What is Justice?

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I'm not sure we can just omit punishment, at least in some form or another. There is nothing preventing looking at the reasons any crime was committed. But this takes time, each and every case is different, simply because each and every person is different, even though many patterns and similarities will emerge. Unfortunately in many cases if its not acted on quickly then it can go unchecked and create further, possibly worst problems.

I'm not suggesting we do, I'm suggesting we use the correct translation.

 

Quote

 

punish (v.)

c. 1300, punishen, "inflict a penalty on," from Old French puniss-, extended present-participle stem of punir "to punish," from Latin punire "punish, correct, chastise; take vengeance for; inflict a penalty on, cause pain for some offense," earlier poenire, from poena "penalty, punishment" (see penal). Colloquial meaning "to inflict heavy damage or loss" is recorded from 1801, originally in pugilism. Related: Punished; punishing.

 

 

23 hours ago, Intoscience said:

This thread reminds me of the old adage about a kind man who freed the trapped wolf. 

A kind man comes across a wolf that has been, systematically killing the man's sheep. He see's the wolf trapped and in pain and feels pity for the beast. He forgives the wolf for all the sheep it killed and in doing so helps to free the wolf. Once freed the wolf, hungry and desperate, turns to the man killing and eating him. 

The point of this parable, as seen from a socratic POV:

The man died in peace because his soul is untainted, and the wolf lived because it's a wolf; if it was a dear, the outcome could be the same, in a panic the deer trampled the man to death, only the food is different. 😉

Edited August 26, 2021 by dimreepr

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

What do you propose in place of punishment?

Prevention: economic equity, early intervention, physical and mental health care, security, education, opportunity. Haven't i said? 

[dimreepr]

Just now, Peterkin said:

Prevention: economic equity, early intervention, physical and mental health care, security, education, opportunity. Haven't i said? 

Shouldn't the word be 'mitigation', it's the industrious mouse all over and why Ricky didn't get it.

[Peterkin]

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Shouldn't the word be 'mitigation', it's the industrious mouse all over and why Ricky didn't get it.

I don't understand.

Thing about "justice" is, to me, it's a much, much bigger and more inclusive concept than crime and punishment. There is the whole question of what a "crime" is and what makes the same act a crime in one situation, heroic in another and just routine work in a third. There is the question of the principles on which the social and legal structure are built; of who makes the law and for whose benefit, who is punished and who is beyond reach. There is the question of cultural norms, like bait-and-switch morality: teach the children to value winning above all else, then tell them  honesty is the most important thing. Raise adrenaline- and sugar-junkies, then make them sit quietly behind a desk for eight hours a day. There is the question of what ways and means are available to which segments of the population; of which people become "criminals" and how it happens.

There are anecdotes and statistics. I prefer to form my big picture from the latter.

But that's just me.

Edited August 26, 2021 by Peterkin

[Intoscience]

41 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Prevention: economic equity, early intervention, physical and mental health care, security, education, opportunity. Haven't i said? 

Which I all agree with you on, but non of this replaces punishment. It just reduces the amount that has to be dealt. Punishment is for that which has already been committed, not for that which might. Prevention of all crime though ideal is unrealistic. Even if we achieve a 99% success rate investing in and using every prevention method possible, there is still 1% that has to be dealt with.  

[Peterkin]

7 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Even if we achieve a 99% success rate investing in and using every prevention method possible, there is still 1% that has to be dealt with.  

And so much more expertise and resources available with which to do it, if the jails aren't full of people who can't afford bail and fines for minor infractions. But the 1% shouldn't determine what "justice" is.

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not suggesting we do, I'm suggesting we use the correct translation.

 

 

The point of this parable, as seen from a socratic POV:

The man died in peace because his soul is untainted, and the wolf lived because it's a wolf; if it was a dear, the outcome could be the same, in a panic the deer trampled the man to death, only the food is different. 😉

The man may have died in peace, but his failing to pre-empt the intensions, or consider the natural instinct of the wolf cost him his life, and also may cost many more lives in the future. He foolishly believed that his forgiveness and kind act towards the trapped wolf would change the wolf, his mistake was fatal. 

