What is more important, Justice or Mercy?

[crimsonblade1]

Justice is good because it sends a message, those who are criminals and harm other people will be punished for their crimes, and in some cases the penalty could be your life. I have never once felt sorry for a convicted murderer being sentenced to death, I don't care how many people are crying for mercy on the TV screen, I got not a feeling in my heart for them.

[lukertin]

Dude. Your a good person, but you are a logic addict. we can go around and around with this circular argument till the cows come home, but it won't bring us any closer to closure. Logic is a good tool for deduction, but it is rarely used (unless you are a Vulcan) in real life situations. People are not rational or logical. They are emotional beings, trying to find a place in the Sun and possibly someone to share it with. You can continue on debating this, with someone else. I'd rather part here in each others good graces and I wish you luck and happiness in your life. Take care.

The use of logic does not preclude application or consideration of emotion. I can act logically and impute into my actions, my emotion. This entire discussion on the 'illogicality' of committing crime is inherently fallacious, it assumes everyone operates on the same logic, or that there is some ideal logic by which everyone should operate. Both contentions are false.

 

For example, person A's logic may be:

Increasing my wealth is the only thing I am concerned with.

Does this action increase my wealth?

If this action increases my wealth, I shall do it.

 

The logic of person A would cause him to rob every person he encounters, to increase the amount of money he has. Yet, he would (presumably) factor into his decision making process the available wealth of his target, the cost in wealth to him to acquire his target's available wealth, because A would not rob someone to increase his wealth by X when doing so decreases his own wealth by Y, and Y > X.

 

Let's consider person B, whose only concern is some nebulous concern of his optimal well-being, which includes things like freedom, wealth, reputation, mental and physical health, etc. Now, when he is faced with the decision to rob someone, he will act logically to weigh the potential likelihood of enrichment against the potential decrease in his 'optimal well-being'.

 

Person C may be concerned, not only with his optimal well-being, but also the well-being of those around him; person D may be concerned even with the optimal well-being of complete strangers. Person E may weigh the well-being of strangers above his own.

 

It is clear that people operate according to different logics; furthermore, it cannot be said there is any one 'ideal' logic to operate upon, what is ideal for one situation (making the conscious decision to kill someone) may not be ideal for another (making the business decision to forego a safety feature in automobiles that would save 100 lives per year, but add a cost of $10k to the price of the commonly purchased vehicle, let's say, a Toyota Camry).

 

Yet in both cases, this decision will cause harm to the public at large, and whether or not justice is done for the victim (i.e., the public) remains to be seen.

 

This distinction made in this thread between Justice and Mercy as it applies to criminal convictions and sentencing is not clear to me, because the analogous application to civil cases does not apply. A finding of both liability and full damages is required in the interests of justice for a victim who has been harmed by a negligent doctor, or in an automobile accident,-- where is the place for the consideration of Mercy? A reduction of damages (analogous to lenient sentencing) is not mercy to the wrong-doer, it is a amputation of Justice.

 

Now going on before someone accuses me of not recognizing the purposes behind sentencing guidelines, I will stipulate that different types of murder exist. A person who violently butchers a small child and then eats its flesh should not be given the same sentence as a gang member who plans and kills a rival gang member. I would argue the existence of differing sentences for these two wrong-doers does not come out of a sense of mercy, but rather an exercise of Justice.

Edited October 4, 2011 by lukertin