What is Justice?

[Intoscience]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

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

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, not two eye's for one; that's why revenge just leads to blindness and why it can only damage society.

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.

(my bold) Doesn't matter, what matters is the means by which Hitler tried to achieve his personal belief on what a better world should be. This is one of the absurdities of war in general, each side believing they are the good guys. 

Even though in reality "an eye for an eye" is not necessarily the best course of action, there is in it, an almost romantic notion that fair justice has been served, even though we know that life is not that simple.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

(my bold) Doesn't matter, what matters is the means by which Hitler tried to achieve his personal belief on what a better world should be. This is one of the absurdities of war in general, each side believing they are the good guys. 

Even though in reality "an eye for an eye" is not necessarily the best course of action, there is in it, an almost romantic notion that fair justice has been served, even though we know that life is not that simple.

OK, so what do you recommend? 

[Intoscience]

21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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

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

I'm not sure everyone could find peace in forgiveness. I'm not a religious person, I don't believe in god or an afterlife or any other mythical/supernatural condition. I do however believe in morals and fairness, goodness, looking after the planet, animals, people and society.

But I'm also pretty tough when it comes to right and wrong within my culture and even have opinions on other cultures, but I won't go there. I believe in natural selection and that nature, sometimes cruelly has a way of ridding the weak. We as civilized humans have the capability to control this and rightly/morally in general do so. 

I struggle in my mind though to comprehend forgiveness for a mindless atrocity that severely harms, or worse, another human being. Especially if that human being is an innocent child! I think maybe in this situation I'd be more at peace with "an eye for an eye".     

[beecee]

34 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

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.

Are you serious? 😲As we know, like many bulies, he was also a coward also and didn't have the stomach to face justice.

34 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

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.

His henchman [the one's that didn't take the easy way out] were humanely hung until they were dead...thankfully. Many believe they should have been given the same long, slow torturious death they did to 6 million Jews.

34 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

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.

It was a movie sure...I did mention that, but also an analogy that in many ways resembled the real life victim that I presented. Yes, he was an evil monster [in the case I presented] and yes the two young rednecks in the movie got what most normal folk would expect them to get and what they deserved...and it was equally pleasing that the other vicitm in the movie, the Father, was found not guilty of taking justice into his own hands. Neither the rednecks in the movie, nor the real life arsehole in the real life case I presented, deserve any sympathy in line with that which society, and the law needed to give to the little girl and her family, first and foremost.

34 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

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

That is nothing more then nonsensical philosophical clap trap. 

 

Edited August 24, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Intoscience said:

I'm not sure everyone could find peace in forgiveness.

It's the best chance we've got, sometimes the hardest person to forgive is me...

3 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

 I'm not a religious person, I don't believe in god or an afterlife or any other mythical/supernatural condition.

What's religion got to do with it?

5 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I struggle in my mind though to comprehend forgiveness for a mindless atrocity that severely harms, or worse, another human being.

Exactly, you struggle to comprehend the peace it brings...

[Intoscience]

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

OK, so what do you recommend? 

Unfortunately I don't have an answer, I don't think there is just one solution that fits all. Like I stated earlier we are all different, have different feelings and views. What might be just for one may not be just for another. 

Maybe we just need not lose sight of what is best for society. Again not a simple answer cause we may all have different opinions on what is best. I think I would prioritise, safety as my main aim, then investigate deterrents... not an easy task which is why we end up with systems that don't always work. 

It worries me when I see my culture and society evolving into this "wrap everyone up in cotton wool" mentality. This softly softly approach is damaging to mental wellbeing. We are evolved animals that had to learn harshness to survive. Its built in our genes and we develop many of our social skills, compassion, sympathy, empathy etc... from tough experiences. Take these experiences away and you can breed socially inept people that can tend towards criminal activities.    

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

Are you serious? 😲As we know, like many bulies, he was also a coward also and didn't have the stomach to face justice.

His henchman [the one's that didn't take the easy way out] were humanely hung until they were dead...thankfully. Many believe they should have been given the same long, slow torturious death they did to 6 million Jews.

It was a movie sure...I did mention that, but also an analogy that in many ways resembled the real life victim that I presented. Yes, he was an evil monster [in the case I presented] and yes the two young rednecks in the movie got what most normal folk would expect them to get and what they deserved...and it was equally pleasing that the other vicitm in the movie, the Father, was found not guilty of taking justice into his own hands. Neither the rednecks in the movie, nor the real life arsehole in the real life case I presented, deserve any sympathy in line with that which society, and the law needed to give to the little girl and her family, first and foremost.

How does this argue my post?

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

That is nothing more then nonsensical philosophical clap trap.

Indeed, it's clear that you don't understand my philosophy; my apologies for not explaining it, to you, properly...   

[Intoscience]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's the best chance we've got, sometimes the hardest person to forgive is me...

What's religion got to do with it?

