After hearing everyone talk during/after the case studies, I've come to believe that we, as a society and a classroom, often have fundamentally different ideas about the purpose of our justice system.
For example, I believe that the justice system is meant to rehabilitate, to make criminals into functioning members of society. Therefore, I believe in light sentences and solving economic or medical problems before resorting to prison.
On the other hand, many people feel that the justice system is for exactly that—justice. They feel that people who commit crimes should be punished to deter others and to allow the victim and/or their family to recover. They tend to believe that crime is a moral failing, and push for longer sentences.
This kind of dispute means that we often are talking past each other, and we really need to define terms before talking. It's this disconnect, where I can see their point, but I think it's brutal, and they can see my point, but they think I'm idealistic. Understanding that this conflict exists explains a lot of the arguments we, as a country, have about prison and punishment today, such as about the death penalty.
I completely agree, obviously in a country with several billion people opinions are going to differ. I think that even though we may be able to "see" the other side of the argument, we don't necessarily take the time to understand it or really figure out what they're saying and why. This is a fundamental problem in our country, everyone becomes attached to their own arguments and ignores the other side and it ends up making things worse.
ReplyDelete