What is Justice?

[Peterkin]

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Aren't individual's part of society?

Individuals are part of society.  The more numerous/ larger the society, the smaller part each individual is/plays.

Edited November 30, 2021 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

Individuals are part of society.  The more larger the society, the smaller part each individual plays.

So you say...

[Peterkin]

31 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So you say...

How do you say?

More to the topic: How do you think each individual affects the legislating and enforcement of laws?

[beecee]

9 hours 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.

You gave us the facts with your example. Going on those facts  you put, the girl should have been jailed. The bloke was the victim in more ways then one.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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

Most societies are always looking for a better way. I have yet to see one, from anyone on this forum so far, or anywhere else. 

  

Edited November 30, 2021 by beecee

[Doogles31731]

I just started to read the first page of this thread and can't help myself from going off topic to comment upon an old adage posted by Dimreaper -- "That old chestnut, god gave us freewill; so any decision we make is our own... "

Please accept my apologies in advance, but I would like to say that whoever started that rumour, was never married.

[Intoscience]

16 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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

Do you find peace on this merry go round of a thread? 

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, beecee said:

You gave us the facts with your example. Going on those facts  you put, the girl should have been jailed. The bloke was the victim in more ways then one.

Well the fact is, he knew she was underage, he lied about that part.

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Most societies are always looking for a better way. I have yet to see one, from anyone on this forum so far, or anywhere else. 

Luckily, your credulity isn't the only measure of an idea's merits.

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Do you find peace on this merry go round of a thread? 

Strangely I do, it's actually quite satisfying when other's are reduced too gainsay and ridicule when they run out of reasonable replies... 😉 

19 hours ago, Peterkin said:

How do you say?

More to the topic: How do you think each individual affects the legislating and enforcement of laws?

By trying to teach other's that justice is an expression of forgiveness and we all deserve to be forgiven at least once, even Frankensteins monster hoped for it.

“There is no 'way to peace,' there is only 'peace.” ― Mahatma Gandhi

15 hours ago, Doogles31731 said:

I just started to read the first page of this thread and can't help myself from going off topic to comment upon an old adage posted by Dimreaper -- "That old chestnut, god gave us freewill; so any decision we make is our own... "

Please accept my apologies in advance, but I would like to say that whoever started that rumour, was never married.

No apology necessary, it's not off topic...

[Intoscience]

26 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

By trying to teach other's that justice is an expression of forgiveness and we all deserve to be forgiven at least once, even Frankensteins monster hoped for it..

Some crimes are unforgiveable, 

The kidnap, rape torture and murder of an innocent child springs to mind. But there you go... maybe that's just my archaic view point, and not PC.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Some crimes are unforgiveable, 

The kidnap, rape torture and murder of an innocent child springs to mind. But there you go... maybe that's just my archaic view point, and not PC.

Quote

Jesus thought for a moment and then replied, “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.” The people crowded around him were so touched by their own consciences that they departed. ... She replied, “No man, lord.” Jesus then said, “Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more.”

If some crimes are unforgiveable, who is to judge which crimes?

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

By trying to teach other's that justice is an expression of forgiveness and we all deserve to be forgiven at least once, even Frankensteins monster hoped for it.

That's a lovely sentiment, but off-point. 

22 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Individuals are part of society.  The more numerous/ larger the society, the smaller part each individual is/plays.

 

22 hours ago, dimreepr said:

So you say..

I asked you to back up this gainsaying of simple arithmetic. 

So, again, I ask: On what basis, and according to what priorities, do you think societies formulate their laws?

 

[dimreepr]

You didn't do it, is not a reason to throw; it's an excuse...

[Peterkin]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If some crimes are unforgiveable, who is to judge which crimes?

Magistrates and priests, each in their own pulpit. Editors and media commentators, each on his own platform.  Citizens at large, each at their own computer or dinner table. We all judge one another all the time, each by the light of their own world-view. 

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

We all judge one another all the time, each by the light of their own world-view. 

indeed, but who is more qualified?

[Peterkin]

40 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

indeed, but who is more qualified?

Nobody is more or less qualified. Some are given power; some have studied the law; all are equally capable of forming an opinion. The law is a construct to safeguard society. Justice is an insubstantial concept. It can only be measured according to societal consent - which is never unanimous - and individual opinion - which contributes a proportion of the consensus. That proportion is determined by the number of members and the distribution of power among members. I'm sure a mathematical formula could be devised which would show exactly how much an particular citizen contributed to the making of their nation's laws.      

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Well the fact is, he knew she was underage, he lied about that part.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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?

