| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/12/2008 05:05:24 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by Louis:
So I ask again: if justice is not revenge, how is it to be defined? |
Good question and I am not sure my limited grey matter can answer but I will give it a shot.
Justice is the acknowledgement of truth and the application of punishment defined by law in regards to that truth.
To quote the cliche "Punishment should fit the crime".
That is the best I got...
Message edited by author 2008-08-12 17:11:33. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 05:07:11 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
So let's say that Justice IS Revenge. What is your point? Because it may be revenge then we should just the the guilty walk free?
I don't understand what you're getting at. |
I'm not getting at anything; there's no reason to suggest that I have an ulterior motive. I'm simply asking what one's definition of "justice" is, what it entails, and, if anyone cares to, I'd like to have a conversation about that. Your definition is "revenge". Thank you. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 05:15:27 PM · #103 |
To me, revenge is wishing the same punishment on a person, that the person inflicted initially. That is not what we want in this case. There is no way they can ever feel what they did to the other person...but if there is a way to stop them from hurting others...then that must be looked into. Until that happens (and I think I will be long gone when it does) we have to live with the system that is in place.
Let me ask you something? If this happened to your mother...what would you do?
|
|
|
|
08/12/2008 05:18:36 PM · #104 |
Commit the crime, you do the time. There is no grey area. It is not and cannot be revenge to punish a criminal, it is retribution for breaking the law.
Is it okay to commit a crime, but never repeat it and thereby escape any kind of punishment?? Would you be happy to know that the person who stole your car, your personal possesions, raped your wife/daughter, murdered all your family, had committed just that one crime and would never re-offend? If so, then I feel sorry for anyone who thinks this is acceptable.
We have laws to protect the people who live by the law, those who break these laws are punished. If you think there is any argument against this, then you are deluded and a danger to humanity. A world without law, where everyone is allowed a free crime is the slippery slope to anarchy! |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 05:31:05 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Let me ask you something? If this happened to your mother...what would you do? |
Not sure if you're addressing this to me, and not sure if you're referring to your experience or another, but this is a hypothetical I can't engage in honestly. Nor can anyone else, for that matter.
As I mentioned, it's my opinion that everyone experiences tragedy. It's also my opinion that noone -- you included -- is arguing that one person's tragedy is "more tragic", and thus more important, than another's. Yes, I acknowledge that a small number of people experience extremes of suffering that most people don't. For this reason, your question is unanswerable, because I haven't experienced this particular situation and likely never will, and thus I have no basis of comparison. Anything I say is in danger of sounding disingenuous.
I can only repeat that most human beings experience suffering in terms of things like the untimely death of a loved one, long, drawn-out illness that results in near-dehumanizing suffering, the pain of loss (great and small), unfair, discriminatory treatment at the hands of others. For this reason, and especially if we agree that nobody is more or less important or valued solely on the basis of the nature and quality of their suffering, then I think we don't necessarily have to ask such questions. I think we can still empathize, yet engage in discussions like this without sounding foolish, and ultimately find some middle ground on the nature of justice and the requirement for punishment. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 05:32:08 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by SteveJ:
It is not and cannot be revenge to punish a criminal, it is retribution for breaking the law. |
I think you'll find that "retribution" and "revenge" are synonyms. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 05:35:21 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Judi:
Let me ask you something? If this happened to your mother...what would you do? |
Not sure if you're addressing this to me, and not sure if you're referring to your experience or another, but this is a hypothetical I can't engage in honestly. Nor can anyone else, for that matter.
As I mentioned, it's my opinion that everyone experiences tragedy. It's also my opinion that noone -- you included -- is arguing that one person's tragedy is "more tragic", and thus more important, than another's. Yes, I acknowledge that a small number of people experience extremes of suffering that most people don't. For this reason, your question is unanswerable, because I haven't experienced this particular situation and likely never will, and thus I have no basis of comparison. Anything I say is in danger of sounding disingenuous.
