Peterkin

Thanks, I'm familiar with Gibbon. Is this on topic?

You're a scamp, an imp, a loose starer pistol. 

 At the time, i meant, but you maybe shouldn't carry the subject into the realm of farce.

But I've had second thoughts:

You can find a clip in the Monty Python movies and skits to fit every situation, just as you can find a quote from Shakespeare. They're comprehensive of the human condition - and not in awe of it.

 I love the Pythons, too... but...

I'm not particularly concerned with feelings: feelings are changeable, individual: they can't be legislated or instituted.  Anyway, justice is not an emotional or personal matter: it's a social matter. It is applied by humans to one another, on several levels.

Familial justice is dispensed by parents when there is a dispute or conflict among the children, or when the children break some rule set by the parents. (In patriarchies, rules are set, justice dispensed and punishment - typically harsh - administered by just one parent, the other cowering in abject fear, even as she pleads for leniency.)

Communal justice, which applies to small, interdependent groups, is usually dispensed by an arbitrator or committee empowered by the group to serve its common interest. He, she or they administer justice according to a set of rules enshrined in a founding document, or revered as tradition, that is based in some particular principles shared by the group. It is understood by all mature members, since adherence to the principles is a prerequisite of membership. 

National justice is far more complicated, both in the formulation of its tenets and the administration of its justice. The rules still have to be based in a philosophical stance, or guiding principle (in truths we hold to be self-evident) but they have to cover a much wider range of activities, encounters and transactions among a wider variety of people, with a far greater diversity of interests. Nevertheless, the central purpose of all legal codes is the welfare of the country - and/or its power elite, which are not always the same.    

In considering justice, my concern is with how a system serves the polity at large: the least possible harm to the fewest possible citizens. To that end, I consider:

- the philosophical foundation of the law

- fairness of the law

- the practicality of the law

- the applicability of the law

- the means and methods of enforcement

- the effectiveness of enforcement

- the cost-efficiency of legal procedures

That's why I'm consulting statistical charts, rather than newspaper headlines. 

5 minutes ago, TheVat said:

In America, especially, law and order has been too much equated with "defense of property and goods" and less with people,  especially the most vulnerable who are most in need of protection and help.   

And who supply the bulk of both the actual criminal and incidental prison populations.

47 minutes ago, MigL said:

The Roman Empire was sacked. and conquered, by many Northern and East European tribes

What was the Roman reaction to their occupations? How do the Roman records of those invasions compare with those of the Visigoths, Germans and Huns?

Oh, wth! I have a sneezing fit that lasts from two to five minutes, almost every time I brush my teeth. The dental hygienist advised changing my brand of toothpaste, so I did, again and again. No luck. Thing is, they all contain fluoride. And the allergy - if that's what this is -  started about two years after I started daily fluoride treatments. There don't seem to be any other ill effects, so I just live with it.    

On 8/12/2021 at 8:45 AM, Externet said:

Is there any recorded opinion as what did the conquered tribes and civilizations thought of their conquerors and their guns, riding horses, methods of building dwellings, transportation using wheels, tools, clothing, writing, inventions... ?  What did those tribes think of their conquerors ? 

I'm not aware of any existing records. Of course, the oh-so-much-more-civilized Europeans took care to destroy as much knowledge and as much of the literatri of other cultures as possible, just as the Germans and Russians were to kill off the intelligencia  of Poland and Estonia. Whatever records the conquered peoples might have made would have disappeared long before an impartial historian got hold of them. It's not by accident that history is written by the victors.

While there must be diaries and letters from China, India and the Middle East from various periods of conquest, there certainly would be no trace of what the North American and Australian natives thought, since they didn't keep written records. In South America and Africa, the occupying Europeans had plenty of time to seize and destroy any subversive documents.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

It's not unreasonable, in fact its a nice approach, but there are reasons it won't prevail. 

I know.

