Where there is a victim, who has been harmed/killed. Their is no rehabilitation without having the criminal suffer. They need to understand what they did was wrong. Not patting them on there back and saying "there! there" I know you were a victim too, let mummy kiss it better.
Absolutely correct - though I would go further, and say that this applies to every criminal, whether there is an identifiable "victim" or not. If we have free will to choose, then the sole defence would be ignorance of the law in question (which our current system rightly will not recognise as a defence). Because we have free will, every decision to commit a crime is done by free choice. Sure, there may be circumstances that have restricted the range of alternatives, but in every situation the person was left with the choice of "commit the crime, or do not commit the crime".
And they chose to do it, freely and with full knowledge. So I quite agree, there should be no "sympathy" for these deliberate criminals. And while I agree with jaime that we shoudl increase people's circumstances from a hunamitarian point of view, the notion we should do so to prevent crime is pure hogwash. We have free will, we commit crimes because we decide to do so. The fact that not everyone in similar circumstances turns to crime just shows that those who do make a choice to do so, while others deliberately choose not to.
What you do, you choose
to do - and no amount of personal history and poor living conditions is an excuse, because always and in every situation, that person could have chosen not to. And while I don't agree that "evil" is quite the right label, certainly we can label them "bad" for making that choice, because as we've established, it was a choice - and a choice that the "good" do not make.
So no sympathy for any criminal - and I would go so far as to consider removing parole as well. What matter is surely not what they might do in the future, but that they made the deliberate choice in the past. Them saying "I won't do it again" should carry no weight, at any point they could choose to do it again.
We also tend to give leniency to someone who was drunk, or on drugs, when they committed the crime. But that too I oppose. Drink and drugs surely do not interfere with free will, so even when drunk you still take the decision. Likewise anything done "in heat of the moment" - we're not animals, not robots, after all, no matter what the circumstances we decide
, we choose
what we do. We exercise our free will, every time.
This goes wider than crime, of course. If you smoke, you do so through choice, so I see no need for National Health Service help to quit - you just make the choice to stop. Equally, being obese is a choice (unless there is an imbalance in the way the body metabolises things) - you choose to eat more, you choose to diet, so anyone who is fat has chosen to become and remain that way.
Actually, thinking about it, pretty much ANY problem one suffers from is the result of choices made. "Stuck" in an abusive relationship? Just choose to walk out. Feeling depressed? Just snap out of it - you can choose to be happy. "Alcoholic"? No such thing - every time you pick up a bottle, you chose to do so. In fact, I find it very hard to feel sympathy for anyone, because in the vast majority of cases, they can choose to alter their position. They have free will to do so, and while sure some decisions may be hard to make, we still always have the choice
to make them.
It works at the trivial level as well as the more serious. Nothing anyone does happens by accident, so if you do the wrong thing at work you must have chosen
to do it wrong. Say the wrong thing to your wife? That wasn't an accident, pal, you chose
those words to speak, how could they leave your mouth by accident? Not even "I wasn't paying attention" is an excuse, because - at the very least - you chose
not to pay attention in the first place, it wouldn't - couldn't
- "just happen".
Free Will - everything is your own responsibility, its always your choice
to do whatever you do.