I have no problem with forgiveness, if used in the right context. The point of the parable is that you can't always change the nature of somethings no matter how hard you try, they are what they are.

Even if you invest all the efforts and appear to make good progress there is no guarantee you have fixed the issue. We are not capable of fixing all the glitches of a human mind, if this was possible we could easily wipe out crime, violence and any other unsociable aspects, then all live nicely together in an utopian world. 

[dimreepr]

53 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

There are anecdotes and statistics. I prefer to form my big picture from the latter.

But that's just me.

Indeed, all we can know is, there's a bigger picture...

We can't prevent it...

Edited August 26, 2021 by dimreepr

[Intoscience]

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

And so much more expertise and resources available with which to do it, if the jails aren't full of people who can't afford bail and fines for minor infractions. But the 1% shouldn't determine what "justice" is.

I've given this a like because I do agree with you. However there are ideals that are unrealistic, but there are crimes that are, some of which are so atrocious (as in Beecee's example) where there is no ideal solution, other than that which guarantees prevention at the very least, but of most importance.   

Edited August 26, 2021 by Intoscience

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

The man may have died in peace, but his failing to pre-empt the intensions, or consider the natural instinct of the wolf cost him his life, and also may cost many more lives in the future.

The point is, we don't know the future...😉

[Intoscience]

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The point is, we don't know the future...😉

The point is, we may not know the future but we can prevent (or at least attempt) certain things from happening.

If the man had killed the wolf he would have saved it from the suffering and also prevented it from killing himself and anything else in the future.

If you don't lock up a violent criminal then you cannot prevent them 100% from committing violence within society. If you want to rehabilitate that person there after, sure lets invest all the money and effort into doing so. But lets be clear, that rehabilitation has to be 100% successful to guarantee a safe society. 

Its a tricky situation and a tough balance, and to be fair I wouldn't like the responsibility of the decision to grant punishment or parole for a known violent criminal.  

Edited August 26, 2021 by Intoscience

[iNow]

9 hours ago, beecee said:

They are a small sample of society that through their actions, destroyed any and all feelings of rehabilitation from the society at large.

So maybe there's no "one size fits all" approach is the take-away here. Some cancers must be cutout with a scalpel without any delay. Others are amenable to treatment and care... more like wounds that will heal with sutures than something to be extracted and discarded.

As always, the devil is in the details... what are the thresholds / who decides? Who watches the watchers? 

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

The point is, we may not know the future but we can prevent (or at least attempt) certain things from happening.

Indeed, it's called mitigation. 

You can store food, but you can't decide who eats it...

[TheVat]

Regarding teaching....

Only small penalties can really ever be "teaching" -- pay a $400 fine for parking at a bus stop,  and you will stop parking at bus stops.   It's a very simple teaching (you're not attending a class that develops empathy for bus drivers and riders), along the lines of Hello,  this fine is letting you know that this action constitutes a nuisance.   If you really weren't aware of that,  consider yourself now fully aware.   One reason small penalties are small is they presume a lack of awareness rather than presume criminal intent.   Where there's criminal intent,  there's nothing to teach - the person already knows they're doing something bad and have chosen to do it anyway.   The only approach there that would be true teaching would be some experience that gives awareness of what the victim had experienced,  something that (with a nonsociopath anyway) grew empathy.   Perhaps in some future we'll figure out how to do that -- maybe a virtual reality immersion in which your are victimized and powerless to deal with it.  (this sounds like a science fiction story I  may have read somewhere)   

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Regarding teaching....

Only small penalties can really ever be "teaching" -- pay a $400 fine for parking at a bus stop,  and you will stop parking at bus stops.   It's a very simple teaching (you're not attending a class that develops empathy for bus drivers and riders), along the lines of Hello,  this fine is letting you know that this action constitutes a nuisance.   If you really weren't aware of that,  consider yourself now fully aware.   One reason small penalties are small is they presume a lack of awareness rather than presume criminal intent.   Where there's criminal intent,  there's nothing to teach - the person already knows they're doing something bad and have chosen to do it anyway.   The only approach there that would be true teaching would be some experience that gives awareness of what the victim had experienced,  something that (with a nonsociopath anyway) grew empathy.   Perhaps in some future we'll figure out how to do that -- maybe a virtual reality immersion in which your are victimized and powerless to deal with it.  (this sounds like a science fiction story I  may have read somewhere)   

The enlightened learnt to build on the "teaching" not depend on it...

