What is Justice?

[studiot]

33 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

He wasn't, BTW. He was suggesting that if we alleviate some of the conditions that drive people to law-breaking, there would be less law-breaking. That would also apply at the rich/important/influential level, only eliminating the crime-generation there requires a different approach: regulation, oversight and enforcement.

In fact, let's try reversing the strategies for a while: better services for the poor; more policing of the rich, and see what effect that has on criminality. 

I suppose it depends how you weigh out your crimes.

The theft of a loaf of bread or a clean new pair of trousers, when you don't have enough money for food, shelter  etc, = 2 crimes or 2 criminals.

Whereas mass murder by the million, when you have more than enough of everything, counts as only one ?

Edited November 12, 2021 by studiot
spelling

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

I suppose it depends how you weight out your crimes.

The theft of a loaf of bread or a clean new pair of trousers, when you don't have enough money for food, shelter  etc, = 2 crimes or 2 criminals.

Whereas mass murder by the million, when you have more than enough of everything, counts as only one ?

And that's justice...

[studiot]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And that's justice...

Thanks for pointing out my spelling error.

[mistermack]

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

The theft of a loaf of bread or a clean new pair of trousers, when you don't have enough money for food, shelter  etc, = 2 crimes or 2 criminals.

😄 You seem to be living in a different world. This is what google gives, for a search on stolen items : (mind you, I don't know how it all adds up to 100%)

Edited November 12, 2021 by mistermack

[Peterkin]

27 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Criminals are laughing at the system, behind their backs, and I know that from what they say, not what psychologists write. 

That's got to be good enough for anybody.

Next time you challenge me to produce a scrap of evidence, I won't link scholarly publications; I'll just report on comments from people I've met.

Should be scrappy enough.

[mistermack]

 

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I won't link scholarly publications; I'll just report on comments from people I've met.

If you ever meet some real criminals, it might be worth reading. 

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

Are you joking? What's the difference between the death penalty and compulsory euthanasia? In any case, the biggest objection to the death penalty for me is the chance of killing an innocent person, and that chance grows enormously, when sexual offences are included. Since so many convictions involve consent, which is notoriously hard to prove, and so easy for a jury to get wrong, because a good liar is often much more convincing than a nervous shifty looking truth-teller. 

In the complete post you quoted from,  I had hoped to make clear my distinction and avoid confusion, but I think you are correct this was muddy.   I was speaking of unambiguous and extreme cases,  as in your horrific example case.   I meant I oppose death as a penalty,  as the satisfaction of some sort of debt,  but that I feel that euthanasia can be done where it is bringing an end to suffering.   An individual so sick and depraved that they would beat and rape a small child would be finding mercy in death rather than a penalty. 

I agree that there are many other cases of sexual offense where the danger of wrongful convictions is significant and a sentence of such finality would be wrong.   

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

(mind you, I don't know how it all adds up to 100%)

It seldom does...

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

 

As far as your "evidence" goes, posting a load of links is not posting evidence. And most of it is links to papers by psychologists etc. People hugely biased pushing their own agenda. Who on the lucrative rehab industry is going to admit that it's all a waste of time and money? When their clients are constantly telling them how well they are doing just to advance their own parole chances.

 

My sense is that you also have a bias, against the psychiatric profession.   I have not seen you describe professionals in other science or medical  based fields as "hugely biased pushing their own agenda," but I guess it's possible you do.   This website often has members citing expert opinions,  so I find it helpful if there is evidence (when rejecting said opinion) that the expertise is questionable or compromised.   Psychiatrists and psychologists I have known through my work seem mainly motivated to help people get better,  and are not fooled by superficial charm or poseurs.   

If you have evidence they are scamming us,  please post it. 

Edited November 12, 2021 by TheVat
Ptyo

[Peterkin]

The first two links were to 8 different articles by 6 psychologists in learned publications. If one were suspicious of the  motivation of all psychologists who study prisoner rehabilitation methodology and practice, all of them could be dismissed on those grounds. 

