Compassion for dying convicts | Page 5 | INFJ Forum

Compassion for dying convicts

LucyJr said:
This is so funny. Just yesterday I was talking with my ENTP friend, and I asked him why he has such a pleasure in trolling guys with big egos. He said to me he doesn't know, he just have this desire to annoy them in any possible ways...:D :D
Click to expand...

ENTPs get their confidence from absorbing everything around them. They're very quick at picking things up. They don't need pesky facts, or science proofs, or the need to go home and think about what happened. They get things almost instantaneously because they intuit everything. That doesn't mean they can build a motor just by looking at it, but they will understand the basic concepts. The underlying truths to things. This makes them pretty wise pretty quickly. They may totally suck at memorizing terminology or quoting specific people, but they can communicate the same knowledge and wisdom in their own way.

SOOOOOOOOO.......their confidence comes from a holistic or "big picture" understanding of their surroundings (they are Ne after all, Intuiting/Absorbing everything external, people, things, ideas, etc.) While a cocky type that is so because has large muscles, or a type that is really good at technical debating, these guys will get SMOKED by an ENTP (maybe an ENFP too) because of their ability to see through the bullshit and utilize unorthodox tools and techniques, often just made up on the spot, on the fly. ya dig?

It's ALSO possible, I'm talking entirely out of my ass.

Edit: sorry for derailing, add ENTP here.
 
Last edited:
digitalbum said:
Boy you are like, obsessed with Kindness, haha.

Maybe it's an INFJ thing.

I mean, look at this dying guy's eyes, he's remorseful. His soul is plain to see to me.

His entire family has shunned him, and I'm not saying I blame them. It takes a person of great compassion to show kindness like this. But this seems to me a criminal that's paid his dues. Hard not to feel empathy for him, even though this little documentary is clearly one sided.

I had another epiphany. I think the ENTP INFJ connection can be explained by the ENTP's abhorrence of massive egos, which INFJs, in my experience, don't really have. Maybe that's why they get along.

Back on point, I do think sex offenders should be shot on site. Or at least castrated. Ha, oops! Did I say that out loud? True, they are probably victims themselves, but Jesus Christ, you may not be able to control your impulses and it may be argued it's not even your fault, but you sure as HELL are responsible for the consequences. That's a psychological illness that is so repugnant and evil, what good could that person possibly serve considering the utter destruction that kind of behaviour wreaks? (and I'm talking about the ones that ACT on it. I'm guessing there's people that were abused that have those impulses, but also have a conscious, and DON'T act. They work through it). Rabid dogs should be put down, IMO.

I don't see why ALL humans, no matter how heinous their crime, should receive special compassion if they have no remorse. They're animals, no different than others, and in fact, are way WAY worse in terms of the horrors they can commit. Mao Zedong alone, is responsible for killing 60 million people (Hitler was in the minor leagues compared to this guy). I don't know if some people in here think that ALL people deserve kindness(seems like some think so), but if so, that proposition has to hold up to the most extreme examples.
Click to expand...

Do you not think that showing someone compassion and kindness, regardless of their crimes, is one way that we separate ourselves from them? Rise above the hurt they inflicted, and show them that kindness and compassion is much more worthy of their actions?

Again, I am not condoning criminals' actions - but personally, I would rather show compassion than deny it, as I see denying it to be somewhat similar to a criminals action. But again, I am not talking about compassion of justice, simply human to human compassion.

You can either be angry at them for their actions and have it eat away at you and make you lose your humanity. Or you can show them compassion and kindness, and save your own humanity....this sounds overly righteous...but for me, it's kind of how I see it. I'm not saying I practice it 100% of the time, but I do try to do it. Angry and hate are emotions that aren't god for me, and end up making myself worse off...I would rather do the opposite of that. I think this really highlights that what I'm saying is that the idea of kindness to someone is a personal (YOU) thing, and has nothing to do with the other individual. You have to choose to be kind, and the person you want to be- regardless of the other.
 
LucyJr said:
"Appear" is the right word. There is no contradiction there.:)
Click to expand...

I dont believe there is a contradiction but then I dont believe in solo scripture, biblical literalism or the vast majority of theology arising from the reformation or protestantism.

Erasmus and not Luther is my guide.
 
say what said:
Do you not think that showing someone compassion and kindness, regardless of their crimes, is one way that we separate ourselves from them? Rise above the hurt they inflicted, and show them that kindness and compassion is much more worthy of their actions?

