Where do criminals fit in?

[Miles_Christi7]

Oh, I’m sorry, I thought we were being serious.

I’ll bow out. There are some red flags in your post.
Have a nice day.

Doesn’t like what you read, fails to answer simple questions, got no counter-arguments. Classic. Perhaps you should look up what forums are for, it’s definitely not so people with the same views can praise eachother.

 

[Miles_Christi7]

I can’t speak on Catholic teaching, but it seems very uncharitable to assume that because someone opposes the death penalty then that means they’re “pro-criminal.”

With crimes like rape it’s more important that the victim gets the support they require and that rapists are properly convicted in the first place. Calls for the death penalty often just come out of impersonal blind rage and don’t really address the actual issue. Trying to have your revenge fantasies fulfilled in real life is not the best way to tackle crime. Keep in mind most forms of rape are date rape and similar things - you’re more likely to be raped by someone you know than the Hollywood-style rapist that attacks you in a car park. I don’t think killing rapists would properly address this issue.

Well, it does sound like some of the people around here are fine with criminals, else they would point out different stances on this matter.

It’s always easy to lecture others what they should feel about such cases - just until it hits themselves.

you’re more likely to be raped by someone you know than the Hollywood-style rapist that attacks you in a car park

This is false, and recent studies and crime reports show otherwise EVEN with countries like Germany and alike, who are trying to conceal crimes (especially crimes committed by migrants).

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Well, it does sound like some of the people around here are fine with criminals, else they would point out different stances on this matter.

Not just killing people but working on treatment for victims, perpetrators and looking into preventative methods for these crimes.

It’s always easy to lecture others what they should feel about such cases - just until it hits themselves.

We shouldn’t appeal to the victims of crimes to decide how to punish criminals.

This is false, and recent studies and crime reports show otherwise EVEN with countries like Germany and alike, who are trying to conceal crimes (especially crimes committed by migrants).

This isn’t true at all. In pretty much all countries rape victims are much more likely to be raped by a friend or relative than a stranger.

US:

rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence

web.archive.org/web/20110708172707/http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ovw/206554.pdf

In the majority of sexual assaults, patients know the suspects. For
example, according to the National Crime Victimization Survey, in 2002, 66.1 percent of rapes/sexual assaults involved offenders who were nonstrangers.

UK:

webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110314171826/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r159.pdf

Women are most likely to be sexually attacked by men they know in some way, most
often partners (32%) or acquaintances (22%). Current partners (at the time of the attack)
were responsible for 45% of rapes reported to the survey. Strangers were responsible
for only 8% of rapes reported to the survey.

This trend is true around most of the world, and this is ignoring the victims who do not report their abuser for fear of reprisal. It’s likely to be the case that even more of the percentage of rape committed is perpetuated by non-strangers.

Denying this fact is dangerous - very few people calling for blood actually care about the main perpetrator of rape or want to see these figures reduced. Of course it’s easy to call for the death of an immigrant rapist who jumps women in an alleyway, but it’s much harder to call for the death of the white college kids and abusive husbands that the majority of rapists are. I don’t want to politicize this thread too much because it isn’t the place, but I think it’s notable that you draw attention to immigrants (who are certainly at a high risk of committing rape, I don’t wish to deny that) and apparently want to deny the problem of rape that is prevalent among native western people.

 

[Rosebud77]

Clearly I’m more aware of what the Bible actually says than you. People these days tend to pick what they like to hear (in this case, the Bible).

Was the Catholic Church wrong in its teachings before the Second Vatican Council?

Are you actually okay with people having done severe crimes to be let loose?

If they have served their time, yes. Of course.

Can you continue to judge and accuse? Jesus says time and again, do not judge, He is our ultimate authority.

 

[mikekle]

Rosebud77:
If they have served their time, yes. Of course.

Can you continue to judge and accuse? Jesus says time and again, do not judge, He is our ultimate authority.This is not the case today though, even if someone serves their time and pays their debt to society, they are still given a ‘scarlet letter’ in the form of their criminal record, which remains for LIFE, even if they commit a crime at 19-20, when they go for a job at age 52, that crime will still come up and likely be a factor in the employment they are able to get, and yet, i have NEVER Heard anyone suggesting to get rid of background checks for jobs, heck, they are even common for low level jobs now, factory jobs, gas station jobs, etc???!!

In the past a person could sort of leave their crime behind them once their debt was paid, but the world is different now, people want blood for life, thats easy to see in that so many people support background checks for jobs, they are willing to give up a little liberty for the sake of security…( theres an old quote about that too, its not a good thing to do).

Personally I think crimes should automatically come off a record at 10 yrs if no other crimes have been committed. it is nothing but vengeance to hold a person to it for their entire life.

 

[Rosebud77]

This is not the case today though, even if someone serves their time and pays their debt to society, they are still given a ‘scarlet letter’ in the form of their criminal record, which remains for LIFE, even if they commit a crime at 19-20, when they go for a job at age 52, that crime will still come up and likely be a factor in the employment they are able to get, and yet, i have NEVER Heard anyone suggesting to get rid of background checks for jobs, heck, they are even common for low level jobs now, factory jobs, gas station jobs, etc???!!

In the past a person could sort of leave their crime behind them once their debt was paid, but the world is different now, people want blood for life, thats easy to see in that so many people support background checks for jobs, they are willing to give up a little liberty for the sake of security…( theres an old quote about that too, its not a good thing to do).

Personally I think crimes should automatically come off a record at 10 yrs if no other crimes have been committed. it is nothing but vengeance to hold a person to it for their entire life.

You are of course right. are there though any exceptions? Thinking of child sexual abusers especiallly?

And also any really sound employer will give someone a chance? I do not honestly think either that it is a ? of who" want blood for life" but fear simply. Not taking chances. The world has become a dangerous place

Also some less serious crimes do come off record. in the UK at least.

 

[mikekle]

You are of course right. are there though any exceptions? Thinking of child sexual abusers especiallly?

And also any really sound employer will give someone a chance? I do not honestly think either that it is a ? of who" want blood for life" but fear simply. Not taking chances. The world has become a dangerous place

Also some less serious crimes do come off record. in the UK at least.

It is due to fear, but these folks do not stop to think, before the late 90s or so, anyone convicted of the most serious crimes, could easily go work or live anywhere after they were released, there were no background checks, and it seems we have more problems today in relation to these kinds of things.

It really reminds me of that old quote “those who give up some liberty or freedom for the sake of security, deserve neither”…that is EXACTLY what they are doing, and even though it has not provided the safety they thought, they still believe it to be the best thing to do…!!!

 

[vash88]

This is not the case today though, even if someone serves their time and pays their debt to society, they are still given a ‘scarlet letter’ in the form of their criminal record, which remains for LIFE, even if they commit a crime at 19-20, when they go for a job at age 52, that crime will still come up and likely be a factor in the employment they are able to get, and yet, i have NEVER Heard anyone suggesting to get rid of background checks for jobs, heck, they are even common for low level jobs now, factory jobs, gas station jobs, etc???!!

In the past a person could sort of leave their crime behind them once their debt was paid, but the world is different now, people want blood for life, thats easy to see in that so many people support background checks for jobs, they are willing to give up a little liberty for the sake of security…( theres an old quote about that too, its not a good thing to do).

Personally I think crimes should automatically come off a record at 10 yrs if no other crimes have been committed. it is nothing but vengeance to hold a person to it for their entire life.

Agreed. Not to mention, someone with a permanent criminal record can get paranoid and defensive and be driven to make bad choices all over again. It’s a cycle that needs to stop. Not just for the criminals’ sake, but society’s as a whole. And think about what that lifestyle does to the criminal’s soul. Should they be doomed to make bad choices for life and risk eternal damnation just because no one offered them forgiveness when they needed it most? Matthew 18:6-7

Mercy everyone. It’s healthy for all.

 

[Clevus]

I agree. The Church’s Privilege of Clergy promulgation of the 17th century had that same spirit. The intent was to have one time convictions removed from the books. The government agreed. It was extended to cover all the Faithful. It was dropped in the early 1800’s I think. The convicted was only made to recite a line of scripture to be released. The policy was an implicit recognition that the state had no understanding of restorative justice and fair treatment of it’s citizens.

The state has no permission to administer non condign punishment. No one has the right to turn citizens in to a corrupt system, and that is the first criteria prior to any turnovers. ALL sentencing in control of the state needs to be proclaimed at sentencing, so that the citizens can check the scale of justice against the amount presently paid. Baggage sentencing such has rejection from military and civil service are applied but not stated at sentencing. In fact, the Church allows for prior offenders to exact occult compensation for the non condign portion of the payment. The System has been analyzed and found to be rife with career protection among it’s ministers, incompetence and prejudice.

 

[mikekle]

Agreed. Not to mention, someone with a permanent criminal record can get paranoid and defensive and be driven to make bad choices all over again. It’s a cycle that needs to stop. Not just for the criminals’ sake, but society’s as a whole. And think about what that lifestyle does to the criminal’s soul. Should they be doomed to make bad choices for life and risk eternal damnation just because no one offered them forgiveness when they needed it most? Matthew 18:6-7

Mercy everyone. It’s healthy for all.

Theres the prison industry too, like any big industry, they must propose and support things that will grow their industry, but this industry has an upper hand that others do not, they have the Govt at their back, to ensure future business is great, so if a convicted felon cannot get a decent enough job to support themselves on, well, that pretty much guarantees they will return to crime…and thats good for future business. Its no surprise stock in prison companies is soaring.

Its also very lucrative for law enforcement agencies, more convicted felons for life mean more and more need for LE personnel, larger budgets, more authority, etc etc. The police state will continue to grow and grow.