What is Justice?

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

That aint any excuse: take responsibility for your actions, rather then making excuses.

No more qualified then you, sure, and while less qualified then our psychologists and the other soft sciences, we always need to err on the side of caution. ie; making sure no monster, guilty of horrific and cruel crimes, mentally ill or otherwise, is ever let out in society again.

Satan is just another of your mythical beliefs, and its appropriate punishment and protection of society that counts.

I've given you plenty of reasons over a couple of threads, with at least half a dozen examples. Stop hiding behind your religion.

Thankfully, at least I have finally dragged that out of you...you could have saved both of us many pages of tooing and froing.

but I do agree on one thing....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkgItG7dF28

 

Geez you're hard work, you pat yourself on the back for being lucky enough to be born healthy and privileged, while putting your foot on the necks of those who aren't.

Then you cling on to any excuse that justify's your position, at least be honest with yourself and ask; why do I always have to be right?

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Geez you're hard work, you pat yourself on the back for being lucky enough to be born healthy and privileged, while putting your foot on the necks of those who aren't.

Don't be so dishonest! Unlike you, I (my family) use far more then rhetorical philosophy (like you)  to help those less privileged then me. I reluctantly mentioned that earlier (to emphasise a point) which you cunningly ignored.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Then you cling on to any excuse that justify's your position, at least be honest with yourself and ask; why do I always have to be right?

 You are the one using some ancient philosophical banter and excuses to support your position. At least I have shown real life examples where your philosophy just doesn't work. That position re the need for jails, and the fact that incorridgible evil people will always exist, is simply fact. If me recognising that position, and the obvious philosophy that it entails makes me right, then so be it.

The facts are that all our disagreements, all relate to politics and justice, so your empty claim re always needing to be right, is just that...an empty claim. Perhaps if you were not so fanatically involved in this religion/philosophy of yours, you would see that.

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, beecee said:

Don't be so dishonest! Unlike you, I (my family) use far more then rhetorical philosophy (like you)  to help those less privileged then me. I reluctantly mentioned that earlier (to emphasise a point) which you cunningly ignored.

He's behind you...

11 hours ago, beecee said:

 You are the one using some ancient philosophical banter and excuses to support your position. At least I have shown real life examples where your philosophy just doesn't work. That position re the need for jails, and the fact that incorridgible evil people will always exist, is simply fact. If me recognising that position, and the obvious philosophy that it entails makes me right, then so be it.

Oh no I didn't...

11 hours ago, beecee said:

The facts are that all our disagreements, all relate to politics and justice, so your empty claim re always needing to be right, is just that...an empty claim. Perhaps if you were not so fanatically involved in this religion/philosophy of yours, you would see that.

Thank you for turning my thread into a pantomime, just an observation. 🙄

[beecee]

47 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

.Thank you for turning my thread into a pantomime, just an observation. 🙄

Pantomine?? And you are Pinocciho? 🤣

[dimreepr]

16 minutes ago, beecee said:

Pantomine??

This was meant to be a discussion, not a study in gainsay; please contribute to the discussion. 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

He's behind you...

Oh no I didn't...

Thank you for turning my thread into a pantomime, just an observation. 🙄

Discussion you say????

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

This was meant to be a discussion, not a study in gainsay; please contribute to the discussion. 

Good...quite with the cryptic double talk and nonsense.

My first post to this thread.....

Justice for all! particularly including justice for victims and criminal justice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

Justice, in its broadest sense, is the principle that people receive that which they deserve, with the interpretation of what then constitutes "deserving" being impacted upon by numerous fields, with many differing viewpoints and perspectives, including the concepts of moral correctness based on ethics, rationality, law, religion, equity and fairness.

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

My first post to this thread.....

Justice for all! particularly including justice for victims and criminal justice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

Justice, in its broadest sense, is the principle that people receive that which they deserve, with the interpretation of what then constitutes "deserving" being impacted upon by numerous fields, with many differing viewpoints and perspectives, including the concepts of moral correctness based on ethics, rationality, law, religion, equity and fairness.

I can't be bothered to look for my answer to it, but my answer now is, I couldn't agree more, the only caveate is your use of the word particularly, with that you're implying that it's obvious who the victim is, maybe it is in black and white world ruled by emotion. 

But as you say, neither of us are qualified to judge.

Thank you for your contribution.

[beecee]

The reasonable members of this forum, and in society in general, will most certainly know who the real vicitm is, particularly in the main true to life case, I presented

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

The reasonable members of this forum, and in society in general, will most certainly know who the real vicitm is, particularly in the main true to life case, I presented

Let me paint you a different picture:

A 14 yo girl has a crush on a middlle aged man, she makes herself up to look like an 18 yo and wrangles her way into a party he's at. She waited for him to be drunk enough to be judgementally impaired, then seduces him. They have sex, she's happy he's happy. Then he wakes up the next day, realises his mistake and tries to distance himself from her. Which pisses her off so she reports him for rape (which he technically did since she's underage) and he's sent to prison.