Again, I am not condoning criminals' actions - but personally, I would rather show compassion than deny it, as I see denying it to be somewhat similar to a criminals action. But again, I am not talking about compassion of justice, simply human to human compassion.

You can either be angry at them for their actions and have it eat away at you and make you lose your humanity. Or you can show them compassion and kindness, and save your own humanity....this sounds overly righteous...but for me, it's kind of how I see it. I'm not saying I practice it 100% of the time, but I do try to do it. Angry and hate are emotions that aren't god for me, and end up making myself worse off...I would rather do the opposite of that. I think this really highlights that what I'm saying is that the idea of kindness to someone is a personal (YOU) thing, and has nothing to do with the other individual. You have to choose to be kind, and the person you want to be- regardless of the other.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about holding on to hate for someone that killed/abused/molested a family member as this:

"Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned."

Yeah, sure I agree.

If you had a child abused/raped/killed by someone, I would imagine it to be damn near impossible to NOT hate. Even though I think it would hurt you in the end to stay angry your whole life, or even a large portion of it(I don't have kids, but this seems like the worst imaginable nightmare for someone who does)

I'm always touched by those that immediately forgive the criminal. There's plenty of online examples. It's smart, but must take incredible strength to do.

But forgiveness isn't forgetting, and even if a person managed to forgive a criminal for some kind of atrocious act, I still think that criminal should suffer the consequences (I don't think you'd disagree with me here).

And really compassion and kindness is f****** rare in the natural world (not saying it doesn't happen). For humans it's a f****** luxury. I'm kind as f*** to just about every stranger I meet, but I have shelter, and hot and cold running water, plenty of food in my fridge, no one's out to take my food, I have abundance. In the wild, it's a daily fight for survival for most animals.

In the original video, I think it's wonderful and touching the kindness shown to that man. But mostly because, like I said, it seems he was remorseful.

kindness and love are the "most curative herbs and agents in human intercourse" -Nietzsche
 
digitalbum said:
If you're talking about holding on to hate for someone that killed/abused/molested a family member as this:

"Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned."

Yeah, sure I agree.

If you had a child abused/raped/killed by someone, I would imagine it to be damn near impossible to NOT hate. Even though I think it would hurt you in the end to stay angry your whole life, or even a large portion of it(I don't have kids, but this seems like the worst imaginable nightmare for someone who does)

I'm always touched by those that immediately forgive the criminal. There's plenty of online examples. It's smart, but must take incredible strength to do.

But forgiveness isn't forgetting, and even if a person managed to forgive a criminal for some kind of atrocious act, I still think that criminal should suffer the consequences (I don't think you'd disagree with me here).

And really compassion and kindness is f****** rare in the natural world (not saying it doesn't happen). For humans it's a f****** luxury. I'm kind as f*** to just about every stranger I meet, but I have shelter, and hot and cold running water, plenty of food in my fridge, no one's out to take my food, I have abundance. In the wild, it's a daily fight for survival for most animals.

In the original video, I think it's wonderful and touching the kindness shown to that man. But mostly because, like I said, it seems he was remorseful.

kindness and love are the "most curative herbs and agents in human intercourse" -Nietzsche
Click to expand...

I agree with 100% of this!

It's hard to be kind, and it's not practiced much because it's difficult. I don't think I could ever forgive someone who killed someone I loved - I'd like to think I would...but it would be difficult.

I certainly also don't think that criminals shouldn't have to pay for what they did...I grew up with my grams telling me "You do the crime. You do the time!" (it was always followed with a 'time out' or a 'grounding'!!) ...but that never stopped her from being kind to me. You can be punished for your actions, and still maintain your dignity and humanity (through the kindness and respect of others).

Of course, with many things, it's always easier to talk about them, than actually participate in them actively...what matters is that you at least try!
 
Guys.

I dont think the people who are wary about compassion and kindness toward those least likely to reciprocate or respond appropriately with gratitude are the original angry men or anything.

What about personal responsiblity? What about consequences? I'm not wanting to be pedantic but you know I just dont see how this does any good. There's plenty of people who deserve and need compassion and kindness, offenders are on the list but they come very poor seconds to a lot of others, not least their victims.