The third, however, cites an exhaustive 9-year study of recidivism

Quote

A longitudinal study by the U.S. Department of Justice that followed released inmates from 30 different states found that within three years of release, 68 percent were arrested for a new crime. That number jumped to 79 percent after six years and to 83 percent after nine years.

then follows it up with studies on reducing recidivism, also under the DOJ auspices

Quote

According to a National Institutes of Corrections study on evidence-based practices, building trust between the defendant and the judge, their attorney, probation agent, therapist, and other stakeholders can be a crucial component of changing the defendant’s behavior.

and a state government commission

Quote

This type of early assessment has been suggested at the federal and state level. For example, the Illinois Community Safety and Reentry Commission recommended that each inmate goes through a “Reception, Assessment, and Classification” period during which their risks and needs would be evaluated and a personalized reentry program would be developed.

and the Rand Corporation

Quote

A 2013 meta-analysis of educational programs for adult inmates found that reducing recidivism through education works very well – inmates who took part in educational programs while incarcerated had a 43 percent lower chance of recidivism than inmates that did not participate in educational programs.

Furthermore, the meta-analysis, which was sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, revealed that each dollar spent on education for inmates saved four to five dollars on the costs of incarcerating an inmate again later on.

Quote

Whether treatment takes the form of a deferred sentence while the defendant is in inpatient drug treatment, or as intensive treatment while in prison, rates of recidivism for these offenders are reduced by double-digits compared to the general prison population.

The last one is from NCBI.

Not quite up to the standard of hearsay, but fairly respectable organizations, all the same.

[mistermack]

25 minutes ago, TheVat said:

If you have evidence they are scamming us

Most if not all offenders who go before a parole board have some kind of psychological assessment. I've quoted the case of Philip Manning earlier, who got four years, (served two) for a vicious murder attempt on his then wife. He came out after two years, and killed her and nearly killed her partner, within weeks. 

Don't you think that the first trial judge got psychological reports, before sentencing? And only gave him four years! And then the parole board got psychological reports before letting him out two years early? How much more evidence of scamming to you need? These people simply cannot give any better a guess than you or I, about the future offending of criminals. But, they would never admit it. That's what I call scamming. 

Studying human behaviour is fine. But claiming or giving the false impression that you can predict it is scamming in my book. 

Apart from everything else, I would treat attempted murder exactly the same as murder. The fact that you failed is no reflection on your intentions. And practice makes perfect. 

23 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

  Quote

A 2013 meta-analysis of educational programs for adult inmates found that reducing recidivism through education works very well – inmates who took part in educational programs while incarcerated had a 43 percent lower chance of recidivism than inmates that did not participate in educational programs.

Furthermore, the meta-analysis, which was sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, revealed that each dollar spent on education for inmates saved four to five dollars on the costs of incarcerating an inmate again later on.

This really is too silly for words. This doesn't mean that the educational programs caused the lower rates. It just means that the people opting for the programs were already the least likely to re-offend. Which should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. 

This really is just a case of an industry (the incarceration industry) blowing it's own trumpet to perpetuate the gravy train.

[Peterkin]

It's possible to arrive at different conclusions from similar data, because of one's perspective. As several examples presented in this thread show, some people are deeply impressed by one or two outlying cases, which are also the ones most likely to be sensationalized by the press.

I excluded the wife-killer, as I do parricides and personal vendettas, from any consideration of effective prisoner rehabilitation, because such intimate violence is not in the same class of criminal behaviour with armored car robbery or housebreaking. The motivation for property crime, even if aggravated by violence, is different in kind from the motivation for domestic, religious or racial violence.  The second category may or may not be accessible to amelioration attempts, while the first kind very often is.  

Of course, the sensational crazed killer, though he attracts a great deal of attention and reaction, accounts for a very small percentage of prosecutions. In fact, you can infer and inverse ratio of incidence to news column inches: a common occurrence is not news. 

Also, one's own experience influences one's interpretation of facts. If you consort with career criminals - whether at the level of pickpockets and fences, or in the orbit of $multibillion Ponzi schemers, you get a different perspective on lawbreaking than from the other side - if you've been involved in the solving of crimes. 

33 minutes ago, mistermack said:

This really is just a case of an industry (the incarceration industry) blowing it's own trumpet to perpetuate the gravy train.

Or, one might just have a dull axe.

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Because I can't be sure which way my fight or flight switch will go, when faced with such a trauma and a very sick human holding a knife; and I consider myself a decent citizen, imagine how much I'd suffer if I ran away.

A sociopath doesn't have that switch.

Nor would he think he's evil, just a human/animal (he can't understand the difference) doing something very bad and should be stopped.

How do you know he is sick? Presuming you mean mentally ill.

He had been in jail before for raping an elderly woman. So we have an elderly woman and a little child...first thing that comes to mind is a snivelling coward.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

+1 A very neat synopsis.

Yes, I gave him a like on that. So in essence you agree with capital punishment albeit under another name when appropriate?

