Redemption is becoming overvalued.

I think redemption is one of the most corrosive and toxic ideas to have ever been formed. The simple truth of the matter is that most people don't really have the willpower to change themselves, even with outside assistance. Thus an alcoholic will more than likely stay an alcoholic and a criminal will become more of a criminal. Human beings simply can't change worth a damn. That's why it's true that liberals of old are conservatives of new. So what is the best way to solve this problem? For one we should de-brainwash ourselves from the idea that people can be redemmed and that we should waste resources. Punishment will always be the number one way of changing a person, as violence is the true path of change. Any American knows this truth.

EDIT: Sorry but for anyone who actually agrees with me on this issue doesn't have my support simply because my mind is change on the issue. Actually I was simply upset today at some crimes and I shouldn't have been so emotional in my response.

edited 1st Dec '11 8:45:49 AM by PinkHeartChainsaw

...?

So, to sum up, if I'm correct, violence is the way to solve violence? You realise that rehabilitation instead of prison greatly reduced re-offending rates? It's not enough to try to change people; the way in which you make them change has an effect too.

Giving a smoker an e-cigarette is easier than telling them to quit without aid.

um wat

I'd argue that, to the contrary, people do change. Too easily, if you change the circumstances around them. Which means that the "redeemed" can easily fall back to old ways if put in an environment which encourages that. Of course, asking for systemic solutions to systemic problems isn't as sexy or assertive-sounding as personal punishment approaches.

edited 25th Nov '11 12:32:28 PM by RadicalTaoist

[citation needed]

The attitude demonstrated in this post is utterly sickening. We are all of the species, so I'll come out and say it - who are you to say someone is past the point of redemption? It has been seen in highly unlikely circumstances. Hell, I know several people who were as good as dead, they were pointless meaningless citizens with nothing but chaos and destruction to their lives.

But things changed. They found a way out of the abyss. Good fortune, hard work, an opportunity they took at just the right time. Things just worked out. They can do that.

Is it more likely in a given set of horrific circumstances that positive change will not happen? Perhaps, though you'd need to demonstrate that with evidence. Strong evidence. Regardless, even in the worst of times redemption is seldom impossible if the willpower of the individual and those supporting them is sufficient (both are required, of course).

Now, I'm not saying that everyone deserves redemption. This is not the thread to discuss whether it's three child murders or four that put a person over the moral event horizon, nor the one to make apologies for heinouse crimes. Clearly, there will be some whom society will never, under any circumstances, redeem, and those who lack either/both the capacity/desire to redeem.

But to describe the concept of redemption as toxic? That goes against human nature! A man locked in a cell forever might ensure that future victims are saved from his actions. But the same man, redeemed and with a new lease of life, could save future victims in a more active way by being an example to others, helping those in his own situation, helping with some kind of security, or other means.

To quote Schindler's List and hope that that film got it right, "He who saves one life saves the world entire" was a quote from the Talmud. That one life redeemed may, down the years, cause great good to come into the world. Redemption is a highly noble goal. A desire to redeem from past faults is a great virtue, as is the desire to help others in their redemption.

And yes, I knew who posted this thread before I clicked it.

Have you ever heard of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Comission?

Well, what CDA said, really.

Redemption is not a bad thing. A criminal who rots away in prison, and let out after five years, is going to have much more of a vengeance against society, than one who is helped to reform, to see the side of good.

Also, you realise that they were oppressive regimes, Pink? That's a lot different to individuals who have done bad.

edited 25th Nov '11 12:42:34 PM by Inhopelessguy

Really, debates like this always struck me as being more reflective of the debaters' existing preconceptions/biases than of the actual subject: whether people are deterred from committing crimes by violent means, or through redemptive (whatever that means) ones.

Unsubstantiated statement. Citation needed.

Citation needed.

Citation needed.

lol wut.

Citation needed.

To be even more blunt, you are making baseless statements and expecting everyone to mindlessly agree. There is nothing substantive in your post.

edited 25th Nov '11 1:14:01 PM by Pentadragon

Very well. About 90 percent of alcoholics from the 12 step program relapse into alcohol abuse. Most smokers can't stop smoking.

Though the statistics about young liberals becoming conservatives aren't quite true. Turns out most liberals turn into moderates instead, but it still proves the point that most people can't change. That and have you ever heard of the American Revolution? The Civil War? Yeah without Lincoln waging war then we'd still have slavery. Without the American Revolution America would still be a British colony. This isn't really hard to get.

Well no, it's just your position is so ridiculously pro violence most sane people will disagree with you. I mean you go on and on about how you are messed up and what not and have to punish yourself/be punished. How's that working out for getting rid of your problems?

Indeed so, Pink, but that was a war. Involving lots of people. You can't use proof of full-scale events as not giving redemption to singular people. Besides, how do they back up your points?

