I feel that Justice and Mercy are equal. However, if a true violation has occurred then mercy requires true repentance from the offender and a real desire to change. If there's no repentance then mercy is simply a license to offend.
Justice vs. Mercy
- Thread starter Julia
- Start date
Several point I will make which may inccur a few dents into your post here.
Not all vantage points are equal, each one has costs/benefits to it, but not all results equal the same. It is not (benefit)14-(cost)4=10, (benefit)18-(cost)8=10. It is (benefit)7-(cost)4=3, (benefit)16-(cost)4=12
Now where the hell am I getting these measurements?
Society adopts a view to increase security and stability, and will usually pick the most efficient and state empowering philosophy, if the major values keep on changing, you’ll see a drop in both security and stability. The social contract and the existence of government is opting out of certain freedoms in order to provide the three things listed above. Stability and Security are the corner stone of both society and government, efficiently not so much, but it is obviously preferred.
There are many theories of crimes out there, Neutralization and Differential Association theory of crime would say so, but Labeling and Attachment theory say otherwise (there are obviously more theories than theses four, and all have their place in certain circumstances).
Also the social contract is different for each government, a violation is a breech onto that contract, and as long as you are using life resources that that government provides as long as there is interdependence, then the contract is applicable to you. Also mercy would be largely dependant of judicial discretion, which leads to indeterminate sentencing. So by those standards, justice is “more” objective than mercy.
Am I saying mercy is bad no, but it is generally applied with lesser crimes. What are your thoughts on my examples?
If criminal A murders and rapes his girlfriend, and later you find out that he has had a bad childhood, works in a dead end job, and after finding out that his now ex girlfriend was leaving him. Do we offer a lighter sentence because he had it rough? Do we understand his plight?
Criminal B has a starving family, so he goes into a shop armed with a gun in an attempt to rob the place, an unexpected struggle occurs and he kills the clerk. Though his goal was just to rob for money, but a murder did occur, do we understand? What about the now unsure livelihood of the clerk’s family?
Lets go with different views here, Criminal C came from Saudi Arabia. He was caught beating his wife for disobedience. Under his previous government this was quite legal, but under current western government, this is now illegal. He claims he has done nothing wrong, asserting freedom of religion and the practice there of. Do we understand him and thus with understanding change the rules? Or do we just understand yet maintain current conditions? Out of leniency we let him off, but the event occurs again, what then?
Examples to ponder about anyways, but to readdress the theme again, Justice is inscribed into the social contract and slowly changes, while mercy requires digression, which come to more varied results.
Not all vantage points are equal, each one has costs/benefits to it, but not all results equal the same. It is not (benefit)14-(cost)4=10, (benefit)18-(cost)8=10. It is (benefit)7-(cost)4=3, (benefit)16-(cost)4=12
Now where the hell am I getting these measurements?
Society adopts a view to increase security and stability, and will usually pick the most efficient and state empowering philosophy, if the major values keep on changing, you’ll see a drop in both security and stability. The social contract and the existence of government is opting out of certain freedoms in order to provide the three things listed above. Stability and Security are the corner stone of both society and government, efficiently not so much, but it is obviously preferred.
There are many theories of crimes out there, Neutralization and Differential Association theory of crime would say so, but Labeling and Attachment theory say otherwise (there are obviously more theories than theses four, and all have their place in certain circumstances).
Also the social contract is different for each government, a violation is a breech onto that contract, and as long as you are using life resources that that government provides as long as there is interdependence, then the contract is applicable to you. Also mercy would be largely dependant of judicial discretion, which leads to indeterminate sentencing. So by those standards, justice is “more” objective than mercy.
Am I saying mercy is bad no, but it is generally applied with lesser crimes. What are your thoughts on my examples?
If criminal A murders and rapes his girlfriend, and later you find out that he has had a bad childhood, works in a dead end job, and after finding out that his now ex girlfriend was leaving him. Do we offer a lighter sentence because he had it rough? Do we understand his plight?
Criminal B has a starving family, so he goes into a shop armed with a gun in an attempt to rob the place, an unexpected struggle occurs and he kills the clerk. Though his goal was just to rob for money, but a murder did occur, do we understand? What about the now unsure livelihood of the clerk’s family?
Lets go with different views here, Criminal C came from Saudi Arabia. He was caught beating his wife for disobedience. Under his previous government this was quite legal, but under current western government, this is now illegal. He claims he has done nothing wrong, asserting freedom of religion and the practice there of. Do we understand him and thus with understanding change the rules? Or do we just understand yet maintain current conditions? Out of leniency we let him off, but the event occurs again, what then?
Examples to ponder about anyways, but to readdress the theme again, Justice is inscribed into the social contract and slowly changes, while mercy requires digression, which come to more varied results.
Last edited: