Today I had a conversation with my best friend on what would be appropriate punishment for a convicted sex offender.
He argued that the justice system of America is sufficient for such things. Well I said how many people are convicted of crimes they've never committed, or how many people's lives have been ruined just from an accusation. The danger of assuming is always immanent, and the repercussions of doing so are also innumerable.
So the argument is how do we appropriately punish people for such crimes?
Well the current punishments we implement are not based on any sort of actual scale either way. What I mean by that is, you don't understand what repercussions the sex offender has to face for the rest of his life for acting on mentally ill impulses. Conversely, that person who was assaulted has to deal with trauma potentially for rest of their life. But there's no way to measure how impacted the victim's life is in comparison to the person who committed one "crime". And I put crime in quotation because I think a "crime" for a terrible act is not at all descriptive. But that's where we draw the line. We have no idea what someone deserves for doing such things. If we were to execute the same punishment and restraints for every single sex offender, then where is justice really being served? Now the sex offender becomes a victim of the system for the rest of his life. No social life, no job, absolutely nothing. His life is now void of substance in society until he dies.
Now I'm not trying to argue what punishment should be served for said things. What I'm arguing is the human capacity to understand the repercussions of what is chosen to be done in an entire life span. And in understanding this, how severe is the punishment's results in contrast to it's proponents? And it's not applied just to sex offenders, it could be argued in any case.
If someone steals your car radio and you catch them and have them arrested. What is the damage done to you? You have to spend money to replace your window and your system. Lets say that you already had the money saved for absolutely no purpose and do so. What does the "villain" have to deal with now? Lets completely cut out the motive of the crime committed. What are we left with? Even without justifying this crime, we are left with a lot. So that person had to replace material items with something that essentially has no value. While the thief has to live his entire life in scrutiny with his family, can't get a job. etc etc. Conversely, The thief could of just stole that person's radio and that person could have had nothing. That person could have been mentally ill, and that could of been the straw that broke the camels back, and he commits suicide. No one can know the repercussions of either side. Not only that, but more fundamentally, whenever you ignore the butterfly effect in any cause and effect situation, how can you even be close to certain that justice has been served? Are humans even capable of serving true justice? Just because morality tells us "stealing is bad" and this is bad and that's bad. People do not act outside of their morality when they talk about such things. But how do we define human morality? an emotional response to one particular incident, is how we define people's entire lives? Where do we get a jury that has no opinion on morality? Or a judge? Why do people never question their own morality when it comes to justice? And i'm not even talking about American courts. In america they're trying to say that 1% of the worlds population pirating shit is NOT a victim-less crime? What the fuck? who is the victim? actors don't get 2 private jets instead of 1? How do you even define the loss they're experiencing? Do you have to go into .0 variables on the dollar? But people think it is "immoral" to steal. So it's a crime.
Now my point is, who are we to try and tamper with the butterfly effect and serve justice? When have no way of knowing who deserves what and how that will affect the individual in the long term. Such things are why Divine justice needs to exist. Only God can say what's a proper punishment, and what that person really deserves. And you can break it down to so many other things associated with "common knowledge". Human morality, that we think we understand things and our societies are advanced; is so far from true that it's actually sickening.
To see people go on with such confidence in themselves and what they believe in, based off of non-sense is depressing.
And the argument " it's not perfect but it's what we got" is fine to a certain extent. But when there's people whole-heartily believing in government and people to serve justice, it doesn't make any sense to me.
So I leave you with this question: Outside of your own mortal judgement, why not act on vengeance alone? And who can tell you you're wrong? When we don't even know what's right.! No longer available