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I think it's more likely that I'm just a bit thick or just a bit lazy.

I'll accept lazy - particularly in linguistic effort. It's easier to be sloppy; nothing depends on your correct grammar.  You might be surprised how lazy some authors are and how much of the slack editors have to take up. (gripe, gripe, gripe... I can't leave a badly-phrased sentence lying around in plain sight, which is why I keep coming back to edit.)

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Never seen that movie

I think you would like it. It's a very good documentary.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Wrong word "Contented people don't hurt or steal from each other."

I was referring to the movie. The people in it are not 'chasing' anything. Contented is good, too, but that wasn't the title.

33 minutes ago, beecee said:

Put yourself in a situation where you or your family was a victim of these handful of monsters.

We all potentially always are. We don't know where they come from or who they are, until after they have done a very bad deed. Keeping repeat car thieves and burglars locked up makes no difference to our level of danger from the unsuspected crazies. And they will repeat, if the second and third chance you offer puts them back in the same, or worse, circumstances than what caused their first crime.  Did you not see the charts? Serious crime is lower in countries with a relatively mild justice system (of which yours and mine are examples btw), and higher in some countries with a very harsh system.

We were already on the way to do something right by not "throwing away the key". (Now, we're facing a whole new wave of madness, racism, paranoia and violence that our justice system is not equipped to handle. I fear they will react in the American way and escalate it. The Americans intended to build a good, fair system, but the situation got away from the good guys; that could happen to Australia and Canada, too).

All I'm proposing is that we should prevent more crime than we punish. How's that unreasonable?

Must go! Back later.

23 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yes, the system is imperfect, but I am unable to see how your approach will improve it.

Preventing crime might improve things. Deliberately ruining the lives of thousands of people who made a stupid decision, and turning thousands of wayward boy into life-long criminals, in order to support a resource-gobbling edifice like the prison system, just to contain a tiny handful of monsters doesn't sound like a bargain.

However, "my approach", whatever that is, won't prevail, so you're quite safe.   

57 minutes ago, beecee said:

That certainly helps, but again no 100% assurance.

Aside from death, taxes and wildfires, what is? What percent security does the present justice system offer the average citizen? If we could raise the security level by 10%, would you consider change?

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

if I'm content, I don't care what you do...

If we live in the same community, you do care what I do, and what happens to me; you count on me to care about you. In communities where a level of mutual trust, tolerance and interdependence has been achieved, you get very little  or no crime.

It's not just because these people are well off materially: it happens in very poor communities, too. Not because those people are all the same tradition, language and faith; it happens in mixed communities, too - though it's harder to achieve. It's because they understand that they have a common interest in safeguarding one another's welfare. 

Part of what makes that happen is local leadership -- yes, that alpha pair of wolves whom all the rest follow, not because they're tough or mean, but because they're smart and reliable. Every successful project has such leaders - an individual or core group who can envision a plan, organize and inspire others. If you watch the documentary movie  Happy, you see what all good communities have in common.  

And guess what! Happy people don't hurt or steal from each other.

If most of us were safe, reasonably well fed and surrounded by friends, the only justice we'd ever need to worry about is what to do with the 0.001% who can't manage social animalhood. But we'd have the leisure, manpower and other resources to  deal with them case by case, thoughtfully. 

On 8/11/2021 at 7:44 AM, dimreepr said:

I struggle to get a thought written into a sentence, before I divert myself with endless tangent's.

I'll look at the other responses and maybe learn something or add something, after I toss in my spontaneous one.

That seems to me typical of an inquisitive mind and active imagination. Thoughts are hard to discipline; even after you find the right method that works for you, it takes years of practice to apply consistently. It's also possible that your mode of ideation is not primarily verbal, so you have to keep translating into grammatical format, and when your mind gets bored with that, it  just kind of slides off the words; they become difficult to grasp and put into place. (That's a bit fanciful, but if it applies, you'll recognize it.) 

