Should one act be allowed to ruin an individuals entire life?

I am not a criminal, I have known criminals though. Criminals who feel remorse, criminals who´ve done terrible things. Despite the fact that they´ve been nothing but model citizens for years, the fact that their cons means that they´ll be hated, and ostricized for the rest of their lives.

What I want to ask: Do you think it´s okay to hate criminals after they´ve reintergrated into society? Specifically, the criminals who´ve only commited a few felonies in their earlier lives.

It´s just I´ve always disliked the notion that one dark blotch on your life, should negate years of being a good person in the public´s eyes.

edited 22nd Aug '11 2:38:07 PM by gingerninja666

"Contests fought between two masters are decided instantly. An invisible battle is now raging between the two of them." Lulu vs Schneizel

Nope.

Bleh... this is a very generic question. I'd say it depends on what you did. If you ruined other lives, why shouldn't your life be ruined? If you did some small, fairly insignificant thing (say, you stole a car), then no, that would be dumb. Otherwise...

I am now known as Flyboy.

I was just curious, I know it´s kinda generic, but I know a lot of people who hate even the smallest of criminals

edited 22nd Aug '11 2:42:31 PM by gingerninja666

"Contests fought between two masters are decided instantly. An invisible battle is now raging between the two of them." Lulu vs Schneizel

Felons? Yes. The point isn't to ruin their lives, or to reform them, it's to stop other people from doing the same thing. They committed a crime and they knew the consequences.

Still Sheepin'

The real problem is shit like how broad the list for sex offenders is.

Something is seriously screwed up when you can be blacklisted forever for shit that is noiwhere near as bad as what people assume all sex offenders do.

The idea is that after someone has 'served their time' that they have paid off their consequences and so shouldn't be hated.

However in reality it depends on the act as mentioned already.

By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!

You really have to look at the case, but the default should be no, you have to give the benefit of the doubt in favor of the person once he or she has served the sentence and has reformed.

And some people, like Frank Abagnale, have actually demonstrated this and turned their lives around.

Now using Trivialis handle.

Depends on what they did really.

It could also depend on how the ex offender acts.

For instance a person who kills their partner in an 'act of passion' and is regretful goes for rehabilitation is going to be view in a more positive way than someone who is unrepentant in the eyes of the public.

By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!

Punitive measurements are fine and all, but you have to make sure that the cost is appropriate to the crime.

Forensics economics: if the expected cost for a crime is greater than the cost to society for that crime, then the punishment is overly burdensome. Of course, if the expected cost is very low-because the chance of being punished is low-but the actual punishment itself is very high, all you're doing is making sure a small selection of people are "made an example of" which, frankly, feels strongly dehumanizing to me.

Seems like you'd be better off reducing sentences but increasing enforcement.

@Sheep: You're aware that the stupidest, smallest things are often classified as felonies by small-minded legislators, right?

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I agree that dehumanizing is a negative habit. People shouldn't need to dehumanize something to look at it objectively as an object of little value. But that's just a flaw with education and what not.

Fight smart, not fair.

On the one hand, people can hate whoever they want. I sure do. Still, I find the attitude a lot of people have towards criminals rather off-putting. And when it comes to ex-cons, it seems to me that open hatred towards them is kind of dumb, on a practical level. I mean, people essentially broadcast the message that ex-cons have no place in legitimate society, then they act like recidivism is a result of sentences not being harsh enough. Some people have a rather warped view of how the whole carrot/stick thing works, especially when it comes to crime and punishment. Of course, that's without getting into the people whose concept of justice overtly disregards practicality.

I believe that there are some people who cannot peacefully function in society, so I support the idea of life in prison for some crimes. However, if it seems that someone is unlikely to commit another crime, there's no harm in letting them out and giving them a chance to contribute again.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Clearly we need to learn to freeze people in liquid carbonate.

No, I don't believe it should. As long as you are remorseful and try to make up for whatever it is you did, then you should be allowed to rejoin society.

There was a rather sad example of this I remember reading about in the aftermath of the Queensland floods. A bunch of people got awards for acts of bravery during the crisis, saving people's lives.

It turned out that one of these recipients was a convicted rapist who'd done his time and was released. He wasn't allowed to get the award, which in my opinion is downright wrong.

Be not afraid...

That's disgusting, yeah.

The thing is, people judge others based on their actions and if someone's a convicted felon, it will be an uphill battle for the rest of their life because they're going to have to prove to other people that they can be trusted. That said, it really depends on what they did because if the crime happens to be something that society sees as crossing the Moral Event Horizon, like rape or child killing/molestation, then the person who committed it will be considered irredeemable.

And for good reason too.

edited 22nd Aug '11 8:09:14 PM by RedViking

I disagree that the reason is good.

Could you please elaborate?

It is understandable that we might be squicked by people that have raped or murdered, but I think it's important to consider the circumstances of their crime, and to keep things in that context.

The "He is a rapist ergo he is irredeemable" just stems forth from apathy. And that's way too depressing of a thought.

It doesn't stem from apathy, it stems directly from the concept people have about how a decent human being should behave. If a guy is found guilty in a court of law that he raped someone, society condemns him because his own actions prove that he is not a good person. Good people don't go around raping others.

As for why the action is considered irredeemable, it goes back to the trust issue. We are not this man and we do not know his thoughts. All we have to go on is his actions and we know for a fact that he raped someone. Why should he be trusted? How can he be trusted when is actions have screamed 'I'm a horrible human being' to those around him?

People can change.

"Delenda est." "Furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed." -Common Roman saying at the end of speeches.

But, Red Viking, you could say that about anybody committing any crime at all. "You shoplifted when you were a teenager, clearly you have proved yourself not to be trusted, nobody will ever hire you to do anything ever because you'll just steal from them".

Be not afraid...