> Do we really have the right to the victims that they have an attitude problem if they don't forgive their offenders. The comfort of our crime free existence i

> Do we really have the right to the victims that they have an attitude problem if they don't forgive their offenders. The comfort of our crime free existence is partly possible due precisely 'medieval attitude' . Pardon me, perhaps you're in a country with a "crime free existence." In my country, every week brings new atrocities and mass shootings. I'd expect such an effective strategy to perhaps have a lower total incarceration rate for victim-less crime and be better at prosecuting things like rape and murder. > This is such a non solution. Yea we want to provide more opportunities for everyone, yea we want to live in crime free societies. "Lock people up because it makes victims feel better" is equally unproductive, and we need only look at America's prison population vs our crime rate relative to our peers to see it. > People who haven't been personally victimized by a brutal crime have no right to take moral high ground about the attitudes of victims. I cannot even begin to imagine the range of emotions victims go though. > Its a privilege to be on a moral high ground, who wouldn't want to be there, feels so good. Actually, it is an awful burden. But I don't think that pointing out "a failing, unfair system is not working" is a moral mountain to lecture down from. Your mileage may, of course, vary. But if you think you can browbeat me by suggesting that we must only listen to the most extreme opinions on violent crime by victims of said crime? It's both my right and duty within the context of my citizenship to disagree. I understand some people may passionately disagree, and I accept that conflict. I'm sorry if it's troubling, but I believe punitive justice is observably and obviously flawed and I will not support it simply because you say so.