Exactly, you struggle to comprehend the peace it brings...

I mentioned religion because the focus of many of the readings I hear from religious texts (at least in Christianity) focusses around forgiveness, as though, forgiveness is the path to all things good.

My point being that I forgive based on the context, remorse and the reasons behind a wrong doing. Why would I forgive an atrocity such as the rape and brutal murder of an innocent child? If a person is capable of doing such an atrocity then that person deserves not to be alive, let alone be forgiven. 

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Unfortunately I don't have an answer, I don't think there is just one solution that fits all. Like I stated earlier we are all different, have different feelings and views. What might be just for one may not be just for another.

So let's start with, assuming the perp is a victim too, until proven otherwise...

[beecee]

25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

OK, so what do you recommend? 

Justice according to the crime commited.

[Intoscience]

Just now, dimreepr said:

So let's start with, assuming the perp is a victim too, until proven otherwise...

Then that person should know better than anyone what its like to be a victim, so should have more empathy or sympathy for other victims. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Intoscience said:

I mentioned religion because the focus of many of the readings I hear from religious texts (at least in Christianity) focusses around forgiveness, as though, forgiveness is the path to all things good.

I think you find it in most religion's, Buddhism is a more recognised philosophy, in it forgiveness leads to inner-peace; seems to be a pretty good place to start... 😉

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Why would I forgive an atrocity such as the rape and brutal murder of an innocent child?

Because not doing so can't change the past; only your future... 

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

Justice according to the crime commited.

Seems to me what you mean is, "Justice according to my emotional judgement of the "evil" he "possess". 

Rose West Evil monster or innocent victim of child abuse? 

[Intoscience]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

I think you find it in most religion's, Buddhism is a more recognised philosophy, in it forgiveness leads to inner-peace; seems to be a pretty good place to start... 😉

Because not doing so can't change the past; only your future... 

I do envy that stance, inner peace is a very attractive state to gain. 

I don't think I would gain inner peace just from forgiveness. Not forgiving may not be able to change the past but it might change the future for the better. 

E.g.

Possible scenario 1 of many: A person rapes and brutally murders a child. The person is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment into a mental facility aiming at rehabilitation. 20 years later the perpetrator is deemed rehabilitated and fit to re-join society. All is forgiven and the person is set free, new identity... 1 possible outcome:  After a few months in society another child is raped and brutally murdered by the same person.

Possible scenario 1 of 1: A person rapes and brutally murders a child. The person is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life or sentenced to death, no forgiveness, with no chance of freedom. No further children can ever be harmed by this person, society is safe from this person forever either way. 

In my opinion such a person that commits such an atrocity deserves no second chance, regardless of forgiveness, its not even worth the risk.  

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

Rose West Evil monster or innocent victim of child abuse? 

Both, No excuse.

She should have had empathy and sympathy for children who face similar experiences, found a path to help such victims. Not create more victims just because she was once one. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Intoscience said:

I don't think I would gain inner peace just from forgiveness.

Have you tried?

3 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Not forgiving may not be able to change the past but it might change the future for the better. 

No-one knows the future, all you can change is now.

[Intoscience]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Have you tried?

No-one knows the future, all you can change is now.

I haven't had the need to forgive such an atrocity, though I have forgiven people who have done wrong doings. 

Correct, no one knows the future, however a freed criminal can commit again, a jailed one can't. So in my example you can only guarantee that the perpetrator cannot harm ever again if you deal with it accordingly. But you can't guarantee it if they are freed back into society.

Prevention is better than cure would you not say?

This just boils down to my initial point on justice and punishment should be dependent on the crime and the threat.

Edited August 24, 2021 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Possible scenario 1 of many: A person rapes and brutally murders a child. The person is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment into a mental facility aiming at rehabilitation. 20 years later the perpetrator is deemed rehabilitated and fit to re-join society. All is forgiven and the person is set free, new identity... 1 possible outcome:  After a few months in society another child is raped and brutally murdered by the same person.

Then we know we got it wrong, feel free to throw away the key or put them down, like you would a dangerous dog (with the lament "it's kinder"). 

What if we got the wrong guy in the first place and vent our spleen's on them, again we got it wrong; but now we're happy to let it happen to a plethora of other innocents in the certain knowledge, that our vented spleen makes the world a better place.

34 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Prevention is better than cure would you not say?

How do you prevent a disease you don't know you have?

"The two most important days in your life are the day you were born and the day you find out why." - Mark Twain.

 

[Intoscience]

39 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Then we know we got it wrong, feel free to throw away the key or put them down, like you would a dangerous dog (with the lament "it's kinder"). 

What if we got the wrong guy in the first place and vent our spleen's on them, again we got it wrong; but now we're happy to let it happen to a plethora of other innocents in the certain knowledge, that our vented spleen makes the world a better place.

