Second Chances

@gotmilk9991,

gotmilk9991;100397 wrote:

Does everyone deserve second chances?

Second chances to do what?

@TickTockMan,

Did John Hinkley Jr. deserve a second chance to kill Reagan?

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;100408 wrote:

Did John Hinkley Jr. deserve a second chance to kill Reagan?

Thats not a second chance, thats a second attempt, within the terms of my questions it does not give a reply. When I say second chances I mean, not is John Hinkley Jr. suitable for a second chance to kill Reagan, does he deserve a second chance to live his life.

@gotmilk9991,

no on ever took his first chance away

@gotmilk9991,

True. He took his own first chance away. But does he deserve, even if he took it away himself, a second chance?

@gotmilk9991,

gotmilk9991;100496 wrote:

True. He took his own first chance away. But does he deserve, even if he took it away himself, a second chance?

What second chance? You must excuse me, but I have absolutely no clue what you're asking.

Perhaps you could elaborate further?

@gotmilk9991,

From what I understanf He's still alive

@gotmilk9991,

Okay, I am assuming that he, Reagan's assaultier, was thrown into jail for his attempt to take the lfie of the President. Does he, or anyone whom commits a crime, deserve a chance to live outside of jail in the real world again, or if someone is on Death Row, do they deserve a chance to "redeem" themselves so they will not be killed. Or to simplify it further, does a lover who cheats on another lover, deserve a second chance with theier first lover?

@gotmilk9991,

gotmilk9991;100617 wrote:

Okay, I am assuming that he, Reagan's assaultier, was thrown into jail for his attempt to take the lfie of the President. Does he, or anyone whom commits a crime, deserve a chance to live outside of jail in the real world again, or if someone is on Death Row, do they deserve a chance to "redeem" themselves so they will not be killed. Or to simplify it further, does a lover who cheats on another lover, deserve a second chance with theier first lover?

Your questions are entirely too broad to answer with a simple "Yes" or "No". I would need to know the details of each case in order to make my evaluation.

In other words, from my perspective, there is no general answer to what you are asking; not everyone deserves a chance to redeem themselves, but some do. And, I'm sure some cases would be highly debatable. If you'd like to present a specific case, you could always provide the details and then post it, in say, the ethics forum (if you constructed the thread in an ethically-relevant way, of course).

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;100635 wrote:

Your questions are entirely too broad to answer with a simple "Yes" or "No". I would need to know the details of each case in order to make my evaluation.

In other words, from my perspective, there is no general answer to what you are asking; not everyone deserves a chance to redeem themselves, but some do. And, I'm sure some cases would be highly debatable. If you'd like to present a specific case, you could always provide the details and then post it, in say, the ethics forum (if you constructed the thread in an ethically-relevant way, of course).

:flowers:

One persistent philosophical fallacy is, the fallacy of asking about nothing in particular.

"What is it to eat mashed potatoes?" "Now let's see".

@gotmilk9991,

gotmilk9991;100617 wrote:

Okay, I am assuming that he, Reagan's assaultier, was thrown into jail for his attempt to take the lfie of the President. Does he, or anyone whom commits a crime, deserve a chance to live outside of jail in the real world again, or if someone is on Death Row, do they deserve a chance to "redeem" themselves so they will not be killed. Or to simplify it further, does a lover who cheats on another lover, deserve a second chance with theier first lover?

As far as jail and redemtion goes, one of the main ideological assumptions about jail is that of redemption, what I think you are asking is more a question of forgivness. In any case it is not what the "criminal' deserves, it cannot be, it is about what the community is willing to forgive. This is the same with a jilted lover what the cheater deserves is not important as what s/he deserves has nothing to do with the outcome of their second chance. The second chance in both these cases are granted by the other's willingingess to forgive, either personally or institutionally.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;100678 wrote:

As far as jail and redemtion goes, one of the main ideological assumptions about jail is that of redemption, what I think you are asking is more a question of forgivness. In any case it is not what the "criminal' deserves, it cannot be, it is about what the community is willing to forgive. This is the same with a jilted lover what the cheater deserves is not important as what s/he deserves has nothing to do with the outcome of their second chance. The second chance in both these cases are granted by the other's willingingess to forgive, either personally or institutionally.