[Peterkin]

You can't determine an appropriate lesson or punishment or correction without knowing the cause of the criminality. 

Sometimes the cause of the crime is not within the criminal's control: vagrancy, homosexuality, miscarriage. Even in "reasonable westernized societies", some laws are impossible for some people to obey. 

Sometimes the person being punished didn't do what he's accused of, but since he's accused and in detention, and can't afford bail, he's counted a criminal and punished. Odds are, he won't learn anything positive from this experience - but, because of his criminalization, he is no longer eligible for the employment, housing, credit and social standing that he may have enjoyed before the incarceration, and might therefore turn to crime. Even among those duly convicted, many have not committed the serious crime of which they are accused; in lesser crimes, many confessions are false, as defendants are counselled to plead guilty and accept a lesser sentence, rather than risk losing a trial [in which they often can't afford to mount an adequate defence]. 

Than there is broken-law-breaking: acts that do no harm to society, but offend the resident powers: resisting arrest, failing to stop when pursued, obstructing justice, unlawful assembly and failure to disperse while kettled, abetting a suspect, assaulting an officer's boot with one's ribs....  

Where somebody has actually and knowingly committed an antisocial act, it usually falls into one or straddles two of the common motivations: acquisition, love, anger, stupidity, mischief, activism, status. Each of those motivations has a range of intensity (and provocations), and so does the action they engender. But the severity of the legal response is determined less by the act itself than by the intended target. (e.g. you can get 12 years in prison, plus loss of your whole family's electronic devices for a five-minute interruption to Mastercard's advertising web-page. I just learned that today.)

I don't consider any of that fair dealing - which is what I think justice should be.  

Edited August 26, 2021 by Peterkin
correcting errors

[beecee]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

So maybe there's no "one size fits all" approach is the take-away here. Some cancers must be cutout with a scalpel without any delay. Others are amenable to treatment and care... more like wounds that will heal with sutures than something to be extracted and discarded.

As always, the devil is in the details... what are the thresholds / who decides? Who watches the watchers? 

Bingo!!! Nicely summed up in all respects. No one here is being some hard line Ogre, asking that all criminals be locked up and the key thrown away...just those misfits that thumb their noses at society in general,and  don't give a stuff to what pain they cause or can cause. 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

You can't determine an appropriate lesson or punishment or correction without knowing the cause of the criminality. 

Sometimes the cause of the crime is not within the criminal's control: vagrancy, homosexuality, miscarriage. 

Sometimes the person being punished didn't do what he's accused of, but since he's accused and in detention, and can't afford bail, he's counted a criminal and punished. Odds are, he won't learn anything positive from this experience - but, because of his criminalization, he is no longer eligible for the employment, housing, credit and social standing that he may have enjoyed before the incarceration, and might therefore turn to crime. Even among those duly convicted, many have not committed the serious crime of which they are accused; in lesser crimes, many confessions are false, as defendants are counselled to plead guilty and accept a lesser sentence, rather than risk losing a trial [in which they often can't afford to mount an adequate defence]. 

Than there is broken-law-breaking: acts that do no harm to society, but offend the resident powers: resisting arrest, failing to stop when pursued, obstructing justice, unlawful assembly and failure to disperse while kettled, abetting a suspect, assaulting an officer's boot with one's ribs....  

Where somebody has actually and knowingly committed an antisocial act, it usually falls into one or straddles two of the common motivations: acquisition, love, anger, stupidity, mischief, activism, status. Each of those motivations has a range of intensity (and provocations), 

I don't consider any of that fair dealing - which is what I think justice should be.  

Some nice real examples, but also there are many more...As a wise man said [just up there a bit] "So maybe there's no "one size fits all" approach is the take-away here".  We can be sure of that fact.

