A Thunk is a beguilingly simple-looking question about everyday things that stops you in your tracks and helps you start to look at the world in a whole new light. © Ian Gilbert.
Thunk 29:
Should a person be punished for a wrong they did 60 years ago?
32 comments:
Yes, but the extent of the punishment should be considered. Because perhaps there are mitigating circumstances that were relevant at the time and now need to be considered.
For example during war time solders may have carried out crimes not of their own decision but carried out under orders of their commanders under the threat of execution if they had disobeyed.
Through history it has come to light that whilst the task was carried out by the individual, it was not of their own free will.
I agree with Charlie. Time doesn't change what they've done, either way somebody suffered. Then again if it was something like not paying a traffic ticket then it should probably just be discarded and today's issues should be more focussed on.
Well, it really depends on the circumstance. Anywhich way, a crime has been convicted and resulted in a victim suffering so it wouldn't really be fair if that guilty person didn't suffer as much.
As previously mentioned, time doesnt change the deed.
Again, it depends on the case.
Firstly, I must say, WOW that is a really old person! Sorry I just couldn't resist! :P
How do you define wrong? Is it someone telling a lie to their mother or committing a gang rape?
It is necessary to assess the extent of crime committed and the time.
Considering the fact that 60 years ago was probably around the 1950's, a lot of racial,religious and moral issues were considered criminal which in today's world of modernized thought, would definitely not be significant. For example. Abortion.
Also since we are all human here, it would be quite likely that the 60+ person has already had a guilt-full, miserable long life and it would have crossed their mind at some point of time about what their life could have been like if they had not carried out this 'deed'.
Again taking age into account, at that ripe old age, I doubt that someone would not be ready to face death as an old friend or even a 'life imprisonment', which would hardly be relevant don't you think?
First I must ask: sir, by any chance did you get the idea of this thunk by watching cold case? :P
Slightly rephrasing what Sabrina said: Time doesn’t change the crime, but it just ‘might’ have changed the person.
Nonetheless a crime is a crime, and someone had to undergo it either way. Even if the person committed it over 60 years ago, justice must be served. (unless we’re talking about a minor wrong, which in that case could be discarded or ignored)
But if it were a situation where lives were lost, then yes! by all means they should be punished. Look at it from this point of view, what if you were a baby and your parents were shot by some malevolent maniac or some out of controlled psycho, and you had to grow up your whole life not knowing the feeling of warmth,comfort or love from your biological parents. Wouldn’t you start wondering what your parents were like? How they acted, how they felt? and as you head towards your adolescent years wouldn’t you start wondering ‘who’ killed your parents and moreover ‘why?’ And when you do finally find the killer wouldn’t you seek for some justice, for what they did to your parents? For what they’ve put you through?
To conclude, if we’re speaking minor or trivial wrongs, then no I think it should be ignored but if we’re speaking murder wise, then yes a person should be punished no matter how long ago they committed the crime.
Yes, a crime that was committed 60 years ago should be punished BUT as already mentioned it depends on the type of crime. I think that if the crime committed involved another person being hurt, injured or in someway harmed, then that crime should be punished (according to its magnitude.)
Aisha Bashir.
Well, I guess it depends on what the wrong committed was. For something extreme like murder, I believe the person should be punished, but for something like shop-lifting, it wouldnt really make much sense.
But I guess it also depends on person to person, for example in a murder case, if the family forgives the murderer, because it might have been a genuine mistake or because it was 60 years ago and life has moved on, I guess that would be the end of it!
Shennin, no I haven't watched "Cold Case."
Perhaps some of you might want to make a connection with the previous thunk which asks whether you are the same person you were ten years ago. Many of you said no. Does it follow then that a person shouldn't be punished decades later for a crime done in the past?
Yes, because a crime is still a crime. If someone was for example, charged with a crime 60 years after they committed it, it would probably be because the crime was relevant and was never solved.