On 8/11/2021 at 7:44 AM, dimreepr said:

Is this a recognised disorder?

In its extreme form, I suppose ADHD comes closest. But I don't think you have the other symptoms.

On 8/11/2021 at 7:44 AM, dimreepr said:

Is there a technique I can employ?

Almost certainly. But I can't say which would work for you - I'd have to know you very much better even to recommend one.

I sometimes find it useful to make lists and notes, before a fleeting notion gets away, or i forget a figure. My desk is littered with pages from a notebook with gibberish scribbled all over them: url's, words i dislike, blog ideas, names, poem fragments, slogans, passwords, calculations. They're useless after a week or so, but in the moment, I find them helpful to draw a series of thoughts into some coherence.

BTW, are you synesthetic?

27 minutes ago, beecee said:

To admitting that we do have innorrigables that thumb their noses at authority and justice, and any and all attempts at rehabilitation and lack any regret for their crimes, other then getting caught  and that prison is a part of that justice system. They exist.

Okay. What percent of all crime do they commit? What societal, parental, environmental, chemical or genetic factors produce these incorrigible sociopaths? Have you looked into means and methods of stopping them before the heinous crimes are committed - prevention? And why are you wasting so many resources on them that could be better used rehabilitating the majority of lawbreakers?

27 minutes ago, beecee said:

A  criminal justice system, with prisons is the best we can do

On this, I cannot concur. It is what we have done, and it hasn't worked.

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Someone breaks into my house and kills my family. I want this person tortured and killed.

Someone breaks into my house and steals some valuables. I want this person locked up and made to pay back my loss. 

That's a victim's POV. Of course you feel like extracting vengeance for your grief and restitution for your loss. Everyone who is wronged in some way by a fellow citizen feels that way. But what happens to the community around people who act on those feelings? Escalating personal violence, vendettas, family feuds and society breakdown.

That's exactly why state instituted law is impersonal.

In turn, that very impartiality can lead to a new set of problems: indiscriminate punishment of the wicked, the hapless, the stupid, the desperate, the insane and the wrongly convicted. The fact of institution itself is prone to problems: corruption, political bias, religious and ethnic prejudice, poor selection of personnel, increasing cost to the public, etc.

So, a justice system is only an approximation (or travesty, or something in between) of a collective sense of personal justice.

A fair and effective court of justice would consist of a council of elders, who personally know the individuals and circumstances in each instance of rule-breaking and figure out what course of action is least damaging to the community. We can't do that with millions of people - but I believe it should be the model we try to emulate.

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Turns out that the murderer has severe mental health problems accentuated by drug use, the burglar has mental health problems and as a result become a drug addict. 

Did you check the crime statistic I cited above?  A whopping 46% of incarcerations in the US are directly drug-related; this doesn't even account for crimes such as weapons possession and tax evasion incidental to the drug trade, and crimes committed indirectly due to drug use. One would almost suspect there was something unhealthy going on in that society.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Why not simply agree that he too, like you, has a point.

I'm sure he does.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Otherwise you seem to be avoiding an answer,

To what?

1 hour ago, beecee said:

C'mon you understand that if a criminal continues to re-offend,  again and again and again, that harsher Methods maybe needed.

Possibly. But I can also see other possibilities. In any case, the thieves I sentenced to restitution instead of incarceration have not continued "re-offend,  again and again and again". You just assume they're going to. No alternative to incarceration has been tried. The recidivism rate of incarcerated burglars, car thieves and cheque-kiters is fairly high (around 50% in Canada) - after prison sentences. For drug dealers and smugglers, it's even higher. (Obviously, if you killed them all, the same ones would never do it again, on which point  MigL is absolutely correct.) 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Especially when more then likley he has gotten away with a criminal act before finally being caught...this may lead to more seriousness, more violence and possibly worse. 