While I gave him a like, I am also reluctant to have the death penalty for fear of getting the wrong person. Sadly, locking them up and throwing away the key maybe the only answer to ever avoid that horrible possibility.Granted though in the case I exampled, that possible error [the wrong person] was nil.

7 hours ago, mistermack said:

Are you joking? What's the difference between the death penalty and compulsory euthanasia? In any case, the biggest objection to the death penalty for me is the chance of killing an innocent person, and that chance grows enormously, when sexual offences are included. Since so many convictions involve consent, which is notoriously hard to prove, and so easy for a jury to get wrong, because a good liar is often much more convincing than a nervous shifty looking truth-teller. 

Also factually true (sorry dimreeper) This is illustrated admirably in the other real life case I gave a while back. https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9383624 

"Kenan Basic stopped to help a 19 year old woman with her car at service station
Woman had a broken-down car and Mr Basic spent two hours helping her fix it
They hugged and he followed her a short distance to make sure she was alright
Days later the woman claimed Mr Basic stalked her and indecently assaulted her
Mr Basic spent two weeks in prison, lost his job and is going through a divorce
All charges were dropped against him after woman admitted to lying"

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Here we have two cases, which imo raises the question/s of extreme wrongs being done to others...one involving a coward that raped a little girl, the other a woman falsely accusing a man who stopped to help her of sexual assault. The question arises who and where should our sympathies lie with in the first instant...the convicted rapist ( that was already out on parole and been given a chance to reform) or the little 7 year old girl who most probably has had here life ruined? Or in case two, the woman who has falsely accused a man who stopped to help her of sexual assault, and who has consequently lost his job, spent time in prison, and is going through a divorce because of it, or that same poor man?

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

And he'd be equally happy to kill a pregnant mother or a small children if he was taught how bad they are.

WTF!! I have given two real life cases, where it is beyond doubt as to where sympathies should lie, irrespective of any "supposed" mental illness. And all you have done is continued with trying to protect your own PoV based on some religious philosophy. Justice can never be fully done with relation to the two cases I have raised...how do you fully compensate a poor little girl that probably has had her whole life ruined along with the possibility of never being able to have a family, or the good samaritan that was falsly accused of sexual assault, spnt 2 weeks in jail, lost his job and is going through divorce because of it. That old friend, is where your sympathies, justice and compensation should lie. They are some more facts you seem so reluctant to accept.

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

In the complete post you quoted from,  I had hoped to make clear my distinction and avoid confusion, but I think you are correct this was muddy.   I was speaking of unambiguous and extreme cases,  as in your horrific example case.   I meant I oppose death as a penalty,  as the satisfaction of some sort of debt,  but that I feel that euthanasia can be done where it is bringing an end to suffering.   An individual so sick and depraved that they would beat and rape a small child would be finding mercy in death rather than a penalty. 

I agree that there are many other cases of sexual offense where the danger of wrongful convictions is significant and a sentence of such finality would be wrong.   

Personally, I understood exactly where you were coming from. What I must ask, is how do we determine and/or diagnose mental illness? Are psychiatry and/or psychology exact sciences? Was the bloke in my example mentally ill or just a depraved animal? Was the woman who falsely acused a man of sexual assault, mentally ill, or just having a bad day? Are the leaders and followerers of extreme Islam ( like ISIS and the Taliban) mentally ill or just religious fanatics?

I really try and understand some of the points being put in this thread and others discussing society and society needs, in as calm and as unbiased a manner as possible, but I find it impossible to feel sympathy for instigators of some of the crimes that have been exampled.  How do we conclusively determine mental illness, particularly with regards to a reasonable justice system?

Edited November 12, 2021 by beecee

[Peterkin]

41 minutes ago, beecee said:

Was the bloke in my example mentally ill or just a depraved animal?

I would assume any animal that behaves in a depraved manner is suffering either from rabies or extreme emotional stress. IOW, mentally ill. If the illness is incurable, the animal may have to be put down. Punishing that animal seems to me pointless, since the only function of punishment in animal training is correction - even then its efficacy is questionable, as positive reinforcement has proven a far more reliable method.

Quote

The theory behind it is fairly straightforward. Dogs will repeat good behavior when it’s followed by a reward. Bad behavior does not get a reward or acknowledgement. If correction needs to happen, it comes in the form of removal of rewards, like a toy or treat being taken away. Harsh reprimands or physical punishments aren’t necessary.