Individual differences are at play with individuals, which is what you're primarily talking about.

edited 25th Nov '11 1:22:43 PM by Inhopelessguy

"Citation needed" means provide evidence to credible sources. Not "pick high numbers at random because they sound credible to you". Please, provide sources for your claims.

edited 25th Nov '11 1:24:44 PM by CaissasDeathAngel

Although violence can obviously be an effective means to an end, that doesn't mean that that it is the only means to an end, or a desireable means to an end. And wangsty cynicism is... well, just wangsty cynicism.

Redemption is overvalued... to those who have no hope.

Why do we have so many works of fiction about bad deeds being righted? Or of people down in their luck getting a better deal? Or about people who turn from a path of evil towards one of good?

Why do we have songs sung about it? Why do we have so many religious belief systems that have redemption as a - if not the - central core concept?

The OP's post strikes me as overly nihillist. Or at least, one without hope.

"Any American knows this truth." Then I'm not an American, then.

edited 25th Nov '11 1:34:15 PM by pvtnum11

"About 90 percent of alcoholics from the 12 step program relapse into alcohol abuse."

I personally think it's worth the 10 percent.

I think the idea behind redemptive methods is to avoid discarding the individual just because he or she made a mistake. Punishment without any direction won't be accomplishing much.

Yes, most addicts do eventually relapse. Still, many addicts successfully either quit or become a Functional Addict with sufficient willpower, common sense and discipline. Some remain functional throughout their entire lives. Addiction is a disease. Being an addict is like having depression: You've got little to no control over whether to be an addict or get depressed. Both mess up your life. One is triggered by external stimuli (drugs)... Depression is often triggered by external events, too. Both are debilitating and ultimately, if left out of control, incapacitating.

Advocating violence against addicts is not morally different than advocating violence against the depressed, schizophrenics, or people with personality disorders. A strategy that emphasizes addicts being able to obtain treatment and support, whether to mitigate or wholly control their condition. It's what we do with other mentaly ill people, and it works better with every other mental illness.

With addicts, the best course of action would be to make sure they don't live in abject poverty and can afford to cater to their basic needs (which include their fix). When people's basic needs are covered, people don't turn to violent crime to fund'em. Even if addicts cost money to the health care and welfare systems, it's nothing compared to the costs incurred in punishing addicts.

An alternative that is less costly, less coercive and more effective seems like the obvious choice. Even if redemption doesn't work (not with addicts, anyway) harm reduction does.

edited 25th Nov '11 1:40:40 PM by SavageHeathen

It is literally impossible for redemption to be overvalued.

However, I can agree that redemption is hard, far more so that the media lets on. It is a life's work, not something you can do in a couple of years and then be done with it. But if one fails... well, then they will simply have to try again, and again, and again. There is no such thing as a last chance, not as long as you have some life left.

On the other hand, punishment is ineffectual and pointless. Really. "Evil" actions are generally a terrible idea to begin with; people who commit them don't do that because they are not scared enough, they do that because they have poor impulse control or do not think that they have alternatives or they are, quite simply, mistaken. Nothing of all of this can be fixed by making up some sort of ghastly penalty for the perpetrators.

@Alk Well it's doing quite fine. I'm doing better than usual. I've found out that I simply over react at somethings and that it's better to control it. That and I can be quite gullible but I will now be firmer in my beliefs.

@Angel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tPNgHrIkgo This is my source for the 12 step program being a lie. Tobacco is much more addicting than alcohol so I'll say it's even more applicable!

@pvt Being a nihilist means not believing in anything, yet I do have my own beliefs. Granted most people on this fora don't like it but It's quite common in conservative areas. So does that mean conservatives are nihilists?

edited 25th Nov '11 1:42:04 PM by PinkHeartChainsaw

AA as an example: Most drop out within the first few months. Of those who stay for five years, 90 percent continue to stay.

Turning your life around is not a 50-yard dash.

It is a life-long marathon.

Those who understand that from the onset are more apt to stay the course. If you're looking for instant results to clean up your life, you are in for a really rude surprise.

PHC: Never said you were a nhillist, just that the post reminded me of it. If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, try loosening the laces a bit. ;)

Well I could just go "LOL no" to the OP, but I'd like you to consider this - redemption is also about fear and punishment. If you put a thug in prison, you hope to make him afraid of ever going to prison again. If you have a go at redeeming him, you may inspire in him the fear of what will happen if he continues to be a thug - living violently and angrily, dying young, hated, poor and alone. Same with drug addicts, alcoholics, paedophiles, murderers - opening their eyes to what they are and what their future will be.

Even better, many call restorative justice an even worse punishment than jail time! Putting them in prison or killing them? Not forcing them to see what wrecks they have made out of their lives? Hah, you're just being soft on 'em mate!

EDIT: Helps out the victims of crime too!

edited 25th Nov '11 2:14:43 PM by betaalpha

Clinical sociopathy (well, ASPD) is a fairly rare disorder.

Most criminals are not particularly different from you or me.

edited 25th Nov '11 2:38:17 PM by Carciofus