Finally, as has been pointed out, those who abuse/bully etc are often those who have been on the receiving end themselves. How is hating them and calling them "vile" to show them there is another side to social interactions, which you keep insisting there is? If the majority in society are opposed to such behaviour, why reinforce these people's sense that it is the only way by continuing to treat them like that?
Two wrongs don't make a right, but its a real shame your not as passionate and dedicated about the victim and her family as your are about those three poor souls, you have pushed the victim out of all this and only seem interested in the welfare of those three poor lost souls who have been let down by us all, oh what a society we are, how dare we demand criminals be punished, we should sit them i classes, send them on day trips to the seaside and then have a big hug therapy session....there that will make it all better....yeah what was society thinking, we should pat them on the head and tell them it was wrong, but we forgive them.
Anyway all i can hope for is maybe karma will pay them a visit as they continue to live their care free lives, seeing as the justice system failed this time round.
These are the comments of someone who isn't actually listening to what anyone's saying but instead takes the black and white view that understanding and empathy somehow negate the desire for efficient legal action, discipline and personal responsibility. This is completely untrue and is a straw man argument at its worst. You're viewing people as extremists where there is no extremism. Things are far more complicated than you seem to allow. The idea that I'm "soft on crime" or any of these cliche phrases is quite laughable- am I not the one insisting there must be society-wide policing to root out harmful behaviours?
You say "two wrongs don't make a right"- yes, exactly, that's what I'm trying to tell you. Hatred, disgust and the desire to punish is wrong no matter who is doing it to who. Now, legal discipline without the desire for punishment is quite different. I would recommend jail sentences for the three individuals involved (I'm quite big on the idea of an efficient, no-nonsense justice system, but to get that we must first take collective responsibility for our individual responsibility, if that makes sense). And again, you seem unable to separate the idea of punishment- a hateful term implying moral zeal and which leads naturally to creulty- with discipline and legal penalties for crimes. People imprisoned- for life in a murder case, say- are ideally imprisoned to keep society safe and functional, and as a means of discipline. The desire to punish leads only to trouble.
Plus, you seem to be overlooking the fact that- and I've been quite blunt with this so I don't see why it isn't sinking in- that I have been the victim of serious prolonged abuse and "bullying" myself. I think I can empathise with the victim and her family just fine, thank you. The "justice system", and society as a whole as far as I'm concerned, failed me. Where's your outrage over that? Why aren't you insisting that karma should pay a visit to all those who harmed me or allowed it to continue?
But, like so many people, you're playing the "think of the victim!" card and insisting we're ignoring the victim's pain if we refuse to join you in your desire to hate and punish. We're the outsiders, as I keep saying, and in your moral zeal we must be punished. You may feel superior for "championing the victim" as though other people are not, but in that case why not champion all victims, including a) me, B) those many abused souls who turn to abusive behaviour themselves? Is this really about "victims" or just about you?
I mean, if it can be accepted that the desire to scream "animals! Vile! punish!" isn't necessary at all to enable efficient justice and discipline and appropriate penalties, then you'd be forced to face up to the fact that you don't need that hate and desire to punish after all. So what is it? I'm sure many people "justify" the feelings and instincts by saying, as you seem to, that it's essential for ensuring criminals are dealt with effectively. But it isn't. Law, discipline, what you call justice, are totally undependent on moralistic outrage and anger. Which leaves us with the question: If we can't justify these responses by insisting they underpin an efficient justice system, how do we justify them?
This is why people are so resistant to the idea that discipline and law are separate from hateful rage; because if so, how do they prove their hateful rage as being any different from bullying, racial or religious persecution, attacking people of the wrong politics, faith, lifestyle, etc? Those who seek to justify their instinctive desirte to attack the outsider cling to the idea of justice and "think of the victim!" as a means of justification, which rings hollow to those to whom efficient justice and discipline are not issues of emotion but of objectivity.
), and I- and several others it seems- get a bit worked up over my particular interpretation of social responsibility and our duties to one another. It's a failing on my part, I readily admit, but yes, there isn't any fundamental disagreement on the action, more on the philosophies and attitudes underlying that action. 