Who's the victim and who's the perp?

[beecee]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Let me paint you a different picture:

A 14 yo girl has a crush on a middlle aged man, she makes herself up to look like an 18 yo and wrangles her way into a party he's at. She waited for him to be drunk enough to be judgementally impaired, then seduces him. They have sex, she's happy he's happy. Then he wakes up the next day, realises his mistake and tries to distance himself from her. Which pisses her off so she reports him for rape (which he technically did since she's underage) and he's sent to prison.

Who's the victim and who's the perp?

The same reasonable mebers would I believe see it as I have....He is of course the vicitm, and the girl totally wrong. But just as obviously if he presented the same facts to the court, he should be given some compassion, and perhaps escape jail.

It is in many ways similar to the other case (a real life case again) that I presented re a woman falsely claiming a man who stopped for 2 hrs to help her with her car, had sexually assaulted her. She later confessed that she lied and was rightfully jailed. The vicitm ( the bloke) lost his job, his marriage and spent a couple of weeks in jail. No sympathy for her in my estimate. 

Here's another, again a reallife case.....https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-17/canberra-woman-jailed-for-false-rape-claim/10723908

A former prison guard who spent months behind bars for a fake rape has told a court how his ex-partner's crime nearly drove him to suicide, changed who he was and "shattered" his faith in the legal system.

Sarah-Jane Parkinson, 28, was on Thursday sentenced to more than three years in jail in the ACT Magistrates Court for the false claim made in 2014, in which she went as far as to stage a crime scene.

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

Again, I believe most reasonable people would certainly know who the true vicitm are in those cases. Nothing really difficult about either.

Now you may go on about your "pretend" example, and possibly make some excuse for the young girl. Whether or not their is or isn't an excuse is beside the point. The bloke was the obvious vicitm, although it could be raised that he still should have controlled himself.

Sadly, sometimes justice isn't always done. Sometimes the courts do not have all the facts. And sometimes injustices are the outcome, when the victim becomes the vicitm twice over.

Over to you and your caveats and/or excuses. You have my answer and reasonings.

Edited November 30, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

57 minutes ago, beecee said:

The same reasonable mebers would I believe see it as I have....He is of course the vicitm, and the girl totally wrong. But just as obviously if he presented the same facts to the court, he should be given some compassion, and perhaps escape jail.

What if he knew she was 14? 

My point is, however obvious it might seem we are simply not qualified to make the judgement, because we're almost never in reciept of all the 'facts' especially when the story is related through a biased narrative.

[Intoscience]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Let me paint you a different picture:

A 14 yo girl has a crush on a middlle aged man, she makes herself up to look like an 18 yo and wrangles her way into a party he's at. She waited for him to be drunk enough to be judgementally impaired, then seduces him. They have sex, she's happy he's happy. Then he wakes up the next day, realises his mistake and tries to distance himself from her. Which pisses her off so she reports him for rape (which he technically did since she's underage) and he's sent to prison.

Who's the victim and who's the perp?

A similar thing happened to a friend of mine. He was jailed because semen was found on the girl and she had light bruising. Even though they had had sex in his car which was awkward and possibly accounted for the light bruising, which by the way he had bruising himself after knocking his arm and knee also. However she made a convincing case to the court and although he appealed profusely, he was sentenced to 5 years in prison which he served 2.5 of them. It was since discovered that she was notorious for sleeping around and had had sex with many men prior to my friend. Some of which came forward in his defence, though unsuccessful. She admitted to loosing her virginity at 13, she was 15 when she spent the evening with my friend, she had convinced him she was 17, he was 19 at the time. Sadly he died aged 48 from alcohol abuse, after leaving prison he struggled to deal with the stigma and embarrassment.

There are many sad cases like this, and I'm sure there will continue to be. Some cases are always going to be complicated, some simple. Either way, protecting society from violent crimes must take priority over anything else.  

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What if he knew she was 14? 

My point is, however obvious it might seem we are simply not qualified to make the judgement, because we're almost never in reciept of all the 'facts' especially when the story is related through a biased narrative.

Maybe he did, your example, like mine, is a complicated one that relies on witness statements, the witness's being the 2 participants. Sometimes a good liar gets away with a crime.   

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

There are many sad cases like this, and I'm sure there will continue to be. Some cases are always going to be complicated, some simple. Either way, protecting society from violent crimes must take priority over anything else.   

Indeed, that's what the police are supposed to be for and when society is protected by remanding them in prison untill we've unpicked the complications, in a court of law (edit, sorry that sentence got away from me); That's why we use 12 ordinary people, guided by a professional judge, to be shown the pro's and con's of the case by other dispassionate professional's, all in a quest to be seen to be fair.

