A controversial discussion about crime and punishment

[TheOysterHippopotami]

I know that a large majority of this community is wholly incapable of serious or otherwise thought provoking discussion but there is a small minority among us that are absolutely insightful and this thread is meant for them. Those of you who are nothing but inciteful, I kindly ask that you bugger off in advance.

Today is the 405th anniversary of the murder of Ranuccio Tomassoni by the painter Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio. I feel like this is a good opportunity to start a controversial discussion about law, morality, and whether or not it should actually apply to everyone equally. The following is copy pasta'd from another forum that I have frequented for many years.

I sometimes wonder if some people should just be given a free pass to do whatever they want based on how talented they are. If you consider it from a cost/benefit perspective, some people certainly give more than they take.

Caravaggio is a prime example. He was an indisputable genius who consistently produced masterpieces throughout his life, both before and after he killed by someone named Ranuccio Tomassoni, a man who seems to have left nothing important behind (at least, according to a quick google search). While I cannot deny that this mans life was valuable and that his killing was not justified, it seems that it would be a far greater crime to hamper the creativity of someone like Caravaggio by imprisoning him. Not only have his works survived for hundreds of years, but they have inspired artists for generations after him and completely changed the face of art all together.

Jacksons music is arguably less of a defense than Caravaggio's paintings given the fact that Jacksons music hardly qualifies as anything but entertainment. That said, it is damn entertaining and furthermore, it has likely brought at least as much joy to at least as many people as Caravaggio's paintings. Does anybody actually believe that the innocence of a few children actually outweighs everything Jackson has given us throughout his life? Especially considering the fact that the odds of those children producing anything more valuable than children and tax revenue (who will in turn produce children and tax revenue) are next to 0.

Of course, a line has to be drawn somewhere and I would asphyxiate before I afforded this kind of blanket protection to someone like Justin Bieber, despite the fact that he brings joy to millions on a daily basis. But people like Michael Jackson make me think twice and when I consider people like Beethoven there is absolutely no question.

Edit: I want to add the following hypothetical scenario - What if Einstein or Darwin had committed murder before they made their major discoveries? Is justice more important than the theory of relativity or evolution?

 

[Keldorn]

In response to your hypothetical troll scenario:

How the hell would you know in advance whether or not the criminal in question would produce something valuable to society if they were not imprisoned?

 

[Sabre]

In response to your hypothetical troll scenario:

How the hell would you know in advance whether or not the criminal in question would produce something valuable to society if they were not imprisoned?

This, pretty much.

 

[jon50559]

Well, if the individual had showed great promise, or had already contributed to the world greatly, usually one can assume that it will be followed by more great things.

In any case you absolutely cannot put anyone above the law, or any judgement. What really makes a person exempt from it? Where would you draw the line? If a very exceptional person was given a free pass, why shouldn't you let someone who was slightly less capable also get a free pass?

There can't be exceptions to what's *supposed* to be justice.

 

[ZunWasOkayGuy]

Great book, love Dostoyevsky's writing. Sorry for going off topic.