Perhaps the punishment should be lessened if the person had a low level of criminal activity afterwards the incident and felt genuine remorse.
But personally, I feel if a criminal felt genuine remorse, he would probably have come clean to get closure. A person who feels truly sorry for something would'nt be able to hold that kind of guilt in.
Really, no, I don't think so.
My decision really does depend on the scale of the wrong-doing, but really, people change. Just like in the previous post; we think after 10 years, a person changes, so could you imagine the changes a person experiences in 60 YEARS?
Criminals are brought forward in a court of law, to judge whether they did something wrong and how they should be punished. And it's the same case for a crime from 60 years ago. The accused will stand before the court and the evidence will be brought before the judge and/or jury.
The only thing that matters in my opinion, is whether they have changed. And it's like Mr. Roberts said, people change over the years and a changed man does not deserve to go to prison for something he did when he was a different person.
How do you judge such a thing? The judge and jury should be able to figure that out, since hopefully the defendant will try and prove that he has changed.
This somehow reminds me of Gupta from The Terminal.
As people have already mentioned here, a person may change, and 60 years is a very long time.
A lot of things must be put in consideration though.
1. A crime is still a crime. Thus they should pay for what they have done, though it depends on the magnitude of the crime..
Time cannot erase what you've done, what sufferings you've caused, and the number of people you've hurt, regardless of whether you've changed.
Granted, you may have been a different person then, but you have to pay the price of your actions.
2. The era.
For example, there was a time that this was a law in New York City:
A fine of $25 can be levied for flirting. This old law specifically prohibits men from turning around on any city street and looking "at a woman in that way."
So, yeah, you get the picture. It would be ridiculous to punish the man 60 years after he did the deed -__-
3. The wish of the plaintiff.
There isn't a definite yes or no for this thunk, since to get to an answer, one must ask a lot of questions. :)
Arizza, it wasn't Gupta's fault though :( :P
And about the thunk. Yes, in some ways. I mean for example Charles Manson was responsible for a lot of murders back in the 60s, I think he should still be punished. Just because you did something wrong a long time ago does not mean you shouldn't own up for the crime you've committed.
Although I guess reducing the punishment is a reasonable thing to do if the person who committed the crime is repentant. But nevertheless "Don't do the crime, If you can't do the time." :P
Nikol11g1
I too agree that the punishment would depend on the crime itself. But being punished for something that happened decades ago is just unreasonable and rash. Even if it was something like a murder, by the time the punishment is handed out not only will it be tremendously late but it will also be irrational.
Yes, regardless of the time the crime had occurred, justice needs to be prevailed. I think when people commit crimes, consequences NEED to be faced. That particular crime could have killed a person and it is morally incorrect if we don't take action against it just because it had been committed 60 years ago.
Then again, it depends on the degree of the crime committed as well. Laws have changed drastically since the past 60 years. Something that may have been prohibited 60 years ago could be considered acceptable in society now.
I suppose a punishment can only be decided after taking into account the crime committed.
I agree with the fact that it depends on the crime itself. If it is a "serious" crime then yes, the person should still pay - not matter how much time has passed.
With what Sir said, even if you're not the same person you used to be; that is not an excuse for say, murdering someone. What goes around comes around.
A crime is a crime no matter when is was performed and sooner or later they'll have to be punished for it. Its law.
But i think its more sensible to observe wether the crime that had been executed still has an effect on people in present time. Has anyone else been sent to bars for it? Is anyone else suffering for it even until today? If not, i dont see any reason why the criminal should face a heavy punishment.
LOL! If the person is still alive. The punishment should stay the same. Even though you committed the crime 60 years ago and changed "internally"
a crime is a crime and the wrong- doer must suffer the consequences.
Well like everyone has mention a crime is a crime! Everyone should be punished for any wrong they have done which has harmed the society or anyone in general. However if you have done a wrong 60 years ago it is not sensible to be punished for it. 60 years is a lot of time and people change in a matter of 1 year so that someone must have changed dramatically into a better person during these years, it is not fair that a “righteous” man/women is punished for something they did 60 years ago.