Which brings us back to square one.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz_B8JP2pA8

 

Edited August 26, 2021 by beecee

[Peterkin]

11 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Obviously each and every case requires assessment on what levels of protection and punishment is/or if required. I'm not saying its the answer to all crimes and all levels of crime, I'm just saying it is a quick and immediate solution that then allows sometime for the authorities to decide on the next procedure and sometime for the perpetrator to think about and reflect on the crime they have committed.  

Except, that's not how the present system works in real life. However, if we cut down on the initial crime rate by 1. making better laws 2. practicing better enforcement 3. creating a social environment that engenders less privation, emotional  instability and early brutalization, then the justice system wouldn't be overwhelmed and the authorities would have the resources to do that assessment and make those appropriate decisions. We might even have the extra space to sequester people suspected of posing a danger in humane conditions.

8 hours ago, Intoscience said:

There is nothing preventing looking at the reasons any crime was committed.

Of course there is: volume. That's why they're giving accused thieves that lousy deal: if you insist on your right to a trial, you have to wait months (in jail, if you're poor) don't get a lawyer unless you're a pauper (if you are, you get a bad one), if you're just not rich, you have to hire one and be a pauper before it's over, and if you lose  (likely, in either case, and nobody will give you back those months) and the sentence is drastically more severe than if you plead guilty to begin with. Helluva gamble for the accused; no skin off the prosecutor's office.

 

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Of course there is: volume. That's why they're giving accused thieves that lousy deal:

And just as many get good deals like parole, suspended sentences, house arrests etc, and guess what? re-offend. I gave a great example of that with a far more serious violent crime.

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Except, that's not how the present system works in real life.

Criminal justice and legal systems vary from one country to another, so generalizations like these require caution. Out of curiosity, which country’s criminal justice system do YOU primarily have in mind while making these posts?

[Peterkin]

50 minutes ago, iNow said:

Criminal justice and legal systems vary from one country to another, so generalizations like these require caution. Out of curiosity, which country’s criminal justice system do YOU primarily have in mind while making these posts?

The most readily available stats are from the USA. I do link sources whenever it seems appropriate. Australia's and Canada's crime rates are generally better; lower on violent crime, lower on false conviction, but the recidivism rates are remarkably similar, which doesn't speak well for the practice of imprisonment.

Edited August 26, 2021 by Peterkin

[beecee]

There are people who commit serious violent crimes and atrocities, who can never be safely "managed" within the community. Jail is the only option. While we can certainly reduce prison populations, by the presnt reforms and rehabilitation options that are open within most justice systems, and probably also improvements be made and adopted within the system, sadly some individuals will never be reformed, will never show remorse for what they have done, and never be rehabilitated, There are also some crimes against society, that can never really be forgiven or remain unpunished. 

 

Victimless crimes perhaps need to be viewed in a different category, and I fully agree with probable serious reform for that category.

Sadly, that's the state of play in the world at present.

This may be of interest to some........

https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rr/rr9

Justice reinvestment in Australia: A review of the literature:

 

Abstract:

Justice reinvestment (JR) is a data-driven approach to reducing criminal justice system expenditure and improving criminal justice system outcomes through reductions in imprisonment and offending. JR is a comprehensive strategy that employs targeted, evidence-based interventions to achieve cost savings that can be reinvested to further improve social and criminal justice outcomes.JR has gained a great deal of support in Australia, with a number of JR strategies in operation or under development. This report examines the concepts and approaches behind JR and how it might best be applied in Australia. The report shows that while JR faces some challenges in Australia, it also offers substantial potential to improve justice system outcomes.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Certainly has my total support.

https://www.unodc.org/dohadeclaration/en/news/2017/01/unodc-gathers-penal-reform-leaders-from-across-the-globe-to-promote-prison-rehabilitation--reintegration-and-tackle-re-offending.html

UNODC gathers penal reform leaders from across the globe to promote prison rehabilitation, reintegration and tackle re-offending:

3 January 2017 - The issue of prison-based rehabilitation is a complex one: while prisoners typically face a range of social, economic and personal challenges that may complicate their social reintegration into society, prisons often lack sufficient infrastructure, programmes, and resources, and may even exacerbate these problems. At the same time, the vast majority of prisoners will eventually be released and return to society. In order to reduce re-offending, it is therefore crucial to actively prepare prisoners for their successful re-settlement in society through both prison-based programmes and post-release support.

