So I just discovered that I have been working next to the waste of oxygen that raped my best friend several years ago. I work in a manufacturing environment and I know that you can’t fire someone just for being a sex offender unless it directly interferes with work duties (in the US). But despite it being a primarily male workforce he does work with several women who have no idea what he is. He literally followed a woman home, broke into her house, and raped her. Him working here puts every female employee at risk. How is that not an unsafe working environment? How is it at even legal to employ him anywhere where he will have contact with women?
I said some violent crimes.
If someone assaults somebody in retaliation for something they did to them or a family member where it’s unlikely they would harm anyone else many would argue that can be justified.
No we’re all taught from preschool on not to hit.
And they should be locked up forever with the rapists.
Then when someone assaults the assaulter in retaliation for the retaliation? Fuck the rule of law - return to lynch mobs, amirite? Do you say people argue this because you’re one of them and are too much of a coward to say so, or is this an irrelevancy you don’t believe? People argue all sorts of dumb bullshit - it doesn’t make them right.
No exceptions, no discussion entered into - guess we’re locking up the military and police. Of course there are exceptions, and of course people are going to do the mental gymnastics necessary to justify their actions to themselves. That doesn’t make them right, but it does make your standard a transparently terrible one.
They do, and that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be punished, what it does mean is you can look at their reasons when determining whether or not they are likely to re-offend. The person who only kills people who rape their kid is not likely to do it again vs. the person who’s threshold for rape is that they don’t respect other people’s body autonomy when they’re horny.
In the context of this conversation, “people” can speak for themselves.
Again - are you a coward that attributes their support for lynch mobs to “people” rather than owning them, or are you dishonest, presenting other people’s arguments you don’t believe?
Failure to answer that aside, it seems you’re arguing all violence is wrong because we’re taught not to hit in preschool, but retaliatory violence is good because the courts don’t take circumstances into account and sentence accordingly. I don’t need to refute your points - you’ve done that yourself - albeit poorly.
I don’t support vigilante justice. That’s why it’s so important for the justice system to do it’s job properly. If it was vigilante justice wouldn’t happen. My point was that people have different motivations for committing crime. A drug dealer may be doing it to escape poverty. A murderer may be trying to get justice for an abused relative. These people can be rehabilitated. You can help the drug dealer learn skills that will allow them to make a living. You can give the vigilante counseling to get over the trauma they’re dealing with and make sure the people who victimize others are kept off the streets, in doing so they are unlikely to reoffend. The same cannot be said for a rapist. There’s something fundamentally broken inside of them that makes them able to ignore basic morality and other people’s body autonomy. There’s no “justification” a rapist can come up with that isn’t disgusting and evil. They cannot be rehabilitated.