That to me says he did not know, or was not sure, of her age. 🙄

You did then of course move the goal posts when a reasonable answer was given re who the victim was. Either way, yes as an adult, he needs to shoulder some responsibility, part of which would include drinking in moderation,  although essentially he still is the victim, and the girl a coniving little criminal.

Then you went on to argue about who can know all the facts and who has the right to judge. Which was wisely answered by Intoscience along the lines of who elects our officials. 

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Luckily, your credulity isn't the only measure of an idea's merits.

Nothing to do with credulity or incredulity for that matter. The cases I present that invalidate your dream (just within my own region) are real examples of crime, rehabilitation attempts, cruelty, violence, victims, and justice, where sometimes locking them up and throwing away the key is the only option.

Sadly I don't see that scenario changing anytime soon.I 

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Some crimes are unforgiveable, 

The kidnap, rape torture and murder of an innocent child springs to mind. But there you go... maybe that's just my archaic view point, and not PC.

+1 and therein lies the meat of this debate. Colour me also as not strictly aligning with all new age political correctness. IMO, though, in time, it will settle down....the extremes of political correctness will rightly fade into oblivion and the reasonable aspects will become the norm, and much thankfully already has. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by beecee

[beecee]

12 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Strangely I do, it's actually quite satisfying when other's are reduced too gainsay and ridicule when they run out of reasonable replies... 😉 

It was you who labeled the thread a pantomine...(presumably because you could not offer any challenge to real true to life examples that invalidated your "justice philosophy") It is you quoting Jesus....it is you claiming others have resorted to gainsay and ridicule and consequently casting aspersions.....

Yet in the next breath you (reluctantly) admit that incorridgible criminals do exist. That therefor constitutes the need for prison and jails. We all agree that rehabilitation should be attempted, but we also need the deterence factor...that's what prisons and punishment is for.

[Intoscience]

16 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If some crimes are unforgiveable, who is to judge which crimes?

Forgiveness and judgment can be 2 different animals, there is no requirement for a judge in a court of law to forgive, only to serve justice based on the law. 

16 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Jesus thought for a moment and then replied, “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.” The people crowded around him were so touched by their own consciences that they departed. ... She replied, “No man, lord.” Jesus then said, “Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more.”

Yep, Jesus was full of nice sentiments, if people actually followed his example in many aspects of life this world would be a better place.

Unfortunately, a child murdering rapist, especially repeat offenders are not likely to "go and sin no more" and if not dealt with are highly likely to commit further atrocities.

"We shall not cast stones because we are all guilty of sin, therefore non are qualified to cast judgement on this poor soul, so we forgave him, we let him go, and told him not to sin again"

Good luck with explaining that one to the parents of the victims.

 

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Forgiveness and judgment can be 2 different animals, there is no requirement for a judge in a court of law to forgive, only to serve justice based on the law. 

Fair point, a judge should be the arbiter that tells society how much to forgive, based on the facts of the case not an emotional need for revenge.

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Yep, Jesus was full of nice sentiments, if people actually followed his example in many aspects of life this world would be a better place.

Indeed, Jesus said some profound things that's why I quoted him.

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Unfortunately, a child murdering rapist, especially repeat offenders are not likely to "go and sin no more" and if not dealt with are highly likely to commit further atrocities.

"We shall not cast stones because we are all guilty of sin, therefore non are qualified to cast judgement on this poor soul, so we forgave him, we let him go, and told him not to sin again"

Holding up an example of a monster that's done monsterous thing's, is not an excuse/reason to throw stone's at an adulterer. 😉

11 hours ago, beecee said:

we also need the deterence factor...that's what prisons and punishment is for.

It doesn't work, as evinced in many studies.

 

11 hours ago, beecee said:

It was you who labeled the thread a pantomine...(presumably because you could not offer any challenge to real true to life examples that invalidated your "justice philosophy") It is you quoting Jesus....it is you claiming others have resorted to gainsay and ridicule and consequently casting aspersions.....

Can I use this, in my lecture on gainsay?

Edited December 2, 2021 by dimreepr

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It doesn't work, as evinced in many studies.

It does work in most cases as is evidenced in society. The cases where it isn't working are the examples of incorridgible evil criminals...you know, those that sometimes you reluctantly admit to existing. And "your alternative"  has been shown to be unworkable. These studies you fall back on, studies of psychiatry and physiology are known as "soft sciences"...while in some respects they are indispensible, they are labeled soft sciences for a reason. 

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Can I use this, in my lecture on gainsay?

