Retribution
is Revenge
In brief: Retribution (punishment) is supposed to be paying a criminal back for doing wrong but doing it in such a way that it lets the person know his actions were not approved of and supposed to be for the criminals own sake. It is supposed to be about honouring the person as letting a person do what they wish without punishing would be wrong and degrading the person. So retribution is held to be compatible with love. The Bible certainly teaches this for God in the Old Testament commanded love and was able to reconcile this command with demands that adulterers and murderers and homosexuals be put to death by stoning.
Revenge is supposed to be paying back a person for doing wrong but without valuing them. It is unloving.
Retribution is revenge because:
1 The Church keeps the doctrine above in dusty old tomes so that the doctrine does no good whatsoever and no barrister is able to gave a coherent account of how retribution differs from revenge.
2 The law is not about justice though it pretends that it is. Look how you can pay a fine for a friend who has committed criminal damage.
3 It is administered by people who are less than virtuous themselves.
4 Society is arbitrary in what it makes illegal. For example, if you abuse enough children, you will end up in court charged only for a few episodes of child abuse. What a law does not punish it allows. The law tends to leave infanticide virtually unpunished if carried out by the mother. When you invent crimes and sins to hate, you can't expect people to believe you when you claim to love the criminal/sinner and hate the crime/sin.
5 Prison makes criminals worse. It is a university of evil.
___________________________________
index to this page
Everybody
has been lectured by Christians who tell us not to judge. We are told that we cannot know anybody or
why they might want to be seen as better or worse than
they are so we cannot judge anybody or call anybody guilty.
These are the people who tolerate and
praise the legal system which is based on judgment. Christians can be jurors. The doctrine makes a person’s testimony about
her or his own intentions or those of another sinful. If you cannot judge another person as bad,
then you can hardly judge yourself either.
Christians who forbid judging then, hypocritically call on God when they
take their oath as jurors to approve of what they say though it is thought to
be said in defiance of his will. You cannot even forgive or punish or love the
sinner but hate the sin unless you judge first.
Not that it is possible to love the sinner and hate the sin anyway.
Some say, “Don’t judge a person as bad for
having done a bad thing. They might have
repented and changed since so they are good now”. If you cannot judge when you don’t know if a
person has changed or not, you cannot send anybody to jail but must let
criminals do what they like.
The irony is that if you say you cannot judge you are saying that nobody can be trusted to judge or fight evil and that is a nasty judgment. At least if you condemned a person you would be able to have some faith in them. You would be trying to change them and get to know them.
If you cannot judge another person it is safest not to respond in self-defence when a person tries to kill you in case they don’t intend to do wrong. Perhaps they are religious fanatics or possessed by demons or compelled by some force to do this to you.
People who tell you to judge people as good and not bad are obviously endorsing double standards. They are on the side of the wicked.
We know that a person might be lying when they say that they are good or bad. But in the absence of any evidence to the contrary we have to take what they say as true. A testimony that seems to be unrefuted has to be accepted unless there is a more believable one against it. If there is an equal case for it and against it then you can merely suspend judgement.
Jesus told us to exercise righteous
judgement. He said that we cannot
condemn others for having motes in their eyes when we have planks in our own. He says you have to remove the planks to be
able to see to take out the person’s mote.
That means you are not to judge a person when you see yourself as
worse. But that is absurd. You know you are bad and you can still form
an opinion of the other bad person. It
is dishonest not to for a bad person to pretend that everybody who is not as
bad is good or that they think these people are good. Jesus was two-faced. Are we to let everybody do what they like
just because we are not great ourselves?
You have to judge them to see that they are not as bad as you for heaven’s
sake! If the judge is a secret murderer
he has to condemn the murderer to jail.
Jesus told all this to ordinary Jews at
the Sermon on the Mount. He was not
speaking to lawyers and magistrates but to the people. He has the idea of judging actions and not
punishing in mind for punishment of criminals and so on was not up to the
people. But nevertheless his words have
implications for magistrates and lawyers but not to them exclusively.
How do you reconcile love and
justice? You must say that it is loving to administer justice and punish people. Punishing respects the criminal as a
person. This however seems to make
punishment a favour they don’t necessarily like, and implies that mercy is a degradation.
