A Common Humanity

I am amazed at how accuratly this book defines humanity. Only in the first chapter have two things stood out to me greatly. Firstly it talks about the justice system

"We insist that criminals be bought to justice for many reasons, but two of them are particularly important. First, because we owe it to the victims that the wrong they suffered be acknoledged by their community. Secondly, because we owe justice to the criminals, and our insistence that it is owed to them no matter what they have done is the insistence that they remain memebers of our community no matter what they have done. That partly defines the kind of community we are and what it means to be a member of it"

The second part is what amazed me, he puts forward the idea that it would be inhumane to not incarcerate guilty criminals for their own good as well as the communtiy...true

Secondly,
"Children come to love their brothers and sisters because they see them in the light of their parents love. Often, we learn that something is precious only when we see it in the light of someone's love"

Thoughts??

^Who will bring society as a whole to justice? Society as a whole?

That book sounds amazing Llama, who is the author and is the thread title the actual book title?

As for the issue, I would hope that most people in here would have the understanding to try and look at the contributing factors which in many cases strongly encourage people to crime. Things like family socilazation, poverty, lack of community resources or unity and poor education/opportunities. It's a sorry indicator of any society when all the blame for a crime is placed solely on the criminal. I know there are people who have hard core beliefs about justice, particularly in cases of sexual attack, but even then questions must be asked about why a person would develope into a sexual predator. Punish them, of course, they must be made accountable, but for goodness sake, ask why, look around and see the pressures and things missing which made them into the kind of person who would do such a thing.

"after all no child is born a criminal"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5301824.stm

Interesting article on just this subject.

This book sound very interesting, I think I will have to read it.

Agreed, I would say removing the "verifiable" bad seeds before they come into being, is a potent part of the basic selfish gene the evolutionary process invoked to protect what is yours.

By removing your future competition for resources so easily, by eradicating those who will seek the advantage of the low road to thwart your evolutionary trend is, indeed, in your best interests.
Therefore those who would wish to do the killing or w/e other act, to stop the birth of a child who could be considered bad, are just as evil as the madness they wish to eradicate.

"A Common Humanity: Thinking about Love and Truth and Justice by Raimond Gaita"

^yep that's it, by the same guy who wrote Romulus my Father and I was just flicking through the chapters again and one of them was "Truth and the responsibility of intellectuals"---I thought Kevin might like that one

"I think the worst crime a society commits is imposing its ideals on children so they grow up single-mindedly

EX:Racism"

It talks a lot about racism as well but I am yet to reach that chapter

"When will society on a whole be brought to justice"

Never, there will always be divisions, always be injustice, inequality and racism, I do not wish or agree with this but it is.

I thought it was a given that we would all realise that environmental factors would have to come into play. I was simply pointing out the fact that Gaita believes that it offers benefit to the criminal itself as well as society. Now this of course will come down to opinion, but you do hear those who have been to prison talking about how it was the exact catalyst that helped them. A lot of self reflection. Don't get me wrong it is never a place I would want to wish upon anyone but we cannot let people go around committing crimes with no incentive to stop simply because of their background. Now when we are talking about serial killers and rapists we could get into another entire debate about nature v nurture but the point is its choice. Sure making the right choice maybe harder to accomplish then people who come from easier backgrounds yet does that mean we should let them off because of this? If so how do we define what is consider 'bad enough' and when is 'too much'. Then we have to consider what about those who commit the same crime but whose background could be considered fine. Really as unfair or as wrong as it may be the fact is those who are disadvantaged will be more likely to commit a crime, yes this should be taken into account yet it should not completely excuse them.