I can only repeat that most human beings experience suffering in terms of things like the untimely death of a loved one, long, drawn-out illness that results in near-dehumanizing suffering, the pain of loss (great and small), unfair, discriminatory treatment at the hands of others. For this reason, and especially if we agree that nobody is more or less important or valued solely on the basis of the nature and quality of their suffering, then I think we don't necessarily have to ask such questions. I think we can still empathize, yet engage in discussions like this without sounding foolish, and ultimately find some middle ground on the nature of justice and the requirement for punishment. |
Okay...so if you admit to not being able to say what it feels like and how you would react to the situation, then how can you be prolifant in knowing what should or shouldn't be done. I am not saying that you should leave the punishment handout to the victim (although, I think that would clear the population of many crims if they did), I do feel that non victims should have input....but I will not accept that non-victims know what is right in these situations.
Yes, we all experience trauma and pain in our lives....I will be the first to admit that...but we need to deal with each situation individually based on its merits. One cattle yard, will not house all the cattle in this world.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2008 05:37:04 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Okay...so if you admit to not being able to say what it feels like and how you would react to the situation, then how can you be prolifant in knowing what should or shouldn't be done. |
I didn't suggest anywhere that I know what should or shouldn't be done to anyone. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 05:45:02 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by SteveJ:
It is not and cannot be revenge to punish a criminal, it is retribution for breaking the law. |
I think you'll find that "retribution" and "revenge" are synonyms. |
I don't quite agree with your analogy here. Retribution through a legal system is not revenge, it is the process laid out through your democratically elected government. Revenge is a whole different ball game, it is personal attack on another as a punishment for their actions, regardless of the laws that are broken and, yes you can call it retribution, but the act and results are totally different to the legal process.
I expect you will manage to twist my words to justify that crime is an acceptable part of a modern civilisation and should be accepted as such! |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 05:51:17 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Judi:
Okay...so if you admit to not being able to say what it feels like and how you would react to the situation, then how can you be prolifant in knowing what should or shouldn't be done. |
I didn't suggest anywhere that I know what should or shouldn't be done to anyone. |
Okay...I will rephrase my words. '....so if the people in this thread admit to not being able to say what it feels like and how one would react to the situation, then how can one be prolifant in knowing what should or shouldn't be done....'
|
|
|
|
08/12/2008 06:00:23 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Judi:
Okay...so if you admit to not being able to say what it feels like and how you would react to the situation, then how can you be prolifant in knowing what should or shouldn't be done. |
I didn't suggest anywhere that I know what should or shouldn't be done to anyone. |
Okay...I will rephrase my words. '....so if the people in this thread admit to not being able to say what it feels like and how one would react to the situation, then how can one be prolifant in knowing what should or shouldn't be done....' |
To turn the question around, are you more qualified to decide how criminals should be punished because you were victimized? |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 06:02:57 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
So let's say that Justice IS Revenge. What is your point? Because it may be revenge then we should just the the guilty walk free? |
A nation's justice system can be used to deliver a variety of aims.
The main aim is usually to protect the public from dangerous individuals.
Other aims can include:
i) deterrent for other law-breakers;
ii) response to a public desire for justice/revenge: ensuring that justice is "seen to be done";
iii) personal revenge for the victim.
Less commonly, there may be other objectives, such as upholding religious law.
Perhaps a better way of examining the principle that Sam was valiantly trying to isolate is to ask the question:
Should a law breaker be given a sentence that is longer than necessary to achieve the main objective of protecting the public?
Another question that might prompt interesting debate is "should the death penalty be implemented for people who commit parking infringements?"
|
|
|
|
08/12/2008 06:06:55 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Judi:
Okay...so if you admit to not being able to say what it feels like and how you would react to the situation, then how can you be prolifant in knowing what should or shouldn't be done. |
I didn't suggest anywhere that I know what should or shouldn't be done to anyone. |
Okay...I will rephrase my words. '....so if the people in this thread admit to not being able to say what it feels like and how one would react to the situation, then how can one be prolifant in knowing what should or shouldn't be done....' |
To turn the question around, are you more qualified to decide how criminals should be punished because you were victimized? |
Nope! Which leads me to ask...who is qualified...people can discuss all they like. They can all the opinions under the sun...doesn't mean they are right or wrong.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2008 06:19:50 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by Judi:
So you are saying that he should not have been locked away...that he should still be free on the street to act his crimes out on others. |
No, I didn't suggest that. There are people who commit crimes, not only the worst ones like rape and murder, but also many other crimes like theft, copyright infringement, fraud, drug possession, etc.