Jesus
advocated mercy and turning the other cheek.
Jesus was indicating that the reconciliation of love and justice which
is that it is right to punish a criminal because they are persons to be
respected and have a right to be punished is wrong. He said it is not love and respectful towards
rights to punish or judge people who are less evil than you. He is saying that punishment is immoral. But he certainly allowed it and spoke of the
righteous judgemental punishments of God.
This was nothing more than good religious politics. He lied like a politician. If punishment upholds dignity you should not
let your own worse sinfulness than the criminal stop you from meting it out to
the criminal.
Jesus’ doctrine that punishment
is good despite being immoral implies that it is better to put capital
criminals to death even at the risk of executing innocent people. He may have conceded that some innocent people
dying wasn't too bad as long as justice tried to make sure they didn't slip
through the net though some will. It is terrible for an innocent person
to be executed. But abolishing capital punishment for the sake of the
innocent victims wouldn't be fair to the capital criminals. It would be
treating the capital criminals as
sub-humans. And you have to do whatever has the most dignity in it. Even if punishment is evil, if you are going to do an
evil it is better to do a smaller one than a bigger one. So it is more dignified to
unintentionally execute some
innocents with the guilty than to spare the guilty for the sake of the
innocent. This may have been God’s logic
when he told the Israelites of Moses' day to kill everybody in Hebrew cities that turned to
idolatry. The idea is that criminals are
equal in dignity to the innocent so it is not worse for an innocent person to
die than a guilty one and if criminals are honoured by being put to death it is
worth it though a minority of innocents might be executed.
The Christians preach forgiveness and you
cannot forgive unless you judge first.
Forgiving a person for accidentally hurting you though they meant well
is not forgiving because you know the person did nothing purposely wrong. All you are doing is letting go of your cruel
streak that wants to see them as bad though they are not.
Jesus said we must not take oaths to tell
the truth for our word should be so reliable that oaths would not be
needed. This implies that all lies are
wrong and that every word we say should be stronger than an oath for it is
certainly the truth. But he also said we
were all bad for only God was good (Mark 10:18) and Paul the apostle reiterated
that doctrine later (Romans 3). So Jesus
wanted rid of oaths despite saying we could not be trusted! He was not abolishing the Law of Moses in
this because he was only commanding that we live like the law about oaths is no
longer needed.
Is judging wrong when you are more sure that you do wrong than you are that others do
wrong on the grounds that you are most certain of your own existence? No for it is safest to judge in case the
person does exist.
RETRIBUTION IS
REVENGE
Deceptively,
retribution is not revenge in principle, but, in practice, what is called
retribution is really revenge.
Practically speaking, the two have to have the same results so the only
difference can be the motive. In other
words, the first is motivated by love and the second by hate.
Retribution is giving a person the
punishment they deserve. It is motivated
as being a necessary evil to avoid rewarding crime. Revenge is supposed to be different for it is
not necessary and does not care if it is necessary or not. Revenge involves wanting to hurt a bad person
or a good person you find bad for you out of a bad motive. Revenge is intended to do an unnecessary evil
over some harm done to you. The evil may
be necessary in some ways but that is not why you are doing it. But as regards retribution, when mercy is
allowed it is saying the crime should at least be partly rewarded and so the
punishment is unnecessary. Unless you
reject mercy it is revenge you are practising not retribution.
Retribution that does not attempt to
reform the criminal is really revenge.
If you respect the criminal you will attempt to change them. It is hypocrisy to punish a person for a
crime when you do not care if they will be changed by it for the better. All agree that a dying old man who does
something evil should get away with it.
Retribution then is not about reform at all. It is about revenge.
The very act of condemning revenge is
revenge when revenge is dressed up as retribution. This is how religion often satisfies its
vengeful urges.
