What is Justice?

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

On the extreme rhetoric, I'll leave that for others. 

Which others? You made the accusation; I would like to see your evidence.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I have also raised an article with statisitcs which you quickly dismissed as bias.

I called your source unreliable, only after checking its reputation with sources I do consider reliable.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Yes you have asked questions and inferred/expressed/dreamed of impossible situations.

And that is politically extreme? In what way are unasked questions blameworthy?

1 hour ago, beecee said:

it will  not be improved by pushing for the establishment of a society without prison for the incorridgibles, without care and compassion for the victim and society in general,

Okay. Nobody's argued against compassion for victims.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

we all have agreed that in any society realistically speaking of course, that there are evil bastards and incorridgible criminals,

Yes. But they're not necessarily all the same people, and you and I might not have the same perception of who fits into which group.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

and that we need prison for them.

No, we have not agreed on prison - at least, not the kind of prison in which we are accustomed to storing, destructive, unpopular, inconvenient and disruptive citizens.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Did you miss that list?  

No, I didn't miss it. Nor did I oppose it. Some of those approaches might work. 

And I applaud the Sydney police for their good and proper actions.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

The concept of justice in a reasonable modern society, is said to be the first virtue of social institutions, and the laws enacted, are enacted by whoever we chose to enact those same reasonable justified laws for our society. If we don't like them, we then get the opportunity to kick them out.

I appreciate your position, even though I don't share all of you assumptions about our reasonable societies.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

We already have a concept of justice.

Please state it succinctly, without embellishments.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

That doesn't though detract from the fact as you and dimreeper have agreed to, that prisons are a necessary evil and are needed to separate those from society, that are a danger to society.

Again, the crucial question is: Who does the defining, designating and separating, on what basis.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I'm sure you'll agree that our western justice system, is far more fairer and applicable then that system administered by the Taliban.

I don't see what that has to do with formulating a concept. The Taliban have theirs. You have yours. I have mine. Kamala Harris has hers. Grimreepr has his.  It doesn't look as if we'll have any consensus.

You're citing Norway? The same politically extreme bleeding-heart softly softly Norway I used as an example on page 1?

Doesn't seem fair somehow....

[beecee]

10 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Which others? You made the accusation; I would like to see your evidence.

 

I called your source unreliable, only after checking its reputation with sources I do consider reliable.

And that is politically extreme? In what way are unasked questions blameworthy?

Okay. Nobody's argued against compassion for victims.

Yes. But they're not necessarily all the same people, and you and I might not have the same perception of who fits into which group.

 

No, we have not agreed on prison - at least, not the kind of prison in which we are accustomed to storing, destructive, unpopular, inconvenient and disruptive citizens.

No, I didn't miss it. Nor did I oppose it. Some of those approaches might work. 

And I applaud the Sydney police for their good and proper actions.

I appreciate your position, even though I don't share all of you assumptions about our reasonable societies.

Please state it succinctly, without embellishments.

 

Again, the crucial question is: Who does the defining, designating and separating, on what basis.

I don't see what that has to do with formulating a concept. The Taliban have theirs. You have yours. I have mine. Kamala Harris has hers. Grimreepr has his.  It doesn't look as if we'll have any consensus.

My position and the evidence I have presented along with the reality of the situation is what society expects and accepts. On that I make no further "back and forth comments" and going round in circles, other then again to say, your position seems more reflective on what you don't say then on what you say. Plus my position on this and the torture subject is not politically motivated, but what I see as the position of a normal westernised progressive society. 

The TALIBAN of course is well know for their violent, cruel, sexist and savage justice system. Have they changed? Time will tell, but my guess is a big fat uncomprimising NO. And I hope to christ that I am bloody totally wrong on that.

Edited August 21, 2021 by beecee

[Peterkin]

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

your position seems more reflective on what you don't say then on what you say.

I find that troubling and impossible to answer. So I guess you win.

[beecee]

8 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I find that troubling and impossible to answer. So I guess you win.

Win? Is that what you believe? I suggest that this reflects on what I said about political motivation. There is no win because there is no argument/debate as we have all [again] agreed prisons are necessary and that incorrigible evil people do exist. 

23 hours ago, Peterkin said:

(Yes, I remember all about the very bad, very rare maniac who performs some horrendous depraved act, and I also know that that unreachable, incorrigible, irredeemable person is as much a product of his society as the upstanding jurors and venerable judge who lock him up and throw away the key. But he accounts for a very, very small statistical percentage of all the crimes in his society. The crimes - like the mental ailments that engender some of the crimes - are also products of the society. As are the bad laws that criminalize normal behaviour and honest harmless people.