Why? Is there more profit in burglary with assault than a quiet, efficient burglary, or just more risk? Is there any reason to escalate fraud to murder?  Criminals are not necessarily stupid. 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I can only hope to hell, that if I ever decide to turn to a life of crime, violence and harm to others, that you are the presiding judge! You can practise your reformation philosophy on me then.

That would be lovely!

1 hour ago, beecee said:

In summing again, any justice system has prisons.

Any national one does, yes. And they all have crime. It would be logical to suppose that the ones with the least crime have the best law-enforcement. Or maybe that the ones with the most severe punishments have the least crime. If both were true, I'd take it as proof that a harsh criminal justice system is effective. 

But.... Is that condition met?  High crime rates can coexist with harsh punishments, and low crime rates can coexist with progressive correction methods.  So maybe crime isn't caused or prevented by prisons. Maybe justice is not that simple. 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Prisons are part of the justice system and are built to [1] Rehabilitate the criminal, [2] punish the criminal, and [3] act as a deterrent to the criminal and others.

Care to mark your country's record in each of those categories?

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

None of that invalidates what MigL  said.

So? I just answered the questions.

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

That is all anyone is saying.

That is not what the prison system - at least in the US - is doing, however.  It is not what most prisons do, or ever have done.

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

How many times would re-offending see the need to them locked up?

I'm not sure what you mean by "see the need". The rate of recidivism is dependent on several factors. I should think sitting in a prison cell is easier than working off one's debt. Give them the opportunity and see what happens.

16 minutes ago, beecee said:

I really believe you understand where I and others are coming from and actually agree.

See, yes; agree, no.

16 minutes ago, beecee said:

some people just do not, will not, and even never have, fitted into an otherwise just society.

We'll never know, because there is no such society. 

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

Perhaps you are practising your philosophical stance and psychology with me?

I thought I was participating in dimreepr's thread about the meaning of justice. I have no other agenda here.

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Why do people always use the example of the poor person who steals food to feed his kids ?

Because both poverty and high birth-rate and high petty crime rate among the poor are historical facts - most prevalent in nations with harsh criminal justice systems. Of course, my example was about restitution: i.e., that in certain instances, it's not possible. 

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

What about the mass murderers, the rapists, and other who 'get off' on the suffering they cause to other people

Restitution wouldn't work there, either. 

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

What about the rich people who are just plain greedy, and cheat others out of their life savings ?

 An excellent example where restitution with interest, plus a hefty fine for the public coffers would work admirably.

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

Do they not need to be separated from a safe and orderly society ?

Some do, certainly. Not the burglars, embezzlers, shoplifters and fraudsters so much: they would be much better put to work, repaying their debts. Which would save a whole lot of tax-money and cage-space for the mass murderers.  

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

No-one who is incarcerated for life, or who gets the death penalty, has ever re-offended.

That's doesn't deter all those who believe that they won't be caught.     

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Agreed, restitution is desirable, but as usual, you forget the percentage of inncorigables that are present in society, irrespective of any potential undesirable aspects of the criminal in his early childhood and upbringing.

No, I don't forget them; I just have a different perspective from yours - bold print notwithstanding.  In the instance you cited, I was talking about theft, which is a very common crime, and which can, in practical fact, be compensated.

3 hours ago, beecee said:

It takes all kinds of citizens to make up a society. Incarceration and/or death penalty most certainly do deter the majority of committing a crime or breaking a law, but as always, there are some who totally disregard any and all laws, over looking after and total consideration of one person, themselves.

Do you assume that all or most citizens desire to commit crimes and refrain only out of fear of retribution? It's not an uncommon assumption, but it doesn't go very far toward explaining why most people support law and order in the first place. If you have proof of the deterrent value of severe sentences, as compared to rehabilitation, I would like to see statistics to support it.

Very informative!

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

Great Britain refers to the country formed from the last separate kingdoms on the island of britain.

Amazing! Did Arthur have a sword in that unification?