I agree that some of these people should be locked away for good if we have reason to believe that they will commit horrible crimes again. Your case might fall into that category.
However, we cannot imprison all criminals forever. So we will have to let them go after a certain amount of time. What I care about is what they are going to do next and how we can make sure that they become comendable members of society afterwards.
Originally posted by SteveJ:
We have laws to protect the people who live by the law, those who break these laws are punished. |
Do the laws really protect people or merely punish criminals? Do you agree that the punishment is merely a means to an end? The goal of punishment is actually to reduce crime. Do you agree that reducing crime and protecting the people should actually be the first priority?
Let's assume we found a different way to deal with criminals that would better meet the goal of reducing crime. Wouldn't you agree to implement it?
Crime rates in the US are significantly higher than in comparable countries. The US has both the highest documented incarceration rate and total documented prison population in the world. Do you agree that this is a reason to look into why this might be the case? |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 06:26:12 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Crime rates in the US are significantly higher than in comparable countries. The US has both the highest documented incarceration rate and total documented prison population in the world. Do you agree that this is a reason to look into why this might be the case? |
The reason for that is consensual crimes. I know some believe that smoking pot is a crime that has a victim but that is BS. The first thing I would do if I was the "Man in Charge" is let those, in prison, out for almost all drug & consensual crimes. Then focus on rehab for the individual. Consensual crimes are absurd in a free society. Also I would change the sentencing guidelines and give federal judges more leeway in deciding punishment. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 06:34:17 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Crime rates in the US are significantly higher than in comparable countries. The US has both the highest documented incarceration rate and total documented prison population in the world. Do you agree that this is a reason to look into why this might be the case? |
The reason for that is consensual crimes. I know some believe that smoking pot is a crime that has a victim but that is BS. The first thing I would do if I was the "Man in Charge" is let those, in prison, out for almost all drug & consensual crimes. Then focus on rehab for the individual. Consensual crimes are absurd in a free society. Also I would change the sentencing guidelines and give federal judges more leeway in deciding punishment. |
Yes, that is one of the reasons for the high prison population. I also agree with the changes you suggest.
However, the murder rate is also significantly higher in the US than in comparable countries. How do we explain that? |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 06:45:04 PM · #117 |
Crime is not like golf, you don't get a mulligan. If you commit the crime your going to have to live with the punishment. As far as punishment being to harsh, I feel the opposite, it's to lenient in most cases.
Originally posted by Sam94720:
I agree that some of these people should be locked away for good if we have reason to believe that they will commit horrible crimes again. |
If they committed it once I have enough reason to believe they will commit again. Would you agree?
Originally posted by Sam94720:
What I care about is what they are going to do next and how we can make sure that they become comendable members of society afterwards. |
We can't make sure, we can be for sure; impossible!
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Do the laws really protect people or merely punish criminals? |
Are you saying criminals should not be punished?
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Crime rates in the US are significantly higher than in comparable countries. |
Not per capita. The US is rated 8th and your country is not far behind at 14th. Link
Message edited by author 2008-08-12 18:45:39. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 06:46:27 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
However, the murder rate is also significantly higher in the US than in comparable countries. How do we explain that? |
Gangs, Race, Class, Location, Greed, lack of social services & Population I guess. I also think that drugs being illegal play a huge part because of money. Legalize drugs or at the very least decriminalize them and I bet we see the homicide rate decrease.
Message edited by author 2008-08-12 18:47:40. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 06:50:49 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
...Also I would change the sentencing guidelines and give federal judges more leeway in deciding punishment. |
Unfortunately, discretionary sentencing give rise to unequal sanctions. If crimes are identical, then so should be punishment being meted out.
It must also be borne in mind that in some countries, that once appointed, judges have to answer to no one and that in itself is an issue worthy of discussion.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 06:57:07 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
...Also I would change the sentencing guidelines and give federal judges more leeway in deciding punishment. |
Unfortunately, discretionary sentencing give rise to unequal sanctions. If crimes are identical, then so should be punishment being meted out. |
I have seen it work both ways. Using mandatory minimums, some get more punishment then is actually deserved (Mostly regarding drugs not so much with violent crime) so with the thread topic in mind I would rather see more discretion not less.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
It must also be borne in mind that in some countries, that once appointed, judges have to answer to no one and that in itself is an issue worthy of discussion.
