Revisiting murder and justice

You may have heard of the expression: “bringing a murderer to justice.” This alleged justice typically involves a prison sentence. As I’ve written previously, the concept of locking criminals up in cages can hardly be called justice. As it does not make the victims whole. Now, making a murder victim whole (bringing them back to life) would be a feat worthy of global live television coverage, but still, there are usually others that are also victimized in sucgh cases, like parents, kin, grieving widows, fatherless children, employers that have to make do with one less valued employee.
So justice should be about the victims, not about what some overlord decides is good them.

Take the example of a dirtbag raping a ten-year-old child. For this vile act he gets sentenced to ten years in prison.
Now, when the child comes of age, it also becomes a tax-victim, meaning that, starting at age 18, the child will have to contribute to the rapist’s room and board for 2 years. How just is that? I’m sure it pleased some “upstanding citizens”, that the crooks have gone to jail for the dreadful crimes, but it,shouldn’t really be about them, now is it?

Also, this presents a sliding scale: Longer jail times, more isolation.
As more and more murderers fill up the cages, more and more people get (rightfully) concerned that all they do there, is receive better treatment than the elderly in retirement homes, while they teach eachother the tricks of the trade, and also escape from jail, you’ll find more and,more upstanding citizens (not necessarily old codgers, but also teenagers) calling for more severe punishments, up to and including the death penalty. Which is proven uneffective in preventing crime.


Published by


I am an author & an anarcharchist

2 thoughts on “Revisiting murder and justice”

  1. “Which is proven uneffective in preventing crime.”


    Aside from the fact that “uneffective” isn’t a word (I’m assuming you meant ineffective?), who, exactly, proved that keeping offenders locked up doesn’t prevent crime? My understanding is the opposite. Following the push in the 80’s to lock up everyone possible, crime rates did, indeed, drop. Now that progressives are pushing to open prison doors, the crime rate is going back up. See recent impacts in California as a case in point.


    1. Prisons are educational establishments for criminals. Imprisoned criminals will get replaced. Look @ San Diego: big push to locck up all kmown heroin dealers, for a whole week it was impossible to get heroin. Within a month, new (more violent), unknown dealers had taken their place, cops yearned for the old dealers. New dealers engaged in turf wars. Because the (turf-) situation hadn’t yet crystallized like it had with the old dealers. If locking people up solves crime, why is there still crime after all this time of locking people up?
      Because aggression breeds aggression, the aged concept of punishing, hurting people for being bad hurts the mentality of society so as to actyally encourage crime.
      Also, there’s recidivism, “revolving-door criminals”, out of jail-back in jail for yet another crime. Punishment apparently does not change the situations these people get into, so more severe punishment likely also won’t.
      This is a reblvious post I made:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s