posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 07:09 AM
reply to post by Mr Mask
To more directly address and answer the ethical issue, we don't have to worry about that on two fronts!
1] Because as I showed above the situation does involve an active actor in the subconscious who also observes and is affected by that very observation
that occurs consciously and so there is no need to abrogate the responsibility of the individual from the crime.
2] Because punishment already exists and is a natural part of existence via cause and effect we don't need to assess that as bad because in reality
it is just wild and we can then opt for a less wild alternative after reflecting upon just how wild our decisions were.
Wild = life is short savage and brutal and that's an all around loss!
Less wild = More civilized! Gains can be made here contractually between subconsciousness's and that is called an agreed reality!
Which one will would ones subconscious choose is all that matters to whether ones attitude is positive or negative in direction and the outcomes that
follow from that are also self evident and only natural!
Ultimately criminals don't tend to learn from their mistakes and my proof is the high rate of repeat offenders returning to prisons and this is
because they do not reflect upon their actions in disregarding their contractual duties as a citizen in polite civilized society in a positive light
and the negative reflections create a hell for them and their creation. 3 strikes and you're out rule seems to be a wise reflexive response to that,
however that just creates a financial whirlpool of misery and societal decay when maybe it is better to be more ruthless and simply cut the cancer out
with death penalty for 3rd time offenders.
Sometimes you just have to put a rabid dog down ... doesn't mean you hate them ... look at old yeller!
May justice be tempered by mercy when and where required and not one iota more than that.