Wouldn’t a more rational approach to punishment to be one that puts (with certain constraints – freedom, privacy, cost and maybe a few others) minimizing crime above everything else?
I don’t care how I feel about a certain punishment as long as it gets its job done. There are the least murders if you legalize murder (unlikely)? Fine, legalize it.
Sure, you might want to minimize or maximize other things. The happiness of the victims (or their family and friends). The happiness of the people reading or hearing about the punishments. But that feels rather superficial to me. I guess that’s a judgment call.
Now, we don’t really know whether this law actually gets the job done (and insofar, I am pretty split on this case) but at the very least, I have become quite careful when evaluating punishments (stripping certain rights to privacy away would be a punishment) with my feelings.
I see how what I said comes off rather emotional vs. rational(/logical). I agree that they should get a punishment that fits the crime. In fact I feel that so much that I think that each time a crime is committed, the person should get an individualized punishment regardless of what other punishments have been in the past. The punishment should fit the person and the crime. (Of course there should be guidelines w/e we don't want to hear me ramble =p)
However, I found it oddly ironic that the punishment they got for killing an actor was fame, and they didn't want the fame, which I personally believe they deserved for murder. And I was expressing that they got what they deserved, imho.
> However, I found it oddly ironic that the punishment they got for killing an actor was fame,
That's not the punishment they got. They were given a prison sentence which lasted approx. 15 years. That's the punishment they got. The fame is a side effect.
You are correct. I should have said "a punishment"; however, even that would be technically incorrect.
But I guess what I mean is that the fame is pure karma which they shouldn't be allowed to rid themselves of because they committed murder. (I assume murder because "they were sentenced to life in prison.")
Apparently the dominant legal view in Germany (and I guess in more parts of Europe) is that once a sentence is served, the crime is dealt with. If society believes that the sentences are too light, it can change the law, but once a judge has pronounced a sentence, and it's served in the proper way, that's it.
"Fame" is a way of society to hand out punishments outside of the courts of law. Such an extrajudicial punishment is especially annoying when there are mitigating circumstances. Usually those are details that courts bother with, but public opinion doesn't.
(Now, that doesn't mean this particular case is easy. Wikipedia also records history. History records the identity of many killers and I believe in a lot of cases that can be an important historical fact. Balancing rights rarely is easy, so I'm happy that we have independent professionals that spent a lot of time thinking about these issues.)
I don’t care how I feel about a certain punishment as long as it gets its job done. There are the least murders if you legalize murder (unlikely)? Fine, legalize it.
Sure, you might want to minimize or maximize other things. The happiness of the victims (or their family and friends). The happiness of the people reading or hearing about the punishments. But that feels rather superficial to me. I guess that’s a judgment call.
Now, we don’t really know whether this law actually gets the job done (and insofar, I am pretty split on this case) but at the very least, I have become quite careful when evaluating punishments (stripping certain rights to privacy away would be a punishment) with my feelings.
Man, I’m rambling :)