But I'm with Socrates on this, true justice cannot come from ordinary people who aren't qualified.

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Sometimes a good liar gets away with a crime.

Less likely if the liar detectors are built/trained properly.

Edited November 30, 2021 by dimreepr

[Intoscience]

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

But I'm with Socrates on this, true justice cannot come from ordinary people who aren't qualified.

Justice is an ideology, there is no such thing as one "true" justice.

Ordinary folk are chosen so you (ideally) get an objective view from a variety of differing individuals, that as a collective agree upon a course of action which best suits. A collective which aims to make society a safer and better place for themselves and others.

What qualifications are required in a jury?

The professionals are called upon to give their opinion based on their expertise, this is not required for judgement but rather medical evidence to aid in that judgement. Professionally qualified people can be prone to biases towards what they have been schooled on, rather than what they experience in life.

We all suffer mental "illness" some more than others, dependent on your point of view. 

     

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Justice is an ideology, there is no such thing as one "true" justice.

I never said there was, it's like nirvana, it's nowhere/noplace, but you'll know it when you find it. 

What's the harm of looking for a better way to find it?

[Intoscience]

On 8/9/2021 at 1:56 PM, dimreepr said:

Does it deserve punishment? All you can do to another is deprive them of something but in doing so, you damage yourself; to condemn other's only condemns our soul.  

I'm a little archaic in that I'm quite a firm believer (to a degree) in an eye for an eye and all that... I don't believe in god/s, heaven or hell and I don't really believe in souls per say.   

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I'm a little archaic in that I'm quite a firm believer (to a degree) in an eye for an eye and all that... I don't believe in god/s, heaven or hell and I don't really believe in souls per say.   

In this case the soul is you, not something magical, if you kill a man the chances are you'll suffer PTSD; like a train driver that runs over a suicide and can never work again, despite the fact that he was not at fault and the victim wanted death, the damage is done. 

A friend of mine was killed by a train, it was an accident while he was green-laneing (something he loved), I don't fear for his soul...

[Intoscience]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

In this case the soul is you, not something magical, if you kill a man the chances are you'll suffer PTSD; like a train driver that runs over a suicide and can never work again, despite the fact that he was not at fault and the victim wanted death, the damage is done. 

Possibly, I can't argue against this since I haven't (fortunately) had to experience such. Though PTSD takes different forms in different individuals for many different experiences, so there maybe a chance, but its not a given. 

I may suffer PTSD from the experience of losing a loved one at the hands of a killer, by which any further PTSD from seeking personal justice maybe be negligible.  Who knows? 

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I may suffer PTSD from the experience of losing a loved one at the hands of a killer, by which any further PTSD from seeking personal justice maybe be negligible.  Who knows? 

You will...

“There is no way to peace, peace is the way” - Gandhi 

[Intoscience]

31 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You will...

“There is no way to peace, peace is the way” - Gandhi 

Peace from not acting in a way that makes me feel bad, or peace from knowing that my actions may result in prevention? 

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Peace from not acting in a way that makes me feel bad, or peace from knowing that my actions may result in prevention? 

Just peace, I really don't care where you find it...

[Peterkin]

37 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Just peace, I really don't care where you find it...

It does to society. Laws are not made to satisfy individual's feeeelings; they're made to insure the survival of the community. If individual feelings, even a feeling of inner peace, were paramount, what would happen to the community? If predatory behaviour gives one person temporary respite from his inner demons, and taking brutal revenge on that predator gives satisfaction to a victim, or victim's relatives, then revenge on them allays the rage of the original predator's aggressive friends, etc. etc. - What happens to the society?

Nations, through their legislative and legal apparatus, confer specific rights, privileges, protections and obligations on individuals.* They also have the power to rescind or suspend those rights, in case of individual transgression or national emergency. Laws don't exist to make people feel good; they exist to make people behave in accordance with the best [perceived] interest of the society.  

*I don't claim that most of them do this very effectively or efficiently.

Edited November 30, 2021 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It does to society.

Does it? what level of peace justifies your level of violence?

[Peterkin]

17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Does it?

I phrased that badly. I meant: You may not care how one person achieves his peace, but society does.  Individual actions matter to society; individual feelings don't.

17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

what level of peace justifies your level of violence?

What do you mean by my level of violence? I'm hardly violent at all - only to mosquitoes and extra-pesky flies. Have, therefore, a fairly high level of personal peace. But then, I negligible influence on society at large.

And then, where do levels or justifications come into what I wrote?

I don't understand the question.

Edited November 30, 2021 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

30 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I phrased that badly. I meant: You may not care how one person achieves his peace, but society does.  Individual actions matter to society; individual feelings don't.

Aren't individual's part of society?