3 ms·

> Saleh showed compassion and that may have been a reason why he ended up dying in the end. This. He wanted to give that guy a second chance by not involving t

> Saleh showed compassion and that may have been a reason why he ended up dying in the end. This. He wanted to give that guy a second chance by not involving the authorities, which shows how good hearted Saleh was. The murderer needs to spend the rest of his life in prison, for a crime he obviously premeditated.

dmos62 6y ago
Innocent until proven guilty.
- braythwayt 6y ago
  Well let’s agree that there is a murderer, and that having committed murder, the murder needs to receive the sharp end of the justice stick. depending upon your Ideas around morality, that means one or more of punishment because “an eye for an eye,” punishment because of some debatable ideas around deterrence, removal from society because the murder is a threat to commit more crimes, and/or rehabilitation because life in prison does nothing except enrich prison contractors at the expense of taxpayers.... Or because civilized societies try to rehabilitate wrongdoers wherever it is a realistic possibility. All that being said, this particular person is innocent until proven guilty. But ideally the murderer—whoever they are—will end up with one or more of these consequences, administered in a fair and transparent manner.
- loeg 6y ago
  GP said "the murderer," not "the suspect."
  - justincredible 6y ago
    The implied assumption of his comment is that the two are one in the same.
- lelanthran 6y ago
  > Innocent until proven guilty. Surely the murderer, by definition, isn't innocent? The suspect they have might be though.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  The phrase is "presumed innocent until proven guilty." Whoever committed the crime was guilty from that moment.
lopmotr 6y ago
It's not clear that giving a criminal a second chance by not reporting him is compassionate. It may be compassionate to that individual but at the expense of his potential future victims. It's favoring the interests of the closer people over of the interests of strangers and is generally a selfish way to behave. Unless you believe the justice system is wrong and nobody who does that crime should be convicted for it. In that case, it's standing up for what you believe in at the only opportunity you have to do so.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  This is an astute observation and well demonstrates how challenging moral decisions can be.
- c22 6y ago
  It's pretty clear that reporting a first time criminal, at least in America, is all but guaranteed to cement their life of crime and ensure there are future victims. Not because the justice system is wrong in what it punishes, but because it is wrong in how it addresses these sorts of problems. Deploying some compassion in an attempt to short circuit this demented cycle doesn't sound selfish to me. It sounds like the only civic thing to do.
- cglace 6y ago
  You're assuming a lot of things. 1) That jail time will prevent long term future victims (it won't) 2) That jail will rehabilitate him (it won't) 3) That being compassionate will cause him to commit more crimes. In this case it did, however, I believe this is a pretty big outlier.

dmos62 6y ago

Innocent until proven guilty.

braythwayt 6y ago
Well let’s agree that there is a murderer, and that having committed murder, the murder needs to receive the sharp end of the justice stick. depending upon your Ideas around morality, that means one or more of punishment because “an eye for an eye,” punishment because of some debatable ideas around deterrence, removal from society because the murder is a threat to commit more crimes, and/or rehabilitation because life in prison does nothing except enrich prison contractors at the expense of taxpayers.... Or because civilized societies try to rehabilitate wrongdoers wherever it is a realistic possibility. All that being said, this particular person is innocent until proven guilty. But ideally the murderer—whoever they are—will end up with one or more of these consequences, administered in a fair and transparent manner.
loeg 6y ago
GP said "the murderer," not "the suspect."
- justincredible 6y ago
  The implied assumption of his comment is that the two are one in the same.
lelanthran 6y ago
> Innocent until proven guilty. Surely the murderer, by definition, isn't innocent? The suspect they have might be though.
mannykannot 6y ago
The phrase is "presumed innocent until proven guilty." Whoever committed the crime was guilty from that moment.

lopmotr 6y ago

It's not clear that giving a criminal a second chance by not reporting him is compassionate. It may be compassionate to that individual but at the expense of his potential future victims. It's favoring the interests of the closer people over of the interests of strangers and is generally a selfish way to behave. Unless you believe the justice system is wrong and nobody who does that crime should be convicted for it. In that case, it's standing up for what you believe in at the only opportunity you have to do so.

michaelmrose 6y ago
This is an astute observation and well demonstrates how challenging moral decisions can be.
c22 6y ago
It's pretty clear that reporting a first time criminal, at least in America, is all but guaranteed to cement their life of crime and ensure there are future victims. Not because the justice system is wrong in what it punishes, but because it is wrong in how it addresses these sorts of problems. Deploying some compassion in an attempt to short circuit this demented cycle doesn't sound selfish to me. It sounds like the only civic thing to do.
cglace 6y ago
You're assuming a lot of things. 1) That jail time will prevent long term future victims (it won't) 2) That jail will rehabilitate him (it won't) 3) That being compassionate will cause him to commit more crimes. In this case it did, however, I believe this is a pretty big outlier.