Irrespective of the rest of that rhetoric, you are essentially [1] agreeing with the common sense approach, that there are unreachable/incorridgible/irredeemable people in our society, and [2] that for them we need prisons.

 

[beecee]

11 hours ago, dimreepr said:

When did I suggest otherwise; the problem is, people like to use that as an excuse to prevent a better society.

Really, we still need the planet to live on...

Yes some people certainly, but some people also partake in any scenario you can think of no matter how obnoxious. That's my main point.

We certainly need a planet to live on and our Indigenous folk could teach us a thing or two about that.

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, beecee said:

Sure! we all have agreed that in any society realistically speaking of course, that there are evil bastards and incorridgible criminals, and that we need prison for them. Please don't ask me to reproduce those agreements.

I've never agreed "that there are evil bastards and incorridgible criminals", I think, a very small minority of people have done evil thing's, but I don't agree that it makes them inherently evil or incorridgible, even if they show (to your mind) no signs of remorse. 

I do agree that we need 'A' prison, but my version is, no doubt, far removed from what you think it should be; mine would be more like a secure holiday home, where we attempt to either, cure them, or failing that, secure them and I think if a cure is definitely not possible, then killing them is justifiable. 

All other prison's, I beleive, are not only not necessary but actively damaging to society. 

19 hours ago, TheVat said:

It's still the case that more homogeneous societies, like Japanese or Norwegians,  have less need of prison,  even though they're long past the village stage. 

But they come at it from very different political culture's:

Japan, very conservative and generally happy while in close proximity to other's.

Norway, very liberal and used to their own space.

UK, USA, not really sure and generally hate close proximity to 'others'; that's why we like prison's. 

Edited August 22, 2021 by dimreepr

[beecee]

On 8/15/2021 at 9:38 PM, dimreepr said:

Of course there are extreme examples and of course they're abhorrent and of course the perp needs to be in a prison; no argument here...

Which you said in reply to this...... "Yes, certainly an emotional response, and the same emotional response taken by virtually all of Sydney. Think of this little 7 year old and how she now confronts the rest of her life after such a harrowing, despicable, most violent 40 minutes of her life, that has now been likely totally ruined by this depraved, drug fueled maniac, that you are suggesting is also a victim and to be pitied. Yes an entirely emotional response, as per any worthwhile human being."

53 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I've never agreed "that there are evil bastards and incorridgible criminals", I think, a very small minority of people have done evil thing's, but I don't agree that it makes them inherently evil or incorridgible, even if they show (to your mind) no signs of remorse. 

 

Edited August 22, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

I see no contradiction in those statement's, please elaborate.

[beecee]

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I see no contradiction in those statement's, please elaborate.

I have edited the last post after your reply......

Again in summing, justice is about [1] punishment [2] Protection of society and [3] Rehabilitation.

Some can't be rehabilitated and/or don't want to be. They are the incorridgibles and the ones that we have prisons for.

Again as I mentioned to Peterkin, perhaps less time pushing a political position, and more time in absorbing exactly what I am saying, including the already many accepted rehabilitation methods in vogue already, for the petty criminal and first, or yes, even the second timer. [and that I have listed and that strangely have gone without comment] The ones highlighted above? You guessed it, prison and throw away the key.  

Edited August 22, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

I have edited the last post after your reply......

Again in summing, justice is about [1] punishment [2] Protection of society and [3] Rehabilitation.

Some can't be rehabilitated and/or don't want to be. They are the incorridgibles and the ones that we have prisons for.

Again as I mentioned to Peterkin, perhaps less time pushing a political position, and more time in absorbing exactly what I am saying, including the already many accepted rehabilitation methods in vogue already, [and that I have listed and that strangely have gone without comment] for the petty criminal and first, or yes, even the second timer. The ones highlighted above? You guessed it, prison and throw away the key.

Your edit doesn't alter my reply, neither does the rest of it.

Please try again, precisely which part of which statement contradicts the other... 

[Peterkin]

Never mind. My most important thoughts are the ones I haven't expressed.

Edited August 22, 2021 by Peterkin
resignation

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Your edit doesn't alter my reply, neither does the rest of it.

Please try again, precisely which part of which statement contradicts the other... 

I believe it does. You knew exactly what my stance was in regards to the status quo, and you agreed...we have incorridgibles, so we need prisons. 

In essence our disagreement seems to be based on what sympathetic feelings you think we need to feel for the perpetrator. That in my opinion is part and parcel of any possible rehabilitation process for the criminal. My sympathies lay first and foremost with the vicitm and society in general. Thankfully, in a western democratic system, the latter prevails and I don't see that changing, nor should it.

Edited August 22, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

@beecee

On 8/22/2021 at 12:00 PM, dimreepr said:

I've never agreed "that there are evil bastards and incorridgible criminals", I think, a very small minority of people have done evil thing's, but I don't agree that it makes them inherently evil or incorridgible, even if they show (to your mind) no signs of remorse. 

I do agree that we need 'A' prison, but my version is, no doubt, far removed from what you think it should be; mine would be more like a secure holiday home, where we attempt to either, cure them, or failing that, secure them and I think if a cure is definitely not possible, then killing them is justifiable. 

All other prison's, I beleive, are not only not necessary but actively damaging to society. 

 

14 hours ago, beecee said:

My sympathies lay first and foremost with the vicitm and society in general.

And I think that attitude damage's society, because if we don't consider the criminal's as victim's too, then we just discard otherwise useful member's of society with little to no sympathy-

14 hours ago, beecee said:

Thankfully, in a western democratic system, the latter prevails and I don't see that changing, nor should it.

-For the damage that system did to them; making them suffer for being poor or in a minority, and creating crimals from otherwise decent people.

It takes nothing away from the victim, to give the perp the same consideration.

Maybe you should take another look at that video I posted about the need for prisons. 

Edited August 23, 2021 by dimreepr

[beecee]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

@beecee

And I think that attitude damage's society, because if we don't consider the criminal's as victim's too, then we just discard otherwise useful member's of society with little to no sympathy-

I have never said anything about not considring the criminal...It is only one aspect of the reasons for a  justice system, [1]punishment [2] Protection of the vicitm and society and [3] Rehabilitation.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

-For the damage that system did to them; making them suffer for being poor or in a minority, and creating crimals from otherwise decent people.

Do you have any statisitcs that support that all criminals are poor and otherwise decent people? Or any statisitcal support that every criminal is damaged by society and/or the system? 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

It takes nothing away from the victim, to give the perp the same consideration.

That's a rather strange position to take. How many times are you just completely going to overlook the fact that people that commit minor crimes, or even repeat offenders of minor crimes, are considered...house arrest, parole, suspended sentences, tracking bracelets etc etc. Why do you ignore [then later agree] the fact that all I'm saying is that the serious, violent, incorridigible criminal, that thumbs his nose at a reasonable westernised society and its justice system, be locked away for the good of that society.

The victim, in many cases remains traumatised, possible physically damged for life, should be, and thankfully is in our reasonable society given all the help, that can be given, ahead of any consideration for the perpetrator. Why would anyone talk of giving the same consideration to the perpetrator of that crime, and particularly some low life animal already on parole, and that even after being discovered "in the act", then viciously turned on the everyday heroes that attempted to help this little girl by stabbing one and lunging violently at the other? Are you really serious?  He in reality is lucky we are part of a society that does give him some consideration, and not stoop to torturing him in the same way he tortured the little girl. That applies to all violent, evil incorrigible criminals.

Edited August 23, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

21 minutes ago, beecee said:

Do you have any statisitcs that support that all criminals are poor and otherwise decent people?

Not all, but then I never said that (cough-strawman-cough)...

As with my pitbul analogy, most of them are only dangerous when given the wrong training (you seem to have agreed with that), the rest of them are dangerous because they have some sort of mental illness (which is not their fault); All of them deserve my pity.

Can you provide evidence that that's not equally true of humans?

Edited August 23, 2021 by dimreepr

[Eiot]

justice is when a geezer gets shot for causing a problem such as the fukushima !

[dimreepr]

46 minutes ago, Eiot said:

justice is when a geezer gets shot for causing a problem such as the fukushima !

Wow, that's so profound, I'll have to reconsider my whole approach. 🙄 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

[1]punishment [2] Protection of the vicitm and society and [3] Rehabilitation.

Why do we need [1]punishment?

When 2 and 3 are adequate for justice to prevail?

Edited August 23, 2021 by dimreepr

[Intoscience]

47 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Not all, but then I never said that (cough-strawman-cough)...

