Labeled Parts On A Motor

IN PRAISE OF CRIME WITHOUT PUNISHMENT IN PRAISE

"The fault is really the only burden humans can not stand alone "
(Anaïs Nin)

It is very difficult to find someone who can boast of having no reason to feel guilt. Without having committed heinous crimes in the media there daily reports through the deployment of energy, most of us have to live with regret for the injustices perpetrated against others. Among parents or children, including relatives or just neighbors, among friends in a life or casual acquaintances, even among strangers There is certainly someone who has had to suffer the consequences of our actions or omissions. It is very rare to find enough people to not feel numb or forgetful at least from time to time weight to have brought no joy, pain, or at least to those who would have been entitled. Equally common, however, is also the knowledge of how guilt to no avail. What prosecutors are only negative because they deprive of peace and tranquility without suggesting in any way a chance for redemption. Not surprisingly, then, there have been those who have thought long and hard about how we can deliver it. These include the contributions of Rousseau and Freud are among the most radical in this regard. According to Rousseau, the individual can not be held liable over how nature has intended. His is the innocence of life which is manifested in the forms and ways that are proper. It is unfair that tell the meaning of guilt because, if sometimes combines misdeeds, is the fault of a corrupt society that causes it to conduct which would be in its very nature. Freud indicates in the authority established in the human heart, the superego, the head of any sense of guilt imposing a moral code completely unnatural man destined to transgression and, hence, to a perpetual remorse and unjustified.

Now the current review to be freed from guilt clash with equally widespread opinion that contradicts it, that is to say what he thinks is legitimate to restore justice through punishment. The facts of blood on which we largely maintain the media can not simply be dismissed by attributing all blame society. A fortiori, this applies to the tragedies of history as the Shoah, apartheid, bloody wars of aggression and mass murder. Failure to punish such crimes, it is believed, would also be criminal and would only boost the amount of injustice on earth. Without the pretense of wanting to eliminate the irrational legal penalties for those who transgress the laws, it may be remarked that this sense of justice is based on an assumption, in turn, not entirely rational. It is not difficult to understand how certain crimes it is impossible to undo the damage. It is not, in fact, in human faculties to restore the previous condition to most crimes. Who can give life back to the past or those who were private? The damage, once procured, is often irreversible, and no human being has the power to perform acts of salvation that riscattino. Yet the idea of \u200b\u200batonement for the legal system - even when they are animated by the ideal of the redemption of criminal Enlightenment - a lot of material stems from the concept of debt and, therefore, imagine the possibility of compensation to purchase the non-compliance. The creditor, in practice, rather than what they deserve - the return of what was private - get the satisfaction of the debtor to pain. It is, simply put, an exchange like any other because the victim barters its loss with a treat: the pain that causes. This is certainly not a fair exchange, but is all that men are able to imagine in order to restore conditions of justice.


goes without saying that the power to do justice to the various case law can not aspire to fulfill what is not humanly possible and the restoration of lost life, or even the money already spent. More simply apply the power that is proper: to report what the law is not fair and treat all citizens who do not respect it the same way. It can not therefore think that the verdict of a court redemptions from offense: the effects crime remain even after the atonement. This can break free from legal guilt but it will never restore the order violated by the crime. The damage was usually evidence of this awareness and it seems reasonable way: in the division of powers, the judiciary must fulfill its responsibility to punish the offender for the rest of us are psychologists, social workers and religious works. However, a recent example, the young Mandela of South Africa in the aftermath of the abolition of apartheid, he shows us how the state can be waived in exceptional cases to its power to absolve or condemn to assume a function that is generally not responsible for the legal : to forgive. Forgiveness, however, if the debt dissolves Atonement, not freedom from guilt. In the case of post-apartheid South Africa also provides a kind of compensation: the perpetrator can obtain only by offering an amnesty in exchange for a confession in which stories with total accuracy every crime. The seemingly mild punishment of the narrative not only expresses an awareness of how any suffering of the executioner could not in any way to redeem his guilt. It is also an expression of attention to the negative effects produced by his suffering in sight of a peaceful future. The pain is not dell'aguzzino money that could be expendable by the victim in the project was to build a reconciled. You do not need a partner suffering and perhaps resentful, but with a which collaborate in building a national community that perpetuates injustice. For the guilty, however, the only penalty that is imposed to return them as allies in a calming project: the punishment they can inflict the same, namely the knowledge that no expiation would be able to delete what it was. The punishment is therefore embodied in the sense of powerlessness in the face of the possibility of a ransom, in the act of humiliating and painful to acknowledge their own faults as permanent, indelible and irreversible.

