them second chances, only fills in the jail cells with repeat offenders that live off tax money that the govt. uses to maintain the 'shite-hole'.

Answer 5

Punishment rarely fits the crime. However, in most western countries that isn't what punishment is about - it's about the person who did it, not the person that was hurt.

Whatever the reason for what happened - no family will find much solace in that. It DID happen, from whichever perspective you look at it. It isn't healthy to think too much about the whys and what if's (been there, done that).

They should not feel less angry or hurt, not when somebody says "he was sick" or "It was god's will". That's not the point - you hurt, then you hurt and nothing apart from time will numb the pain. It doesn't matter whether you're theistic or not; the pain is always the same.

Answer 6

Each person reacts differently and each person is entitled to their reaction...

I do know that keeping anger and other negative feelings inside ultimately only hurts the one keeping the feelings inside....

If someone asked me why something happened to their loved one I would answer them honestly whether the answer is "I don't know" or "Wrong place wrong time." Etc...

It is their choice whether or not they accept my answer and are satisfied with it..

If the person who did it was abused, had a chemical imbalance or anything else then yes it is appropriate as it is the truth..

Yet again it is their choice whether or not they are less angry and hurt...

Each person makes their own choices regarding how they will react to situations.. What I think or feel has no bearing on what another will think or feel all I can do is give my opinion telling the truth if asked... How the other person reacts is not in my control...

Answer 7

You are confusing atheists and social control with scientific explanation for crime. If a car breaks down do we beat it with twigs and shout at it or do we find out what is wrong and put it right?

Right winger, religious potties and Basil Fawlty go with the former intelligent and reasoning people the latter. This dose not mean the 'poor you' attitude that the Right so often accuse the thinkers of. And does it work - well ask yourself this: Which has the lower crime - countries of Europe or the UK and USA.

Answer 8

Ironically, no society founded on religious principles have ever been able to produce a society capable of justice.. The courts are back logged with to many laws having nothing to do with justice and plenty to do with controlling the human population... this is how christianity functions... brain washing and controlling and suppressing and oppressing... now if we had any sense of justice, we would behave much differently.. take for example a man beating his wife... what would bring on justice and correct the problem... His male relatives (brothers father uncles) bringing him out in the field... or woods and giving him a beating equal to the one he gave his wife...with a warning that every time he does it he'll get it... how fast would the abuse stop?

Answer 9

The legal system serves several purposes - As well as justice being seen to be done (i.e. that the punishment fits the crime), there are also the elements of deterrence, rehabilitation and protection of society. Understanding the reasons behind someone's crimes may be useful in general, and interesting in academic terms, but this in itself doesn't lessen the need for the legal system to fulfill its purposes as set out above. We still need appropriate sentences.

Answer 10

1. why do you want answers from atheists.
2. I think a society, which considers itself to be modern, should not allow the family of the victim to a crime be the judges and executioners of the felon, this should be done by the state judiciary system, and the feelings of the victims relatives should be considered but only marginally.
This is to prevent the customs that run in primitive societies, of vendettas, that causes families to kill innocents of other families, in an endless cycle of bloodshed.