Retribution is possible but you never
really know if retribution is really just revenge for it all depends on the
motives of those who administer punitive justice. For example, if the reason a person punishes
is to gratify their own anger and not because the punishment is right even if
it is right then that is revenge. The
cynicism of the Bible and the world religions towards human nature would make
it more probable that when a person says they are giving retribution that it is
really revenge they mean to dish out under the respectable guise of
retribution. We all know that the
predominate fault in us is liking it very much if anybody we dislike – and we
dislike anybody who corrects us for we prefer having our own way to being right
– has a fall. Retribution is one of the
two reasons why the free will belief is so popular. The other being rewarding. But when retribution is so likely to proceed
from badness is it worth believing in free will? No. We
can give rewards just for the sake of it even if we disbelieve in free will so
the desire to justify and have retribution and vengeful feelings is the big
attraction about free will. To punish
just to satisfy feelings is revenge for it is done for the wrong reason.
If I make a jail
and put somebody in it for insulting me that is revenge. If the state makes a jail
and puts somebody in it for insulting it that is retribution. Nobody can give us a coherent reason for
saying revenge and retribution differ.
The only real difference between revenge and
retribution must be in the motive which makes it so silly to ban revenge and
make it illegal for you can’t make bad motives illegal for you can’t see
them! Where hitting a child is legal,
then there is no way to show that this is different from revenge for it depends
on the person’s motive. So the law does
allow revenge after all! What is the
point of forbidding revenge and letting it in the back door? If it is all about motives, you cannot look
at a judge sending somebody to jail and say it was retribution and not
revenge. In practice, where it counts no
difference exists.
To take retribution and not knowing you
are right when you do so means it is revenge.
The moment you act you have only one thought in your head and the ones
that judge it are not there so you don’t know what you are doing the moment you
do it.
Revenge is not to be considered to be
illegal retribution because the law only gets its authority from right and
wrong and should be respected when it is right and opposed when it is
wrong. To define revenge as illegal
retribution is to beg the question or assume that revenge is wrong when the
question is: “Is the law right to forbid it?”
The law is just not necessarily right.
If revenge is right you should do it though it is illegal as long as you
are sure it won’t be traced back to you and you are sure the person has wronged
you. The law should not punish you for
revenge unless it turned out you were wrong to take that revenge. How can the law avoid being vengeful when it
punishes when there are many reasons for doubting that it is retribution
therefore that it is revenge? Even if it
looks like revenge but isn’t, people don’t know or understand so the law will
demoralise people and make criminals less keen to reform with all the abuse and
bad example they see.
You cannot say that revenge is punishing
without a trial or fair trial. It is
that all right but it is not just that.
To exact retribution without being sure of the person’s guilt is to
exact revenge. But when you know the
person is guilty you don’t need a trial.
It is not those who commit crimes who are
punished but those who are caught. You
are punished for being found out.
Retribution is revenge.
Whatever a law does not punish it
allows. Every person has committed at
least a certain amount of harm. The law
cannot punish everybody so anybody who commits a crime should be made to pay
for that certain amount too. As long as
that is not done, there can be no retribution but only revenge.
Rights are based on justice, giving people
back what they send out of them. If we
have free will there have been times in which we would have killed. If there had been a magic power in us that
could kill the person we would have used it.
The First Epistle of John is right to say that wishing somebody dead is
as good as attempted murder. And we have
hurt others a lot. If free will is true
then we all deserve to be put to death or hurt badly.
Justice erases the need for a fair
trial. Why not incarcerate the person
suspected of murder without a trial when he deserves it even if he has not
committed the murder?
Perhaps, if it is true that we deserve all
suffering but we cannot let people hurt one another for we all have to live in
reasonable comfort. But if we deserve to
suffer we don’t have to. We can live in
reasonable suffering like many people do.
Justice combined with free will is not a
suitable basis for ethics in any way at all for it removes all restraint in
some areas and situations and justifies anything in those cases for we would
all have done frightening things if we could have and so would deserve great
suffering. Absolutism is the idea that
some actions are wrong regardless of how much good even greater good that they
do. Absolutism that is grounded on the
concept of justice is largely fraud.
Also, when moral systems
permit you (or friends) not to turn yourself (themselves) in for a crime and
then to put somebody else in jail for committing a crime against you. If that is not revenge what is?
Retribution is revenge for a believer in
free will.