punishment loses significance not only as unjust compensation to the damage done, but also as an instrument of redemption: the confession indicates how it has already started process. With the tale of guilt, knowing he is unable to redeem it, is willing to work together to ensure both avoided for the future. A condition, in fact, that evil does not happen again is the preservation of his memory. The narrative of his own faults, not because they are lost but instead saves it prevents forgetfulness, unconsciousness which makes it possible to repeat in future mistakes and horrors of the past. In making public what is private is provided so the offender is also a kind of release because the narrative becomes an interpersonal event a weight that would be unbearable for the individual. However at the same time it changes that was in private memory and collective memory thus provides a form acceptable and stable. The confrontation with the painful memory becomes an issue that affects everyone and is subtracted from the insecurity and arbitrariness of the individual. Not only the perpetrators but the entire community can thus take the responsibility not to repeat the horror and injustice. The future, the only possible space for redemption, all concerns, not just a few culprits.

In view of the future then it seems to make sense of what the rationale and the ethical and report it as a nonsense as the deepest of injustices: free of blame to distribute even the torturers on victims. The same idea of \u200b\u200bman's original sin remained, at least in religion, to modern and deeply torn by the Enlightenment onwards, it advocates a social role, if not all are equally guilty, all are involved in evil, also in what they have not procured directly. The memory of the blame should not materialize then only as a narrative construction to blame individual behavior, but also as an awareness of collective involvement in the crime: all therefore need to take responsibility, a responsibility is certainly not legal, but the public generally, and human.

The need to relativize the guilt is personal reasons also an awareness that is generated by the Enlightenment critical thinking but that, at least in part, the refounded, ie the awareness that not everything is decided in the consciousness and will. It is impossible to escape from his consciousness, too, is an expression of a particular horizon, which affects the sensitivity and reason. Besides the freedom of conscious choice is the happening of the event: the dominion of randomness extends from the formation of the genetic conditions of its historical and social experiences. There is no human being to a point preceded by anything or anyone, there are decisions determined by a zero degree.

The man then asked to make choices though has not fully decided to be what it is. Every action, including that of being born, becomes a potential fault because injustice can produce live without you having the power to do anything to avoid them. For this man is not free enough to be able to justify the guilt is not strong enough to take on the mammoth task of remedying the damage caused and it is not enough to save innocent punishing those who commit crimes. This awareness, however, should not be a reason to justify the disengagement and the fatalistic acceptance of evil. On the contrary assumption must lead a task far more important to him or punishment dell'infliggere to others in order to atone for sins. The sense of individual guilt in fact must be replaced by a collective and common responsibility: to create conditions so that it is increasingly difficult to commit criminal acts. For this reason it is vain to direct the energies in the search for the origin of the damage is much more useful than the collective involvement in the solution. The criminal action belongs to you who performs it, but it is the effect that counts and this is no longer be faced as an issue of individual conscience. If it is impossible to restore justice - the milk is paid once and for all - you can rebuild the ruins, and for this we need everyone, even the guilty. Already their collaboration so not lost the memory of their example of guilt and redemption are a vital contribution. The offenses, in fact, must not be forgotten, not because, or not only because they must be punished, but because it helps to recognize the memory when you repeat and ready to tackle new ones. Even helps to recognize themselves in the difficult condition of eligible offenders and abusers.

The redemption of sins, he is guilty or not, it can not be reduced to an act of atonement, but should manifest itself in the maximum attention to the effect that his attorney being in the world. The fault then it is rather the claim to be born and to live as innocent because it makes it insensitive to the effects of their actions.