As with my pitbul analogy, most of them are only dangerous when given the wrong training (you seem to have agreed with that), the rest of them are dangerous because they have some sort of mental illness (which is not their fault); All of them deserve my pity.

Can you provide evidence that that's not equally true of humans?

I think there are levels of consideration and pity that apply here. You cannot take the same approach with every criminal act or perpetrator. After all we are all different, though we may share many traits as humans, each person has their own identity and personality. There should be no excuse for a crime, though some crimes you can see why they are committed and you can sympathise and sometimes empathise with the perpetrator. The level of the criminal act and danger this may pose to society should be what drives the considerations for punishment, rehabilitation etc... Thankfully, in the western culture this (so I believe) is the case. 

Do I sympathise with a petty criminal who is down on their luck, desperate? For sure.

Do I sympathise with a criminal that has had a poor upbringing and/or abused. Yeah (even if the crime is to some degree serious).

Do I sympathise with a criminal that tortures, abuses, rapes, brutally murders... No, regardless of their problems or excuses, mental illness's, environment... To inflict such horrific things onto another human being is despicable and should be dealt with by society accordingly, regardless of rehabilitation or pity for the aggressor, this person has taken from another human being what cannot be returned.   

If anyone inflicted such violence to any member of my family I would expect at the very least, severe punishment to be given. Failing this I would not hesitate to deploy my own "justice" and end up a criminal myself, at least then you can pity me.       

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Intoscience said:

After all we are all different, though we may share many traits as humans, each person has their own identity and personality.

Within the confines of being human; no two bat's are the same but they're all bat's.

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

If anyone inflicted such violence to any member of my family I would expect at the very least, severe punishment to be given. Failing this I would not hesitate to deploy my own "justice" and end up a criminal myself, at least then you can pity me. 

Of course I would pity you; you can't find peace in forgiveness.

[Peterkin]

This is from a right-of-center think-tank on public policy, in the biggest of the western democratic nations with a constitution that reveres equality.

https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/incarceration-and-poverty-in-the-united-states/

Prison doesn't seem to be working very well.

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Not all, but then I never said that (cough-strawman-cough)...

As with my pitbul analogy, most of them are only dangerous when given the wrong training (you seem to have agreed with that), the rest of them are dangerous because they have some sort of mental illness (which is not their fault); All of them deserve my pity.

Can you provide evidence that that's not equally true of humans?

I really appreciate your compassion towards people who have been damaged and poorly nurtured.  Some are so broken that they don't seem to be repairable,  and so can only be sequestered.   Agree that punishment provides no remedy.   I remain unsure if it gives some consolation to a victim (or victim's family) to punish.   Is just knowing the perp is locked up enough?  Some victims want revenge,  others say that enough harm has happened,  why add more.   Which impulse should society validate? 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Some victims want revenge,  others say that enough harm has happened,  why add more.   Which impulse should society validate? 

Forgiveness isn't about what's best for the perp, it's about what's best for you; even if the forgiven is you...

 

[Peterkin]

5 hours ago, TheVat said:

Agree that punishment provides no remedy.   I remain unsure if it gives some consolation to a victim (or victim's family) to punish.   Is just knowing the perp is locked up enough?  Some victims want revenge,  others say that enough harm has happened,  why add more.   Which impulse should society validate? 

Both of those are largely cultural matters. Whether people who have been wronged by their fellow citizens desire revenge or restitution or penitence or redemption of the wrongdoer depends on the belief-system of the community in which their mind-set and relationships were formed. Even within a complex and diverse large society, local communities may vary considerably in their attitudes. 

Society at large is best served, not by validating a viewpoint - that is, beyond its constitutional principle - but by finding the most practical solution to its problems. No solution will consist of a single legislation (unless it's a monster omnibus bill) or a uniform response to the different manifestations of lawbreaking.

I do make a distinction between those words, lawbreaking and wrongdoing. To label them all "crime" is to obfuscate the subject beyond any hope of discovering its causes, and without understanding of the cause, there can be no solution.

I also make a distinction among different types of lawbreakers and wrongdoers. The legal system does make such distinctions, but doesn't have nearly enough scope even to define, let alone discover the differences and implement the appropriate procedure in each situation.

That AAF study is worth glancing at.

Edited August 23, 2021 by Peterkin
can't seem to catch all the typographical errors

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

As with my pitbul analogy, most of them are only dangerous when given the wrong training (you seem to have agreed with that), the rest of them are dangerous because they have some sort of mental illness (which is not their fault); All of them deserve my pity.