Often restitution is revenge as well. When you smash a rich person’s window and you
pay to get it replaced though the person says they have forgiven you, and the
person accepts, how could that really be forgiveness? It is really revenge for it says the crime is
pardoned and should still be paid for which is spiteful. The Roman Church is responsible for this form
of revenge because it says that its God wants compensation for the sins we have
committed even though he does not need it and his grace can heal our evil
inclinations.
People
believe that taking revenge or condemning another for doing harm to us is wrong
for we have all done wrong things in our time.
But then that forbids retribution too.
People who say that you cannot fall out
with everybody who hurts you for you have soon have nobody paints the ugly
picture of a society in which people do all their bitching into their hearts
for they can’t in the open. It is still
better for you to keep it inside but only if you can’t thrust it out altogether. But if it is right to fall out with them and
altruism is true then you should for your welfare is not to be considered.
I might say, “I cannot insult X back when
X insults me for that would be stooping down to X’s level.” This really means that I have not got the
guts to stand up for myself and I want to refrain from hurting X to show that I
am superior to X. There is a difference
between me attacking someone for nothing and me attacking the person to get
back at them for having harmed me. I
know that. It is nonsense to say that
you’re going down to his or her level.
Such a statement is unfairly saying that anyone who gets back at others
is as bad as the person who started it so it is not an indication of a genuine
and nice person. It insults the person
who gets back and tries to punish them by inflicting guilt feelings on them and
panders to the guilty. Luckily we deny
free will so we can deny that tit for tat is right. Deniers of freedom say that we don’t mean to
do wrong therefore revenge is wrong.
It is those who believe in free will
who say that two wrongs don’t make a right.
They say that if x hits you, you must not hit back. If I have free will and destroy somebody’s
eye then logic says I should get the same injury back. I have asked for it and earned it. If I have not then deserving means
nothing. But though the revenge may be
wrong for other reasons, it is not wrong in so far as I deserve it. The other reasons I go against, may be quite
minor so there is no way the person who attacked me first and I could be on the
same level.
A person who hits you would rather you hit them back
than you going to the police and exposing them and having them dragged before a
judge. The morality that says two wrongs
don’t make a right or forbids tit for tat and then sanctions them by letting
you take them before the judge is hypocritical.
What sense can it make when it forbids you to hit when you know the
person was wrong and allows you to do worse?
If two wrongs don’t make a right or tit for tat is bad then that means
you should not hurt anybody back. Then
you should not, in revenge, give a mild insult to the person who gave you GBH. Then you should
not politely tell the habitual thief who is sick that he cannot come into your
house anymore to use the telephone for that could lead to him dying or
something without your telephone.
Telling him still hurts him so if you really believe that two wrongs
don’t make a right you will let him in for you can change your attitude to what
you have and become indifferent to possessions so that you will not be hurt
should he steal.
Everybody advances the view that getting
back at somebody for hurting you is wrong.
You do not hurt a person back for hurting you even when pain is the only
language that can get through to them.
Though two wrongs do not make a right, the question is, is the second
wrong – you hurting the person back - a wrong that is, is it a neutral act or
less wrong than the first wrong? If we
have free will then it is probably less wrong than the first wrong. Humanists can reject this teaching on the
basis that all people are equally good but some are just victims of evil forces
that take control of them but are really good in themselves while free will
believers and God believers cannot.
Why? To give somebody back what
they do to you of their own free will is to give them what they deserve and you
are not as bad as they are if you hit back for you are only doing it to defend
yourself and they have asked for the suffering by hurting you and if they get angry
at you getting your own back remember that anybody that asks for suffering is
not supposed to like it. If it is wrong
to hurt them back then it is not very wrong and is wrong for reasons other than
reasons having to do with deserving for they do deserve it. The other reasons will depend on the
circumstances and on what you know about the kind of people they are. There will be many situations in which they
will not apply.
The two wrongs don’t make a right
crusaders contradict themselves for they will punish their children in some
way. They frown on violence but violence
is not just about lifting your fist.
Anything that inflicts pain is violence be it giving somebody fifty
lines or whatever. Many children would
prefer being slapped to having to write out fifty lines. The crusaders are inferring that God is evil
for he acts as if two wrongs do make a right.
