Letter With Community Involvement Point

offender - victim: revisited (My favorite argument)

found in the magazine today an article that is a question about writing: Will he do it again? The excellent article by Mathias Ninck deals with a custody rapist who in the opinion of all experts for 20 years after his last fact no danger his fellow man is - and yet still remains preserved, even though there is no basis. The basis of protests that does not constitute punishment, the potential danger, which starts from a man who "-not" is treatable.
is now the readers of this page to be known that I am following frightening find:

• the discourse on legal topics in Switzerland of lay out
• principles of law and fair, just, legal action will be ignored by these lay
• solidarity with so-called offenders will be announced, penalties can not be tough enough
• Urteile und Expertisen, welche wissenschaftlich fundiert und alle Aspekte eines Falles einbeziehen, werden vor dem Hintergrund der »Taten« als zu milde abgetan.
  

Dabei ist völlig rätselhaft, warum Juristen, Richter und Psychiater Täter schonen sollten, ihnen zu kürzeren Strafen verhelfen oder sie nicht verwahrt sehen wollen - aber das ist wohl ein Bestandteil einer Verschwörungstheorie gegen den juristischen Apparat.
Mit grosser Regelmässigkeit (so auch in den Kommentaren zu diesem Artikel) wird jedoch ein vermeintliches Totschlagargument verwendet: Wer auf Fairness gegenüber Tätern besteht, dem wird unterstellt, er würde seine Meinung sofort ändern, wenn er entweder a victim of a violent crime would be or when it would be people close to victims of violence. This argument is neither sent nor insidious: It's stupid. In general people judge situations by presenting himself to be involved. The problem is that we can easily imagine to be a victim of a violent crime than the perpetrators to be an act of violence - which is not to say that we could not imagine what it's like to be imprisoned 20 years and continue to be detained without reason, to then realize that if we wanted a safe society, we would simply lock up everyone ... This is another reason why the argument is completely unfounded is, the nature of our legal system, if it would order that is always the measure which victims and friends of victims as the displayed window, then we would need it no more: because it would revenge the more economical and efficient principle.
It is from these considerations, not hair-splitting: a society that imprisons 200 people preventively without them would have been convicted of anything, and finds this not to worry: She more pressing problems than the swine flu .