The distinction between mental illness and just an aberrant psychological state is certainly no more clear-cut, no more readily discernible than the diagnosis of mental illness. The point is moot in the case of a condition, whether pathological or depraved, that is impervious to correction or cure.   

In those cases, the dangerous individual must be contained, sedated or euthanized. If he's incorrigible, nothing is accomplished by punishing him.

[beecee]

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I would assume any animal that behaves in a depraved manner is suffering either from rabies or extreme emotional stress. IOW, mentally ill.

In those cases, the dangerous individual must be contained, sedated or euthanized. If he's incorrigible, nothing is accomplished by punishing him.

Emotional stress??🤪 I would hazard a guess and say most of us at one time or another has undergone emotional stress.We aren't depraved criminals though, or can be said to be mentally ill.

Nothing is accomplished by punishing him?  isn't being jailed (contained)  or being euthanised ( death penalty) forms of punishment? But you see locking him up and throwing away the key as accomplishing nothing? It's certainly protecting the rest of society...It's certainly administering justice, and of course with the case in question, rehabilitation was being practised when he commited his animal act. Sorry, again my first thoughts are with the vicitm. What happens with him and how he is being treated is of secondary concern, if any.

[koti]

Id’d say that in a nutshell, Justice is what @dimreepr gets for sitting at his folks place and smoking weed. 

Edited November 12, 2021 by koti

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

We aren't depraved criminals though, or can be said to be mentally ill.

You've changed animal to criminal. I was talking about depravity in animals.

Quote

For instance, in highly social and cognitively advanced species such as primates and elephants, where neurological development is strongly mediated by exposure to complex social information, a severely disruptive event can result in the expression of one or more non-normative behaviours during later life, including persistent fear, hyper-aggression and infant abandonment

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3874604/

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

I would hazard a guess and say most of us at one time or another has undergone emotional stress.

What kind? On what level and scale? What duration? I don't presume to say about anyone, whether they are sane, disturbed, profoundly troubled or so emotionally scarred that they cannot be reached.

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

isn't being jailed (contained)  or being euthanised ( death penalty) forms of punishment?

Jail is. Euthanasia isn't. An animal that cannot control its aggression must be contained - which would be hurtful and humiliating to the animal, probably exacerbating his condition, and serve no other purpose than keeping the rest of us safe - or rendered harmless. (Maybe a time will come, in the not-too-distant future when more tools are available. The  drug-induced coma that helped Jordan Peterson kick his drug habit seems to have promise for other applications, but we're not there yet.)   Euthanasia - without, pain and ritual, without the parading him in public and forcing him to witness the means of his imminent death (which is what the death penalty does) is the only relief and release we can afford to give a person, or animal, that we dare not let loose. 

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

But you see locking him up and throwing away the key as accomplishing nothing?

Nothing i want accomplished, no. It doesn't  change undesirable behaviour or render the offender more benign or compensate anyone for a loss. It does achieve something I don't want: causing the offender discomfort, possibly mental anguish, possibly grievous bodily harm; whatever he suffers is protracted, maybe decades; his family has long-term distress and shame in their community; it raises the risk of destructive behaviour inside the prison, perhaps leading to injury or death of guards and other inmates, or escape and heightened danger to society, and costing the taxpayer a fortune - just to satisfy some people whose anger cannot appeased any other way.

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

rehabilitation was being practised when he commited his animal act.

Name two other species that ever act this way.

Make up your mind about animals! Are they all bad, some bad, only bad when they're like humans, or what?

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

 In those cases, the dangerous individual must be contained, sedated or euthanized. If he's incorrigible, nothing is accomplished by punishing him.

Yep, agreed, punished in the appropriate manner according to the crime, incorrigible or not. Again, my sympathy lies with the visitm/s

[Peterkin]

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

Again, my sympathy lies with the visitm/s

Your sympathy will be as useful to the victim as the perpetrator's suffering

 

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yep, agreed, punished in the appropriate manner according to the crime, incorrigible or not.

You are agreeing with yourself, not with me.

[beecee]

51 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

You've changed animal to criminal. I was talking about depravity in animals.

We are all animals. We are not all criminals.

52 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

What kind? On what level and scale? What duration? I don't presume to say about anyone, whether they are sane, disturbed, profoundly troubled or so emotionally scarred that they cannot be reached.

Most of us can be reached...the hardened animal/criminal most times cannot. Level, scale or duration, sometimes all extreme, and yet most individuals handle it.