Definitely yes, because a crime is a crime and will always remain a crime, no matter whether its a crime committed 100 years before or a year before. The person has done something very wrong, so therefore, he/she must be punished.
If a person can change in ten years then I don't think someone should be punished after 60 years.
By then the person may not be in a stable condition due to age.
People always have their reasons for doing what they do.
Of course they should,
does the time difference from when the person did it and now make a difference in the fact that they committed a crime? I would think not whether it was last week or last year they committed a crime and should be punished for it.
Too not punish the person is like saying oh you've manage to get away with it for so long we might as well let it go een though innocent people probably suffered because of it.
According to me, the punishment depends on the crime. If this particular person had committed a crime such as rape, murder, kidnapping or any other kind on a large scale then yes he/she should be punished even at an old age, whereas if he/she had committed a petty crime such as shoplifting, drinking under age, acquiring a fake I.D or even possessing drugs shouldn’t be taken into much consideration. Here humanity takes place and I feel that it wouldn’t be right to punish a soul that old of an age if they had not committed a crime that had harmed someone else, although if someone had severely been harmed (physically) due to this particular person’s actions then he/she should be punished no matter what age they may be.
Personally i think yes they should be, provided that there is substantial evidence to prosecute them. If it was you that the person affected by the criminal would you want them to go unpunished or would you want justice?
However in events such as wars, they shouldn’t be punished as they were only following orders, such as those working in concentration camps during the rule of Hitler. Should they be punished for following his instructions down to every last word? In the case of solders its either them or you, you have to punish them otherwise it’s you that will be getting punished. It’s a state of survival; we will do what it takes to ensure our own survival over others.
Again it all comes down to an individual’s beliefs, as think that they should be whereas you may think otherwise.
Well, like everyone has said it depends on the extent of the crime, and the depth of the effect on the victim or their family.
But overall, if it was a minor crime, the world has moved on now, and will move on whether or not the person is imprisoned for the last few years of his/her life.
I think it depends on the severity of the crime committed and the reliability of the evidence. 60 year old evidence might not always be what it once was and might be damaged or tampered with.
The seriousness of the crime also needs to be taken into consideration, things like murder are serious and for felonies like that, the offender needs to be punished no matter 6 or 60 years after the crime.
Definitely! Wrong is still wrong no matter how long it has been! A right thing can be left unrewarded but a wrong thing can't be left unpunished!
to be honest, time should have no affect what soever on the crime someone did, no matter the time the crime was still done and should be punished.
It should be according to the crime committed especially murders,rapes,embezzlement. Justice should be served no matter how long it has been.
Many mentioned that the punishment is not necessary because the course of 60 years might have altered the person. That if it's a good change. But what about a bad change?
Sure, everything has its reasons but what reason can drive you to a certain extent you are ready to commit something grave?(Murders,etc.)
But the condition of the accused should be taken into consideration too.
It really does depend on the circumstances.
It depends on the crime, when it was committed, why it was committed. etc. But, obviously, if the crime was something like rape, or murder, maybe asking the criminal WHY they did it doesn't really change much..
I feel that if another persons life was put at risk, or if another person had suffered, then no matter the circumstance, the criminal probably deserves the charges, or the punishment... Time doesn't soften the deed.
If it was a petty crime, like stealing something small, or a speeding ticket, it should definitely be forgotten.
I think time doesn't change the fact that whatever it was, was wrong. True 60 years is a long time, but I don't think the case should be rested. However if it were something that wasn't AS serious as it could be like a petty theft, then ok. But if it were a case of rape, murder or someone heavily abused I don't think time should be an excuse for them to be excused.
There should be some form of retribution for the victim I think or if not, it should be let up to the victims to decide on whether a punishment should be carried through.
Post a Comment