Why can it not be what the criminal (why the quotes I wonder) deserves? It might also be about reformation (certainly not redemption). but it is primarily about desert. And willingness to forgive has nothing to do with desert. The question for the sentencing judge is whether to give the criminal (no quotes) what the criminal (no quotes) deserves, or whether there are mitigating circumstances.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;100813 wrote:

Why can it not be what the criminal (why the quotes I wonder) deserves? It might also be about reformation (certainly not redemption). but it is primarily about desert. And willingness to forgive has nothing to do with desert. The question for the sentencing judge is whether to give the criminal (no quotes) what the criminal (no quotes) deserves, or whether there are mitigating circumstances.

In the broader scope of societal incarceration a criminal is subject to the willingness of the system to "forgive" his/her trespasses. This is a purely functional assessment. The overlying ideology may be about redemption or rehabilitation, but the raw function of the system is retribution and subsequent forgivness. The criminal has no real power to lessen her punishment except that which is already systematically institionalized. Also the "deserving" of a second chance is already instituionalized and represented by the parol system.

No well adjusted person is going to give an unconditional second chance to someone who has seriously offended them. One of the few groups of people who do that are abused women. The institutionalized system however, represents a people as a whole and a people's general ideology in regard to criminals in general.

As a father I may forgive my child a serious trespass but I am thereafter on continuous guard for like offenses. They, no matter how much I love them and want to trust them implicitly, are not given an unconditional second chance, whether or not they get an actual punishment for their trespass.

Thus forgiveness is really not an unconditional second chance but a conditioned parol both institutionally and in most personal cases. It is a response to the desert of the incarceration or punishment not the desert of the offender's supposed rights to move on. The conditional parol is given by the offended party not earned or taken by the offender. The crime has been punished and thus there is no more reson for incarceration, just conscientious monitoring against recitivism.

@GoshisDead,

If we're talking about forgiveness, the answer is no. If you have wronged someone, you have violated their trust. Most people are going to remember this about you when they make future decisions. If someone chooses to forgive you and put you back in their circle of trust, that is an act of mercy and forgiveness. It happens, but it is not something the offender "deserves".

@Kroni,

Kroni;101146 wrote:

If we're talking about forgiveness, the answer is no. If you have wronged someone, you have violated their trust. Most people are going to remember this about you when they make future decisions. If someone chooses to forgive you and put you back in their circle of trust, that is an act of mercy and forgiveness. It happens, but it is not something the offender "deserves".

Why? Everyone has faults, so who are we to tell them that we won't forgive them for thier trespass. What gives us the right to do so? If we hold grudges, isn't all that is doing, is creating our own defaults in such a way that will inhibit others to forgive us of a wrong? Think about yourself, if you hurt someone, and someone didn't forgive you, wouldn't you feel as bad as you could. It may be for the wrong reasons that you feel bad, but shouldn't you still have the right to forgiveness? PEople make msitakes

@gotmilk9991,

gotmilk9991;101240 wrote:

Why? Everyone has faults, so who are we to tell them that we won't forgive them for thier trespass. What gives us the right to do so? If we hold grudges, isn't all that is doing, is creating our own defaults in such a way that will inhibit others to forgive us of a wrong? Think about yourself, if you hurt someone, and someone didn't forgive you, wouldn't you feel as bad as you could. It may be for the wrong reasons that you feel bad, but shouldn't you still have the right to forgiveness? PEople make msitakes

If someone raped and murdered your 3 year old child, do you owe them forgiveness? You can't say that feeling a certain way is morally wrong. Making forgivness a requirement is asking too much of people. It is also belittling towards both the offender and the victim. It implies that the offender doesn't have to take responsibility for their actions because they can just be forgiven for them. It takes away their worth as an agent of morality and reason. It is belittling to the victim because it says that their pain is not as important as someone else's "second chance", or that they don't have a right to be upset with someone who has wronged them.

EDIT: Even God does not say we deserve forgiveness. This is why he calls it "Mercy".

Philosophy Forum

Second Chances

Quick Links

My Account

able2know