If they pray to him and adore him they make hypocrites of themselves. It is hypocrisy when a person who can give
tit for tat and get away with it, does so not with the motive of hatred but of
self-defence, is condemned. For example,
a mother who hits a boy who is bullying her son will be condemned though to her
it is not an act of hate so much as an act to protect her child. The anger of the person who is paid back
would be a lack of humility. They think
they deserve better than they really do.
The two wrongs don’t make a right
philosophy attacks the doctrine of ethical neutrality, that there are actions
and attitudes which are neither right or wrong for two wrongs could make a
neutral or the first wrong could be a wrong and the second a neutral. It is narrow-minded and blinkered and nasty.
The reason for revenge is self-defence for
all unpleasant emotions, including the desire for revenge, are caused by
fear. The same reason is behind
so-called retribution so when both are done for the same reason both are the
same thing. If revenge is wrong so is
self-defence. If we deny free will we
can agree with self-defence for it is not revenge then for you don’t consider
the attacker to be evil but just a vehicle of evil. And though we will be prepared to defend
ourselves we will not attack the enemy in an improper way for revenge is caused
by the feeling that the enemy freely did the evil and needs to be taught a
lesson. When the free-willist forbids revenge the result is that the person who
has been victimised is the one who is urged to push the fear that motivates
revenge to the back of his or her mind and that can only be harmful. It is detrimental to self-esteem. When the damage makes the person erupt it
will usually be the good friends of the person who would be at the receiving
end. The only solution is the denial of
free will with the accompanying denial of the need for punishment which is
replaced by therapy.
You know that the consequences could be
anything when you get off on the wrong foot with somebody deliberately but does
that mean you ask for any terrible thing they do to you meaning that they are
right to take revenge on you until their hearts are content? It does if you support free will. To condemn them for that would be evil for
you deserved it. So no matter what evil
you do you are consenting to paying for it a hundred times over. Nobody can say they have taken revenge on you
for you have asked for it.
Some say revenge is wrong for it breeds
more revenge – but what about goodness that breeds evil like when the more good
you do to ingrates the worse you make them?
In many cases you can take revenge without the victim knowing who was
responsible. And it is possible that
some revenge is okay if it deters some from anti-social acts. Also, if I do good
to an ungrateful person and I know that person will sin because of the good I
will do then I believe that this sin is the person’s concern and not mine and
is not my fault so I should still do good to that person. So I cannot then say that revenge is wrong
just because the victim will get me back again.
The victim taking revenge is his decision.
Some
say taking revenge is evil for we all deserve to suffer terribly and we cannot
make everybody suffer and have to let things go and work for peace. They are saying then that revenge is
hypocritical self-righteousness. But
public order can be retained largely if revenge is only allowed for serious
crimes. Also you can take revenge
legally say by reporting an unfit mother you do not like to the authorities.
Religion cannot denounce anything on the grounds
that bad consequences are feared for God can command what does a lot of harm
but which does a greater good that we cannot see.
When religion says we are only fit for
eternal torment it follows that we have a right to be tormented eternally so if
anybody wants to hurt us with our consent and does not they are doing
wrong. If I smash a window I am thereby
consenting to somebody smashing my own.
When I am most sure I exist it follows
that since I am not as sure my enemy exists because I am not my enemy I am not
as bad as him where my personal conscience is concerned if I get my revenge on
him because I am doing it for the being I am most sure of. I am doing it to honour myself. This is only true if you affirm free
will. The two wrongs don’t make a right
philosophy suggests that if we have free will then I am as important as the
next person. True I am but if I am most
sure of my own existence then I have to treat myself as the most important but
in a good way for what can I do when I don’t know if the other person is as
real as myself? So the philosophy
attacks me as a person and therefore the enemy as well.
Some say revenge is wrong because God
forbids it. But that is really just
saying something is wrong because God says so.
We need evidence that God has said this and that he is right. A God who affirms free will and forbids
revenge is evil and doesn’t even know what love is. When he is evil why care about anybody? To condemn revenge because a God said so and
to be unable to prove it or give sufficient evidence for it is irresponsible
and shows that hatred is being directed at those who take revenge. Banning because of God can have no
credibility.