I was speaking of the Pit Bull, not any incorrigible evil criminal element. 

As far as mental illness is concerned, my pity would be with the poor parents in the case of the little girl that was tied up, raped and tortured to an extreme degree, and their mental torture and anguish...just as that which was portrayed in the movie I mentioned, "A Time to Kill" by the Father of that little black girl.

Was Hitler mentally ill? Probably. Does that mean I give him equal consideration [if he had not cowardly killed himself] as the 6 million Jews, and countless other deaths and trauma, he put the world through? I don't think so.

None of that by the way, eliminates the fact that some people are simply evil and that prisons need to exist.

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I think there are levels of consideration and pity that apply here. You cannot take the same approach with every criminal act or perpetrator. After all we are all different, though we may share many traits as humans, each person has their own identity and personality. There should be no excuse for a crime, though some crimes you can see why they are committed and you can sympathise and sometimes empathise with the perpetrator. The level of the criminal act and danger this may pose to society should be what drives the considerations for punishment, rehabilitation etc... Thankfully, in the western culture this (so I believe) is the case. 

 Bingo! and thankfully, will remain so simply out of necessity.

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Do I sympathise with a petty criminal who is down on their luck, desperate? For sure.

Do I sympathise with a criminal that has had a poor upbringing and/or abused. Yeah (even if the crime is to some degree serious).

Do I sympathise with a criminal that tortures, abuses, rapes, brutally murders... No, regardless of their problems or excuses, mental illness's, environment... To inflict such horrific things onto another human being is despicable and should be dealt with by society accordingly, regardless of rehabilitation or pity for the aggressor, this person has taken from another human being what cannot be returned.       

Yes, near exactly what I have said throughout this thread, and which has simply been ignored in favour of pushing some unachievable extreme political position, imo.

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

 If anyone inflicted such violence to any member of my family I would expect at the very least, severe punishment to be given. Failing this I would not hesitate to deploy my own "justice" and end up a criminal myself, at least then you can pity me.       

I have thought about what I would do in a similar situation. While hopefully I would let justice take its course, [living in a reasonable westernised society that for all its faults, still recognises justice] no one can say for sure. I raised a movie called "A Time to Kill" Mathew McCaunaghy and Sandra Bullock, that portrayed a near exact copy of the "real life" scenario I raised when a low life criminal, on parole tied up, tortured and raped a little 7 year old girl. The Father of the little girl, shot and killed the two redneck evil perpetrators in that movie. 

Edited August 23, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, beecee said:

I was speaking of the Pit Bull, not any incorrigible evil criminal element. 

22 hours ago, dimreepr said:

As with my pitbul analogy, most of them are only dangerous when given the wrong training (you seem to have agreed with that), the rest of them are dangerous because they have some sort of mental illness (which is not their fault); All of them deserve my pity.

Can you provide evidence that that's not equally true of humans?

So, no then; besides evil only exists in hell, inside the dark lord.

13 hours ago, beecee said:

Was Hitler mentally ill? Probably. Does that mean I give him equal consideration [if he had not cowardly killed himself] as the 6 million Jews, and countless other deaths and trauma, he put the world through? I don't think so.

How do you know that Hitler didn't lead to a better world?

Besides, what good would it do for the victim's of him; to seek revenge on him.

Natural justice is an eye for an eye (in Hitler's case, kill him without torture), not two eye's for one; that's why revenge just leads to blindness and why it can only damage society.

13 hours ago, beecee said:

I raised a movie called "A Time to Kill" Mathew McCaunaghy and Sandra Bullock, that portrayed a near exact copy of the "real life" scenario I raised when a low life criminal, on parole tied up, tortured and raped a little 7 year old girl. The Father of the little girl, shot and killed the two redneck evil perpetrators in that movie. 

Cinamatic justice is fiction, sure it feels good to see "the evil bastard" get their comeuppance. In real life the situation is infinitely more nuanced; for instance:

Fiction, we get to personally witness the crime and see the pleasure he's getting, sometimes we're given a back storyline to confirm what an "evil monster" he is; and then the "good folks" prevail.

Life, we can't be sure of anything; even if we personally witness the crime.

20 hours ago, TheVat said:

I really appreciate your compassion towards people who have been damaged and poorly nurtured.

It's not compassion for other's, it's purely selfish; it's how I'd like to be treated, if I ever find myself in the dock. 

Edited August 24, 2021 by dimreepr