Oops we thought the person was rehabilitated and fit to re-join society....Try explaining this to the 2nd victim's parents!

This is not a broken part that can be just fixed and if it breaks again we try again. The consequences of getting this wrong could be potentially the loss of another innocent child's life. If we took an engineering approach and did a risk assessment the part would be condemned to the trash, the risk of failure is too great. 

If we get the wrong person, which does happen I admit, there is always going to be a certain amount of collateral damage. This is where the justice system has to be clever and considerate enough without taking a gamble.

I'm not a fan of the death penalty, even though a person that commits such a crime, in my personal opinion doesn't deserve to live. I would hope that on the very slim chance (modern investigation with forensic science tends to be much more reliable these days) that the wrong person has been convicted, they have the chance to appeal and be freed if found to be innocent. Yes I pity such people, but I pity the victim's family much more. The loss of the family far exceeds the loss for the wrongly convicted who is jailed.  

 

Edited August 24, 2021 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Yes I pity such people, but I pity the victim's family much more. The loss of the family far exceeds the loss for the wrongly convicted.

Then the scales of justice are measuring the wrong thing.

Jeez, how many more page's...  

A little less subtle, but sometimes we need a hammer...

[TheVat]

DR:  I reckon a lot of altruistic sentiments have some selfish element to them.   As your video (thanks!) said,  we're only human.   Still,  it's a bit of a struggle for me to believe the comp-,  erm, humane regard apparent in your posts is "purely selfish. "   

I would say,  on the extreme and rare scenarios of monsters who rape and torture children, that I find my own empathy system shuts down,  goes dark.   And the thought occurs to me,  hey,  it might be merciful to just put such a depraved being down.   But as Reepr points out,  the situation in real life is usually more nuanced. 

Rag n Bone Man has a great blues baritone.   

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 

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. 

This quote somehow didn't appear atop my reply,  so here it is.   Somehow I thought page six was the end of the thread,  and my reply would be next.    A brain fart. 

Edited August 24, 2021 by TheVat
Brain farting, methane everywhere

[dimreepr]

21 minutes ago, TheVat said:

This quote somehow didn't appear atop my reply,  so here it is.   Somehow I thought page six was the end of the thread,  and my reply would be next.    A brain fart. 

Welcome to the ghost of old Tom Joad...

 

[Peterkin]

I don't get this eternal dwelling on how to punish the rare, spectacular crime - after it has taken place, and how to prevent the next one, with no consideration given to preventing the first one. Didn't anybody ever notice anything odd about that boy at any time before he committed that one heinous act?

I think this is a large part of what Dimreepr has been advocating for. If there are babies born irremediably evil, we should sequester them long before they do so much damage. If they're not born evil, we should prevent them turning bad.  Shouldn't we be paying attention to how our children are developing and what kind of people they're growing into?

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

If there are babies born irremediably evil, we should sequester them long before they do so much damage.

Who gets to make that decision, and what are the objective metrics / thresholds when doing so?

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

. If they're not born evil, we should prevent them turning bad.

What does this look like in practice? Is there like a pill you can give them, maybe shock therapy, cut out parts of the brain? How do you operationalize it?

[Peterkin]

 

 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Is there like a pill you can give them, maybe shock therapy, cut out parts of the brain? 

No, there are no magic bullets - and that includes throwing away keys.

 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

What does this look like in practice?

As I asked before: Has nobody ever noticed anything odd about this boy before he committed this horrendous crime for which he is now famous? Why not? We'll never understand anything by punishing it, but we might understand what happens in a child's mind, what influences alter his course in in life, if we pay attention.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Who gets to make that decision, and what are the objective metrics / thresholds when doing so?

Who makes decisions about autistic children, dyslexic children, children with any kind of problem? The parents, guardians, educators and health care professionals who monitor his condition. Taking care of children who exhibit anomalous behaviour or difficulty conforming to social standards isn't exactly a novel idea. It's just that the structures for helping/correcting them as it stands now is 90% cracks, through which far too many fall. 

A child who is spectacularly injured, mutilated or killed is the subject of a tsunami of maudlin sympathy for fifteen minutes. The other 10,000,000 are invisible.   

[iNow]

Since you replied to my question with new questions of your own, I don’t feel any more clear on what you’re actually proposing. 

[Peterkin]

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

Since you replied to my question with new questions of your own, I don’t feel any more clear on what you’re actually proposing. 

Do you mean, you don't know who, in your own community, is responsible for taking care of kids?

I'm proposing: Pay a lot less attention to, spend less money on, give less public infrastructure, equipment and manpower to, wars of choice or convenience or profit. Pay less attention, devote less administration, bestow less reverence on the accumulation of great wealth by a few. Put a lot more effort, thought and care into the welfare of the young and troubled, ill and old, vulnerable and volatile.

Even more simply:  social justice is the better part of criminal justice.  

 

 

Edited August 24, 2021 by Peterkin