54 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Jail is. Euthanasia isn't. An animal that cannot control its aggression must be contained - which would be hurtful and humiliating to the animal, probably exacerbating his condition, and serve no other purpose than keeping the rest of us safe - or rendered harmless. (Maybe a time will come, in the not-too-distant future when more tools are available. The  drug-induced coma that helped Jordan Peterson kick his drug habit seems to have promise for other applications, but we're not there yet.)   Euthanasia - without, pain and ritual, without the parading him in public and forcing him to witness the means of his imminent death (which is what the death penalty does) is the only relief and release we can afford to give a person, or animal, that we dare not let loose. 

Whatever pain ritual or parading such a criminal as the bloke being discussed will go through, pales into insignificance to that poor little girl. You do remember her, yes?

57 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Nothing i want accomplished, no. It doesn't  change undesirable behaviour or render the offender more benign or compensate anyone for a loss. It does achieve something I don't want: causing the offender discomfort, possibly mental anguish, possibly grievous bodily harm; whatever he suffers is protracted, maybe decades; his family has long-term distress and shame in their community; it raises the risk of destructive behaviour inside the prison, perhaps leading to injury or death of guards and other inmates, or escape and heightened danger to society, and costing the taxpayer a fortune - just to satisfy some people whose anger cannot appeased any other way.

My concern is for the victim.

59 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Name two other species that ever act this way.

Make up your mind about animals! Are they all bad, some bad, only bad when they're like humans, or what?

???He was on parole. Animals act instintively. They are supposedly, and generally not as advanced as us. 

Shame you are unable to address the issue at hand, instead of like dimreeper, covering your philosophical backside.

 

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Your sympathy will be as useful to the victim as the perpetrator's suffering

The perpetrator's "suffering" is not the prime concern. The victim's is.

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

You are agreeing with yourself, not with me.

That's good. I don't have any particular barrow to push.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, koti said:

Id’d say that in a nutshell, Justice is what @dimreepr gets for sitting at his folks place and smoking weed. 

 

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Was the bloke in my example mentally ill or just a depraved animal?

I thought you said we were above animal's and that's why we're uniquely evil or is it just more emotive language to bolster your ever diminishing base of assumption's.

12 hours ago, beecee said:

Whatever pain ritual or parading such a criminal as the bloke being discussed will go through, pales into insignificance to that poor little girl. You do remember her, yes?

If he's mentally ill/sick/disabled, it's not his fault he has no free will, no choice but to be him; much like that poor little girl.

How dare you assume to you know which one has suffered more, suffering is a purely subjective event, even in extreme case's. 

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, beecee said:

Yes, I gave him a like on that. So in essence you agree with capital punishment albeit under another name when appropriate?

Have you even read this thread?

Or my thread on capital punishment, in which I believe you posted?

[mistermack]

45 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If he's mentally ill/sick/disabled, it's not his fault he has no free will, no choice but to be him; much like that poor little girl.

If it was a dog that savaged the little girl, much the same applies. Dogs don't choose to be born a dog, and don't choose negligent owners, who are too lazy to train them. 

Who gives a toss? If a dog kills a little girl, we kill it. And don't care how it got to where it became a killer dog.

If a human kills a little girl, we don't kill it. But mainly because of the chance they could be innocent. That's the bonus they get for being human. Other than that, it's irrelevant how they got there, they are what they are. I might feel genuinely sorry for the truly deluded, in the sense that I'm glad that that wasn't me. But just like the dog, you could never be sure that it won't kill again. 

You can't predict what a truly evil person will do, and you can't predict what a deluded person will do. For practical purposes, they are the same. It's true, I feel sorry for one, and not the other, so giving them a chushier life in a secure mental hospital is fair enough. Even though that leads to many lifers faking mental illness.

[swansont]

16 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If it was a dog that savaged the little girl, much the same applies. Dogs don't choose to be born a dog, and don't choose negligent owners, who are too lazy to train them. 

Who gives a toss? If a dog kills a little girl, we kill it. And don't care how it got to where it became a killer dog.

If a human kills a little girl, we don't kill it. But mainly because of the chance they could be innocent. That's the bonus they get for being human. Other than that, it's irrelevant how they got there, they are what they are. I might feel genuinely sorry for the truly deluded, in the sense that I'm glad that that wasn't me. But just like the dog, you could never be sure that it won't kill again. 

The primary reason is that we aren’t 100% certain they are guilty? No other difference in how society treats people vs how we treat dogs?