I know I should feel sorry for someone who's been beaten up, but...

[MayaAngelsFromTheRealmsOfCool]

...when that someone is one of the thugs who killed Stephen Lawrence, and he's been beaten up in prison, I kind of don't. At all. And if he were sent back to that prison now I'd think: Oh well, tough, innit?

I know that logically it's unethical, but...y'know.
It's like when Gaddafi was killed (obviously his crime was on a far larger scale). Someone who's brutalised other people...I find it hard to work up any sympathy.

Anyone else feel this way?

sociopath and psychopaths cannot be rehabilitated because the completely lack the ability of empathy whilst they may understand concepts of emotions they have no actual emotional bonds to them.

Most murderers are not sociopaths or psychopaths, and you don't have to be mentally ill to kill someone. One of the most common reasons a person kills another is because of anger and lack of thought.

But do you not think many people don't murder or hurt the people they are angry with because initially, they are scared of the consequences?

Hmmm...that would make everyone involved in the slave trade mentally ill

I'm pretty sure that these men probably lived amongst people where their beliefs and actions were/are not viewed as abnormal

What about paedophiles also- they are not classed as mentally ill are they I don't think?

But then you are in the realms of 'everyone should think and be like me'

Entropy

If these men had been brought up differently, had different friends, were knowledgeable etc then I am pretty sure that this would not have happened, but then they would also not be themselves they would be a different people entirely. Either way their actions were carried about by themselves, they are fully functioning people who knew that what they were doing was wrong but did so anyway.

I think in prisons its a world away from what you would expect in day to day living , and im sure the inmates feel the same and these are criminals so alot wont have many morals going for them , whats to say the person who beat him didnt do them same or worse , I dont have sympathy for this man but i dont think violence and beating him up is a good thing either ,

Cold It has been argued (not by me) that as they have shown no remorse they apparently do not KNOW what they did was wrong.

But either way, I think it still misses the point. Why do some people find it very easy not to do things they KNOW are wrong and some people find it very hard? Why congratulate yourself for being 'good' when you find it easy to resist temptation and despise someone for being 'evil' because they find it hard to the point of impossible.

To me it is the same as saying I think I am 'good' because I am clever and I despise as 'evil' people who aren't.

I agree that 'society' has a part to play in breeding violent racists

Britain was built on the back of colonisation and slavery, which is both racist and violent

It's still quite intrinsic to lesser or greater extent

Entropy- I think you are still missing that particular point- they have not failed to control themselves, they do not find it hard to resist temptation, they don't find it hard to not do things they think are wrong

They think it is fine to kill black people. There is no moral struggle for them

hmmm I see what you are saying bej

I wonder if it would be completely crazy to hold parents more responsible for the acts of their offspring than the offspring themselves.

I am genuinely not sure what part in this deterrent actually plays but I would imagine that if you knew you would be held responsible for the acts of your offspring, even as adults, you would take more care to bring them up to be tolerant, law abiding etc?

Sorry bej I was answering cold who said they DID know it was wrong...I cant fight both sides at the same time :)

I think there is even less motive for punishing people for acting in a way that there local pocket of society has actually deemed to be acceptable....

gah their/there...

Meh I don't feel sympathy but I don't condone it.
I feel very little sympathy when drug dealers or violent criminals get their come uppance but the people who do these acts still have no right to do them and should be prosecuted.

entropy have just read your reply on the othe thread so am replying to you here, so sorry if this seems out of context...

I think that prison should act as BOTH a method of rehabilitation and punishment. You also must consider the impact of crime on victim's families, especially in murder cases. Your child has lost their life for the fleeting enjoyment/adrenaline rush it gave to six sociopaths (in Stephen's case at least) Unless you happen to be a very understanding person, you will want to see your child's murderers punished as well as rehabilitated. Prison is also there to act as a deterrent (although how well it works as such is another thread entirely) Loss of liberty and certain rights is your punishment, should you choose to offend. I think that's fair.

In answer to the OP; no, I don't care if they get beaten up. I don't condone it, nor do I wish it to happen but I wouldn't wring my hands and bleat over it if they did.

Also, there are many people who hold racist views, sadly I am related to one such person, who don't go on to stab black people to death. You have to be a particular type of nasty bastard to do that.

This bunch were a dangerous mix of racist, sociopathic, arrogant, violent and thick.

The stated aims of prison in this country are

Public safety (taking the offender out of society)

Punishment (retribution)

and

Rehabilitation (education, therapy, counselling and probation).

I have often thought that the worst punishment for some offenders - rapists and racist murderers, for example - is the group therapy element where they finally have to talk about their belief systems with other members of the group challenging those cherished views.

And being eligible for parole means accepting guilt and showing remorse.

Entropy, where have you formed your ideas from? You seem to show a lot of idealism about the causes of behaviour, which I'm not convinced is rooted in facts.

Crimes are committed for a variety of reasons. Some are opportunistic, some are genuinely filled with a hatred which overpowers moral reasoning, some have no moral reasoning, some are desperate and can see no way out. I am sure that there are a good many other reasons which I've omitted. But to claim that criminals can't help it and so should be treated with kid gloves? No way. Each person is unique, and no matter what a person's circumstances there comes a point in our adult lives where we ALL have to take responsibility for our actions, however noble, stupid or criminal they may be. It is an objectionable characteristic to knowingly refuse to do so.

If your partner ignored you at a time of real need because they were caught up in a computer game, would you say it's not their fault because of their upbringing? I bloody hope not! You ought to feel hurt and angry, and to hold them responsible for behaving like a dick. Similarly, if they showed no remorse or concern for you after you pointed out how much their actions had hurt you, would you just write it off as the response of someone who doesn't know any better? Again, I jolly hope not!

The effect on the victims and victims families etc is terrible. Would I feel better if I attacked someone who hurt a family member of mine? Yes probably, fleetingly, and for around the same amount of time they felt good after their attack. How does that help anyone?

Punishing criminals does very little indeed to reduce the suffering of victims and families as can be seen by the vast number of times that people leave the court saying things that add up to 'well Im glad they wont hurt anyone else but it doesnt really feel better.'

So why do it?

Maya I just dont see how you can draw a line so easily. If a person who has committed murder has some sort of problem in their brain that means they clinically lack empathy or clinically suffer incoherent episodes of rage then do they really deserve to be punished rather than treated? In this like everything else there will be a full spectrum of severity. There is no special subset of people who are 'mad' and therefore not responsible for their actions and everyone else is 'not mad' and therefore responsible.

'Some crimes are opportunist' - this is a great example really. If I saw a wallet had fallen out of someones pocket I as they left a restaurant I could a) return it, b) nick it.

Why is it that I would almost always do a)?

Why would anyone do b)?

Because they are either desperate or lack the empathy to see it from the other persons perspective? Are either of these properties something that the person concerned has any control over? If not, then why punish them?

Two wrongs don't make a right. We are a post industrialised civilised nation. We no longer hang draw and quarter, use the rack, burn at the stake, or use corporal or capital punishment in any recognised lawful manner. Why therefore should society condone physical punishment which falls beyond a recognised lawful framework. If reprisals are condoned within the legal framework then we are on our way towards complete anarchy and to allow them to happen merely undoes all of the work that has been done in relation to improve the operation of the the formal frameworks (police and judiciary) as a result of the lobbying and campaigning undertaken by the Lawrence family.

Honestly, I think some people deserve to be beaten up.

What goes around comes around.

Simple law of nature.

if anyone murdered one of my dds, I would want them wiped from the face of the earth

not sure I would enjoy it or it would ease my pain. But I know I would want them to cease to exist

I am not mentally ill