Ray |
True!
Message edited by author 2008-08-12 18:57:47. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 06:57:47 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Sure they can be fair. But especially in emotional cases like rape the horror of the crime itself is likely to have a stronger impact on their decision than the actual evidence against the defendant. (They are more likely to answer the question "Was this a crime worthy of punishment?" rather than the actual question "Is the defendant guilty?".) I would expect a better chance to get a fair trial with a judge deciding.
|
I think you something slightly broken in your mind.
You think rationally and logically...but you just skip steps every now and again.
The problem is not the PUNISHMENT...it is the Justice System. If the Justice System allows innocent to be punished...it should be reformed...not the punishment.
The way you see it....some innocents are hurt...so we shouldn't punish ANYONE. Which makes no sense....
The way I , and most rational people see it, is that some innocents will be punished....but that is a reason to reform the legal system...not to reform the punishments we have set aside for those that violate the rights of their fellow citizens.
Message edited by author 2008-08-12 19:00:42. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 06:59:20 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I think you'll find that "retribution" and "revenge" are synonyms. |
You can call it what you like...but when a person breaks the social contact of the society in which they life...they deserve the consequences. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 06:59:39 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by SDW:
Crime is not like golf, you don't get a mulligan. If you commit the crime your going to have to live with the punishment. As far as punishment being to harsh, I feel the opposite, it's to lenient in most cases. |
The problem is that once someone sits in prison, the punishment has already failed as a deterrent. So the only purpose it can have is to keep them from doing further crime. I'm asking whether it really does so.
Originally posted by SDW:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
I agree that some of these people should be locked away for good if we have reason to believe that they will commit horrible crimes again. |
If they committed it once I have enough reason to believe they will commit again. Would you agree? |
According to this logic every criminal should be locked away forever. The thinking is based on the assumption that there are good people and evil people and that both will stay the way they are forever. Some people here have suggested they would kill someone who brought harm to their family. If they do it, they will end up in prison themselves. Do you think they would kill again afterwards? Probably not. Are they evil people?
Originally posted by SDW:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
What I care about is what they are going to do next and how we can make sure that they become comendable members of society afterwards. |
We can't make sure, we can be for sure; impossible! |
Yes, we'll never have certainty. But there are certainly ways that are more successful than others.
Originally posted by SDW:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Do the laws really protect people or merely punish criminals? |
Are you saying criminals should not be punished? |
No, I just asked a question. Do you agree that punishment is merely a means to an end and that the actual goal is the prevention of crime?
Originally posted by SDW:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Crime rates in the US are significantly higher than in comparable countries. |
Not per capita. The US is rated 8th and your country is not far behind at 14th. Link |
Mine is actually 20th with less than half of the per capita crime than the US. And I don't know what kind of crimes were considered in that statistic and how they were counted. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 07:03:33 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
=
According to this logic every criminal should be locked away forever. The thinking is based on the assumption that there are good people and evil people and that both will stay the way they are forever. Some people here have suggested they would kill someone who brought harm to their family. If they do it, they will end up in prison themselves. Do you think they would kill again afterwards? Probably not. Are they evil people?
= |
Scratch what I said about being logical.
You are just completely whacked. I am sure Obama enjoys your monthly donations.
How can you compare a person who kills for pleasure to a person who might kill if their wife or children is hurt?
You LOVE to compare apples to oranges and act like they are the same. THEY AREN'T!
A crime of passion is completely different than a crime that happens because of malice or some biological imbalance that cannot be remedied. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 07:04:01 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by SDW:
If they committed it once I have enough reason to believe they will commit again. Would you agree? |
Young people do stupid things, and they tend to grow older and wiser. Wouldn't you agree?
Originally posted by SDW:
Are you saying criminals should not be punished? |
I don't think that Sam was saying this. However, are you saying that the law should be based on vengeance, rather than protection and restitution?
Originally posted by SDW:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Crime rates in the US are significantly higher than in comparable countries. |
Not per capita. The US is rated 8th and your country is not far behind at 14th. Link |
The note to that table is very telling: Note: Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence. - there is no way that New Zealand is one of the most crime ridden places on the planet!!
|
|