In most liberal, western societies the authorities are already anything but punitive and actually do an amazing job of mitigating the possible consequences of some seriously deviant, delinquent and destructive behaviour. In most of the sorts of societies we are discussing, for instance, killers dont need to fear the vengence of anyones kinfolk, they get room and board, education and training opportunities not open to the rest of the population as of right, if they are injured or intimidated while in prison they are eligible for compensation and in at least one prison in the UK they had to deal with offenders breaking into the facility because they decided conditions were preferable to life on the outside.

Now I'm not for a single instant arguing that those conditions be changed or eliminated or that prisoners should be deprived of anything else after being deprived of their essential liberty, whether they are that caring about their essential liberty being forfeit or not, but I'm mentioning it because, with resorting to absrudist rhetoric, we as a society are being pretty compassionate already.
 
Lark said:
Guys.

I dont think the people who are wary about compassion and kindness toward those least likely to reciprocate or respond appropriately with gratitude are the original angry men or anything.

What about personal responsiblity? What about consequences? I'm not wanting to be pedantic but you know I just dont see how this does any good. There's plenty of people who deserve and need compassion and kindness, offenders are on the list but they come very poor seconds to a lot of others, not least their victims.

In most liberal, western societies the authorities are already anything but punitive and actually do an amazing job of mitigating the possible consequences of some seriously deviant, delinquent and destructive behaviour. In most of the sorts of societies we are discussing, for instance, killers dont need to fear the vengence of anyones kinfolk, they get room and board, education and training opportunities not open to the rest of the population as of right, if they are injured or intimidated while in prison they are eligible for compensation and in at least one prison in the UK they had to deal with offenders breaking into the facility because they decided conditions were preferable to life on the outside.

Now I'm not for a single instant arguing that those conditions be changed or eliminated or that prisoners should be deprived of anything else after being deprived of their essential liberty, whether they are that caring about their essential liberty being forfeit or not, but I'm mentioning it because, with resorting to absrudist rhetoric, we as a society are being pretty compassionate already.
Click to expand...

Personal responsibility is on the criminal- you can make someone take responsibility for their actions - nor do I think this has anything to do with my own action of kindness towards them.

I'm not saying to take kindness away from another person and give it to a criminal - I'm simply saying that if given the chance to be kind to them, are you going to deny them that simply because of their past?
 
say what said:
Personal responsibility is on the criminal- you can make someone take responsibility for their actions - nor do I think this has anything to do with my own action of kindness towards them.

I'm not saying to take kindness away from another person and give it to a criminal - I'm simply saying that if given the chance to be kind to them, are you going to deny them that simply because of their past?
Click to expand...

If it interfers with their punishment, sure, I'm not going to mitigate it in any way.

Because you do the crime you do the time. You cant do the time dont do the crime.

They're responsible for the crime so they cant argue with the consequences. Its got to be as simple as that and people have got to be as aware of that as possible in order to make their choices and take their consequences.
 
Lark said:
If it interfers with their punishment, sure, I'm not going to mitigate it in any way.

Because you do the crime you do the time. You cant do the time dont do the crime.

They're responsible for the crime so they cant argue with the consequences. Its got to be as simple as that and people have got to be as aware of that as possible in order to make their choices and take their consequences.
Click to expand...

Is there any pragmatic reason for this, or is it just because?

This really seems to be a side issue here because from a pragmatic standpoint, nothing actually says that punishment has to be interfered with.

However, even if it is interfered with in the most technical of ways, e.g. shaving a couple years off an already mostly served 20+ year sentence, are you saying that in all cases the sentence must be served down to the very last second and that absolutely no reprieve should be allowed ever?

Because if you're saying that, I cannot see the practical application of it other than going by the book just because. It doesn't take any thought to hold this stance.
 
sprinkles said:
Is there any pragmatic reason for this, or is it just because?

This really seems to be a side issue here because from a pragmatic standpoint, nothing actually says that punishment has to be interfered with.

However, even if it is interfered with in the most technical of ways, e.g. shaving a couple years off an already mostly served 20+ year sentence, are you saying that in all cases the sentence must be served down to the very last second and that absolutely no reprieve should be allowed ever?

Because if you're saying that, I cannot see the practical application of it other than going by the book just because. It doesn't take any thought to hold this stance.
Click to expand...