Recognizing this reality, the crucial importance of the rehabilitation of prisoners for achieving sustainable development was highlighted at the 13th United Nations Crime Congress, held in Doha, in 2015. Since then, UNODC - with financial support from Qatar - has been working on a wide-ranging Global Programme for the Implementation of the Doha Declaration, including on this issue.

 

more at link..........................

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

In essence, prison, and justice reforms are being undertaken, around the world in actual fact, but by the same token, no talk of elimination of prisons and certainly no silly  "one size fits all" is entertained. 

Common sense with reform, and the realisation that some people will not be rehabilitated, appears to be their goal, which I support. Again as I mentioned, imo the most obvious is victimless crimes.

 

Edited August 26, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Which brings us back to square one.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz_B8JP2pA8

Indeed, why do you insist on [1] punishment, in your version of justice?

I also gave iNow a +1, but I suspect for a very different reason.

14 hours ago, beecee said:

There are also some crimes against society, that can never really be forgiven or remain unpunished. 

Case in point; Why?

Mandela/Gandhi/et al had far more reason than you, to not forgive the crimes against their society; but in doing so, they managed to usher in a slightly better society; imagine the society we could usher in, if all our leader's tried that approach??? 

15 hours ago, beecee said:

And just as many get good deals like parole, suspended sentences, house arrests etc, and guess what? re-offend. I gave a great example of that with a far more serious violent crime.

Your assuming guilt first, a plea-bargainer as described by Peterkin may be lucky to get away with a house arrest, but guess what??? 

The more money you have the luckier you are...

Edited August 27, 2021 by dimreepr

[beecee]

42 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, why do you insist on [1] punishment, in your version of justice?

You once again, have it all wrong....It's society in general that insists on justice, based on the popular meaning of justice.

42 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I also gave iNow a +1, but I suspect for a very different reason.

Not sure of your intentions and reasons [actually I am] but I saw wise words in his "So maybe there's no "one size fits all" approach is the take-away here". which is what I have been saying since page 1.

42 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Case in point; Why?

Because sometimes the barbaric violence and cruelty inflicted by monsters on human beings, is beyond any sympathetic feelings.eg: The case of the little girl I gave....Adolf Hitler...the movement behind the suicide bombings in Kabul today. That will do for starters.

42 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Mandela/Gandhi/et al had far more reason than you, to not forgive the crimes against their society; but in doing so, they managed to usher in a slightly better society; imagine the society we could usher in, if all our leader's tried that approach??? 

 Again you have it all wrong in making this so personal...your political/philosophical  postion is your business...my position is societies position, which includes rehabilitation, in its many forms for the criminal as listed. Mandela and Gandhi while fighting against extreme injustices, were not personally subject to torture, rape or murder. They were exceptional stand out men. I'm sure also both would agree with prison being a part of any justice system, and when in Mandella's case, he finally came to power, did not abolish prisons. He knew there was a need for them and always will be.

You see with all due respect, you are not considering what I and others are saying, blinded by your political/philosophical position...otherwise you would agree, not withstanding your death penalty cop out.

Edited August 27, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

You once again, have it all wrong....It's society in general that insists on justice, based on the popular meaning of justice.

The army of the righteously indignant is no basis for a system of government.

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

Because sometimes the barbaric violence and cruelty inflicted by monsters on human beings, is beyond any sympathetic notion.eg: The case I gave....Adolf Hitler...the movement behind the suicide bombings in Kabul today. That will do for staters.

Please... Just answer the fecking question... I'm getting dizzy... 🙄

You'd forgive a damaged/dangerous dog, and be happy to put it out of it's misery (it's kinder), but you want your neighbour/fellow human to suffer for the same crime?

Maybe a dog has no soul, are you sure your not religious???  

Edited August 27, 2021 by dimreepr