When you deny free will like we do,
revenge is clearly wrong for nobody deserves it or retribution.
PUNISHMENT
A
person who has been forced by something external like another person to commit
a crime should not be punished for the act did not arise from the perversity within. A person can only suffer for what they did
when it was in their nature to do it.
The two attempts to justify punishment
that we are about to examine now, seek to pay a person
back for doing wrong. Even forgotten
crimes can be punished according to this attitude for it is paying for the
crime and not the benefits of punishment that is the prime concern.
The retribution theory is the first. Retribution is justly making the criminal
suffer for doing wrong for no other reason than to express disapproval of the
crime for without it the crime wouldn’t matter.
This presupposes that criminals could have done other
than what they did or have free will.
You cannot mete out retribution against a person for what they cannot
help. It implies that forgiveness and
mercy are unloving and immoral.
The next is the restitution theory which
advises making criminals make up for what they did to society in pain. Some think the making up should be done by
serving society instead.
But you cannot really make up for what is
done. No matter what you do the wrong
will still have happened. It could lead
to the victim being glad that you have committed the crime! The victim’s pain may be over and now he or
she could be better off.
It is silly to put what cannot be changed
before bringing good out of the situation.
Both theories are evil.
Is punishment justified only when it has
good consequences or can have them?
The protection theory understands
punishing to be for protecting society.
But we are all potential criminals so if we accept this theory we must
agree that all of us should be thrown into the slammer. But it has its merits.
It is claimed that the object of
punishment is to reform the criminal.
This theory is wrong for the criminal only
needs to change their mind about evil and suffering isn’t necessary for
that. Why be kind if suffering is the
best influence for good?
And criminals will fake remorse and
conversion to get released. Why believe
a person who would deceptively try to get away with what they have done? They hoped to get off when they committed the
crime. They proved by their crime that they couldn’t be trusted.
Lastly, we meet the deterrence theory
according to which punishment should be for putting people who would like to
commit crimes off. It would imply that
it is right to punish the innocent as long as nobody can prove their innocence
for all that matters is scaring people off committing crimes. And it implies that the more cruel the
punishment the better.
Hatred
is unjustly wanting to hurt another person. It is pretending there is little or no value
in that person.
Anger is wanting to
hurt a person because of feelings and not because of reason. If you are maddened by somebody putting too
much sugar in your tea you are not angry for a rational reason for lots of
other mistakes don’t bother you. It is
not something going wrong that makes you angry, it is the way you respond to it
that does that. So, anger is an
unnecessary evil and is hatred and is incompatible with love. Anger is hatred for what you know not what
you feel should determine how you relate to others.
Christianity likes anger to be focused on
a person’s sins and not on the person.
It directs that we exercise prudence.
But anger is anti-prudence and when it loses sight of the person and
sees the act it becomes even more dangerous.
We are selfish creatures and so we will let the anger at being offended
or hurt override any perception we have of the dignity of the person.
St Alphonsus
wrote, “A man who does not restrain the impulse of anger, easily falls into
hatred towards the person who has been the occasion of his passion. According to
Jesus got angry. He talked about the wrath of God. His rage is written all over Matthew’s
gospel, chapter 23. It would not be in
the gospel if anger were frowned upon by him or the gospel.
People prefer being liked to being loved
for love is an unemotional act or attitude of goodness. Love, in the Christian understanding, is
serving others without being motivated by affection for them but you just have
the intention to do good. You prefer people doing
good for you because they like you which makes them enjoy it than people
doing good for the sake of good without feeling. Anger stops you liking a person so how could
it be good? You cannot like a person who
sins for that would be liking their sins too
especially if you treat a sinner as if they never committed the sins.
If you are sure that hating a person will
lead to less hatred in the world in the way that evil can produce incredible
good then you cannot agree with religion which says that hatred is always
absolutely wrong. That would be a denial
that consequences should ever be thought of.
Hatred is evil for it is the failure to
value the person as supremely important.
I may be most sure I exist but that doesn’t mean I should hate if I wish
to please myself for it is better to love and like the person. Strong hate is no fun even if you hide it
well.
Secret hatred of a person does not harm
the person who is the object of hatred.
