'Vengeful' and 'forgiving' societies (teach, children, countries)

[irish_bob]

Originally Posted by jtur88

If you don't want to answer any questions, that is your business. But if you post 15 replies to a topic in two days, and someone calls you on your own statement, it is poor form to just call it a loaded question. Considering that you entered this thread for the purpose of anecdotally being condescending and judgmental of the Scots.

You're the one who said "somethings are unforgivable and must be avenged." Your moral position is clear, whether the question is loaded or not. I wasn't being judgmental of YOU, I was being judgmental of the moral position that you advanced and chose to publicly advocate in debate.

if it waddles like a duck , quacks like a duck and looks like a duck , chances are its a duck , it was a loaded question , your use of terms like vindictive in your follow up post blatantly show that you were being judgemental , no need to back peddle , my eyes dont lie to me , were done

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by irish_bob

if it waddles like a duck , quacks like a duck and looks like a duck , chances are its a duck , it was a loaded question , your use of terms like vindictive in your follow up post blatantly show that you were being judgemental , no need to back peddle , my eyes dont lie to me , were done

What do you think is the difference between the terms "vindictive" and "vengeful", which you yourself used ("must be avenged") and is in the thread title?

(Judging by your English composition skills, I know I am asking the wrong person a question about language.)

vin·dic·tive

adjective
1.
disposed or inclined to revenge; vengeful: a vindictive person.
2.
proceeding from or showing a revengeful spirit: vindictive rumors.

[dragonborn]

Originally Posted by imokay

I was talking in more general terms; there is nothing inherently wrong with killing someone (since right and wrong are concepts we have invented). But I understand why it's generally not tolerated.

But see, why even go so far as to make them suffer? What purpose does that have apart from making the victim feel avenged?

Someone who has committed murder can feel guilty for it, which means that they shouldn't spend the rest of their life in jail, but rather receive psychological treatment and be put back into society. People make mistakes, and I don't see why they should pay with the rest of their lives for a single one. Making them suffer won't necessarily change them; in fact, it might cause even more psychological damage.

Or, they might NOT feel guilty for it, in which case spending the rest of their life in jail won't do anything for them either.

In either case, punishment does not really do anyone any good. And, again, I don't think that the prospect of punishment makes criminals think twice before they do something (excluding petty crimes).

So to me, the only practical solution would be to isolate them from society, which is why I like the Norwegian system. Criminals are put on an island and they get a place to sleep and food. They also work. This way they don't pose a threat to anyone, they are treated humanely, and they help pay for their imprisonment.

It's not necessarily about vengeance. IMO, vengeance has no place in the judicial system anyway.

What do you suggest for people who are a genuine danger to society though? Some cannot be rehabilitated and some people are genuinely bad and will stay that way. If you let a serial killer out on parole, what's to say they won't kill again?

Intent is a big deal as far as I'm concerned. If a person kills because they are mentally ill, the island option would be the best (and most humane) bet. If a person kills out of pure hatred and with intent, there has to be an element of punishment, not out of vengeance, but there has to be a deterrent out there or you run the risk of greater numbers of people committing heinous crimes because they know the punishment they'll receive will most likely be lenient anyway.

[irish_bob]

Originally Posted by jtur88

What do you think is the difference between the terms "vindictive" and "vengeful", which you yourself used ("must be avenged") and is in the thread title?

(Judging by your English composition skills, I know I am asking the wrong person a question about language.)

vin·dic·tive

adjective
1.
disposed or inclined to revenge; vengeful: a vindictive person.
2.
proceeding from or showing a revengeful spirit: vindictive rumors.

yes , thank your mr dictionary

[imokay]

Originally Posted by dragonborn

What do you suggest for people who are a genuine danger to society though? Some cannot be rehabilitated and some people are genuinely bad and will stay that way. If you let a serial killer out on parole, what's to say they won't kill again?

If there's reason to believe they're cured, then let them go (perhaps under monitoring for a period of time). Otherwise, keep them isolated.

I
If a person kills out of pure hatred and with intent, there has to be an element of punishment, not out of vengeance, but there has to be a deterrent out there or you run the risk of greater numbers of people committing heinous crimes because they know the punishment they'll receive will most likely be lenient anyway.

No, punishment doesn't work as a deterrent. Again, someone who is capable of murder won't be stopped by the prospect of punishment. That's why things like capital punishment and mandatory minimum sentences do absolutely nothing to prevent crime. Punishment does absolutely nothing nothing for serious crimes (and petty crimes can be effectively prevented by fines).

The only way you can prevent crime is by changing people's mentality.

Besides, permanent isolation from society would be seen as a form of punishment by most people.

[Thepastpresentandfuture]

I assume this thread topic was not about 100% of all individuals in the same country being forgiving, middle of the road, or vengeful. It is instead probably about where at least 55% to 80% of those individuals in the population would be classified, and how the country they live in expresses those tendencies in recent times in the domestic and international activity for those countries.

This topic for the personality tendencies/disposition for “forgiving” and “vengeful” can vary depending on the individuals in the same country.

Despite that, some nationalities/ethnicities/countries can still be slightly generalized enough to be able to qualify in being categorized into “forgiving”, “middle of the road” and “vengeful.”

Forgiving:
Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Thailand, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland.


Middle of the road:
UK/England, France, USA, China, India, South Korea, Italy, Germany, Russia, Spain, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Ireland.


Vengeful:
Serbia, Albania, Bosnia, Columbia, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Jamaica, South Africa, Congo, Nigeria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Sudan.

[cmptrwlt]

Originally Posted by imokay

Violent criminals should be put on an island, isolated from society, and under the care of psychiatrists. Likethey do in Norway.

Bastøy (øy = island) is the only prison on an island. It is a low-security prison, so it is not for violent criminals. The worst ones, like Anders Behring Breivik, are incarcerated at Ila or Ringerike.

[irish_bob]

Originally Posted by imokay

If there's reason to believe they're cured, then let them go (perhaps under monitoring for a period of time). Otherwise, keep them isolated.



No, punishment doesn't work as a deterrent. Again, someone who is capable of murder won't be stopped by the prospect of punishment. That's why things like capital punishment and mandatory minimum sentences do absolutely nothing to prevent crime. Punishment does absolutely nothing nothing for serious crimes (and petty crimes can be effectively prevented by fines).

The only way you can prevent crime is by changing people's mentality.

Besides, permanent isolation from society would be seen as a form of punishment by most people.

who would decide if they were cured ?

[callmemaybe]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

I don't why folks get so riled up at caning, we could probably use a bit of old fashioned corporal punishment lol.

Haha are you serious? Caning in Malaysia and Singapore isn't like spanking (which I'm also generally against), it often involves bodily harm, hospital stays etc. Might as well advocate punitive amputation too. I'm sure Singapore is nice but it's justice system is Saudi Arabia light

[dunno what to put here]

I am totally against corporal punishment. I do not believe the way to gain a child's respect is by smacking them until they are terrified of you. Countries like Sweden have totally banned corporal punishment in school and at home, they don't strike me as a society with unruly children.