7
 
[MENTION=4115]Lark[/MENTION]

Also if you were bothered because I escalated things then don't worry. I do that some times. I was just excitable that day, it wasn't personal or anything.

You make interesting discussions even when I don't agree with you so it's not like, you know. I'm not being spiteful or anything. I just am that way some times. It's different than fighting with you so don't worry about it but if it did bother you, I'm sorry.
 
sprinkles said:
@Lark

Also if you were bothered because I escalated things then don't worry. I do that some times. I was just excitable that day, it wasn't personal or anything.

You make interesting discussions even when I don't agree with you so it's not like, you know. I'm not being spiteful or anything. I just am that way some times. It's different than fighting with you so don't worry about it but if it did bother you, I'm sorry.
Click to expand...

27
 
Lark said:
7
Click to expand...

Hmm. How do we play this game? Maybe you really don't give a shit and are just toying with me because maybe I'll be the one who gets upset.

Or maybe you can't stand it and want to have the last word and you want to antagonize me, but it takes two for that and if you keep going that makes you only a little bitch.

Or maybe you're trying to make me think that you don't care but actually in your subconscious I really grind your gears.

Or maybe you think you're trying to teach me some kind of lesson.

Which hand shall I play into? I could take a fifth option and be 'mature' and just walk away, but really I have no motivation to do that because I really don't care about maturity or reputation, and really in all the cases you're still being a bitch. I don't really lose anything from my perspective by confronting you on this. In some cases the stress of such a gamble hurts me, but really you're not personally worth so much, so that is unlikely. It won't likely bother me to do a pissing match with you.

I'm not sure that it could actually get to you though. Is a direct hit possible? What do I gain? Maybe it might be enjoyable to puzzle out what the hell you're exactly doing though. To let you keep posting these stupid numbers at me.

Yeah I think I'll just go with it and see which one you are up to.
 
To take personal responsibility for something like murder sounds absurd. "Well I killed a guy, I guess I have to be forced into a cage now." How is that personal responsibility?
 
i dont have anything against other people being kind to criminals, and actually i support people who want to do this. but i personally dislike people who commit crimes such as rape and murder, i am judging of them, i dislike them on a personal level and want nothing to do with them. there is an element there that they have been screwed by a system that did not care for them or educate them properly, but then again, many people who have the same unkind upbringings manage to grow up fine and work towards something they believe in that contributes to society. and additionally, there are people who become rapists and murderers who have achieved respectable professional standing and family lives and have had no apparent disadvantage in their past at all. i admit sometimes people are driven to commit terrible crimes by traumas in their past that have turned them into aggressive and angry victims, and actually, i live with a person like that! but a lot of the time, criminal perpetrators are just absolute jerks, full stop. and i think it is disrespectful to the real victims in the equation, to indiscriminately perceive criminal perpetrators as victims, it voids the responsibility of the criminal act. "we are all victims here" just doesnt seem fair to the legitimate victims. and i dont think its accurate.

if recidivism rates are anything to go by, punishment by incarceration isnt a very effective way of preventing repeat offense. if anything it probably gives criminals more opportunities to identify themselves as criminal in more ingrained ways and to form connections with other criminals where they could learn more effective ways of committing crimes. im not saying that all people who are incarcerated are like this, or even that there is a better system for dealing with this than incarceration, just that i think punishment as education is totally misguided and ineffective. i understand that victims want retribution but i think that we need the system to be "bigger" than that. no amount of punishment can ever undo the damage that has been caused, or assist the victims to integrate understandings and implications of what has happened to them in meaningful and lasting ways, and for those reasons i think it is almost completely futile to inflict punishment in pursuit of retribution. imprisonment represents an expense to the state and its primary function should be to remove people who represent a threat to society until they can be determined as no longer representing that threat, until they respect the rules of society and play nice by those rules.

not intended to respond to all the arguments presented in the thread. just my 2c.
 
[MENTION=1814]invisible[/MENTION]
Yeah, and besides there's some times evidence that punishment doesn't really work as a deterrent in the first place. I'm talking deterrent for people who haven't yet become offenders.

Many large gangs for example simply continue to run their gang in prison as well as out of it, going as far as to use prison to recruit members. For some of them a convict might as well be a liaison to the outside gang, and being a convict is almost a badge which brings a lot of street cred.

These organizations know the risk of prison and take it into account.
 
  • Like
Reactions: invisible
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back