It would be more rational to hate a person when it does no harm to you
or them than to fight it when you don’t want to. Resisting is hating and harming yourself. Hating
another is irrational but life is often about choosing one irrational thing
over another. If you don’t believe in
free will like us Humanists you will not want to hate anybody.
The only way you can make yourself want to
stop hating is by realising that you need only yourself to be happy and
detaching yourself from other needs.
Religion denies this strongly, saying that to love God with all your
heart the way Jesus demanded requires that you need God with all your
heart. To need is to exploit and seek to
oppose the freedom of the person needed.
It means you blackmail God that you will let yourself be happy unless
you have him. Its pure
cruelty. God is a pro-hate
delusion.
Is hatred wrong because you would not want
others to hate you? Love is sacrifice so
it is hatred to advocate goodness because you emotionally desire it. Sacrifice is doing what you abhor. Is hatred wrong for you would not will that
others hate you? You only will it for
their sakes if you love them and not yours.
You don’t will that they hate you for it is demeaning to them. So the answer is no.
Morally speaking, it is what you intend
that counts not what you feel. The less
you feel hatred the worse hatred is for the less you can be excused for willing
and holding on to it.
Every religion that stomachs or commends
anger is a camouflaged hate group. Anger
when the teachings of the religion are denied or neglected is encouraged for
faith is supposed to matter most. For
example, Christians are urged to transfer all their love and feelings to God
and to use others as tools with which to please him. You are to love and like
God extremely. Extreme emotion means
extreme action. You will find it
impossible not to hate sinners and those who do not love God. this cannot be a sin
for if it is a side-effect of loving God it is not your fault.
THE TREATMENT OF CRIMINALS
Criminals
break the law of society and have to pay the debt for it. Only they can pay it so fines paid by friends
can no longer do unless the criminal will have to pay them back.
Hurting criminals to reform them is idiocy
for all they have to do is change and you can’t make them do that. It is sheer sadism. Anybody could say they have changed for the
better and why should we believe somebody that has broken the law? The more harm they have done the less we
should trust them.
Retributionism
teaches that suffering is the wages of crime.
We do not believe in retribution for we don’t have free will and so
don’t deserve to pay a penalty for your crimes.
Retribution says that if a crime is not punished then it is
rewarded. This forbids mercy so retributionism commands that we all slice bad people up –
alive.
We don’t believe that punishment is all about
deterring others from crime for that advocates extreme brutality. We would have to crucify thieves to scare
would-be thieves. Such a practice would
really lead to criminals planning their crimes better to avoid capture.
We don’t believe that punishment is just for
protecting society because we are all potential monsters.
Making criminals pay is not about protecting
us but about safeguarding the law for if there is no price for breaking the law
then the law is a law in name only and is not a law at all. It is really offering a reward for
wickedness. The amount of suffering that
has been inflicted has to be inflicted in return. The killer should be behind bars for life but
then we must still keep our minds open to any new light. Perhaps new evidence could appear that
justifies clearing the person or ameliorating the punishment. When you take a life you have to pay for it
for the rest of your life for you have taken the victim’s days.
You might reply that society needs laws so to
safeguard the law is to safeguard the people.
The law only safeguards what it perceives as best and has many laws that
are just there for the sake of being there.
Nobody agrees on what is best for people. Catholic countries used to think that the
best thing to do was to keep the Catholics immune from non-Catholic
influences. And the Church would still
like them to think that.
When you steal or harm another wrongly you have
to make amends or restitution as far as you are able. A person who steals and says they are sorry
can’t be really sorry if they are keeping what they took instead of returning
it. You have to make compensation not
only for what you too but also for the sorrow you caused.
CONCLUSION
We
have seen through the hypocrisy of the legal system and seen that retribution
is just a tyrannical legalised form of revenge.
The solution is to deny free will and put hate out of the question and
replace punishment with compassionate therapy that keeps crime under
control. Religion is the main instigator
of the hypocrisy.
BOOKS CONSULTED
THE
SERMONS OF ST ALPHONSUS LIGUORI,
St Alphonsus Liguori, TAN
Books,
SCEPTICAL
ESSAYS, Bertrand Russell Unwin Paperbacks,