Why not use the many real to life, factual examples I have given? Instead of blocking your ears and going nanannanana. Instead, it seems you have found a new word to hang your hat on....sad. 🤕

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Fair point, a judge should be the arbiter that tells society how much to forgive, based on the facts of the case not an emotional need for revenge.

You see your problem is equating revenge to punishment. But obviously you need that error as the foundation of your philosophy. "First, revenge is personal, an act of private justice taken by individuals for wrongs done to them or to those close to them, usually blood relatives. ... Punishment thus commits itself to impersonality, where the response to an offense is assumed by an authorized third party, typically the state". https://science.jrank.org/pages/10919/Punishment-Vengeance-Punishment.html

Judges also obviously are prone to errors, as was shown in my prime example. Thankfully, ( as I'm sure you will agree) that error was not made the second time around. Not forgetting of course that this monster's name was not Robinson Crusoe.

Obviously the biggest unworkable scenario re your softly softly approach, is the fact that due to the numbers of incorridgibles and criminals re-offending when being given the softly softly approach, many areas of society are instead increasing incarceration terms, and reducing rehabilitive solutions. As I have said a couple of times, this is just making it harder for the young first time that deserves a chance, with judges and magistrates being less inclined to be lenient.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, beecee said:

It does work in most cases as is evidenced in society. The cases where it isn't working are the examples of incorridgible evil criminals...you know, those that sometimes you reluctantly admit to existing. And "your alternative"  has been shown to be unworkable. These studies you fall back on, studies of psychiatry and physiology are known as "soft sciences"...while in some respects they are indispensible, they are labeled soft sciences for a reason. 

Why not use the many real to life, factual examples I have given? Instead of blocking your ears and going nanannanana. Instead, it seems you have found a new word to hang your hat on....sad. 🤕

You see your problem is equating revenge to punishment. But obviously you need that error as the foundation of your philosophy. "First, revenge is personal, an act of private justice taken by individuals for wrongs done to them or to those close to them, usually blood relatives. ... Punishment thus commits itself to impersonality, where the response to an offense is assumed by an authorized third party, typically the state". https://science.jrank.org/pages/10919/Punishment-Vengeance-Punishment.html

Judges also obviously are prone to errors, as was shown in my prime example. Thankfully, ( as I'm sure you will agree) that error was not made the second time around. Not forgetting of course that this monster's name was not Robinson Crusoe.

Obviously the biggest unworkable scenario re your softly softly approach, is the fact that due to the numbers of incorridgibles and criminals re-offending when being given the softly softly approach, many areas of society are instead increasing incarceration terms, and reducing rehabilitive solutions. As I have said a couple of times, this is just making it harder for the young first time that deserves a chance, with judges and magistrates being less inclined to be lenient.

 

 

 

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, beecee said:

It does work in most cases as is evidenced in society. The cases where it isn't working are the examples of incorridgible evil criminals

So, let me get this straight. You're not a scientist, soft or otherwise, you're not a judge or barrister and, correct me if I'm wrong, you've never been to prison, or otherwise forced or coerced into committing a serious crime. But you are able to dismiss a professional criminologist's reasonable well evinced hypothesis, as unrealistic and unworkable, armed only with a sensational media story and your common sense, and you can tell who the incorridigles are at first glance; you must be so proud. 

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

and you can tell who the incorridigles are at first glance; 

 

This is getting boring and again going round in circles....Are you at all listening to me? obviously not with those blinkers. Let me simply repeat......

Obviously the biggest unworkable scenario re your softly softly approach, is the fact that due to the numbers of incorridgibles and criminals re-offending when being given the softly softly approach, many areas of society are instead increasing incarceration terms, and reducing rehabilitive solutions. As I have said a couple of times, this is just making it harder for the young first timers that deserves a chance, with judges and magistrates being less inclined to be lenient.

Let me get straight to the point again...I'm all for rehabilitation after punishment, and protection of the victim and society, but some crimes are so animalistic, so violent, so horrific, so utterly evil, that rehabilitation is out of the question. In other words, I would rather err on the side of caution, and chance not giving a criminal a second chance that may well deserve it, to giving some (unknown)  incorridgilble bastard a second chance ( as in my "ad naeseum" example) that will go out and commit another horrific deed. ( as per the ad nauseum example) which of course has been shown to be more common than what you are trying to pretend it is not.

 

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

and, correct me if I'm wrong, you've never been to prison, or otherwise forced or coerced into committing a serious crime.

You are corrected....(other then a night in the clink at the local police station when I was about 20 years old, for being drunk and disorderly) I was just that, ( drunk and disorderly), although the disorderly part was simply me singing loudly around 0300hrs on the way home and waking up the neigbourhood) and accepted my punishment. 😁

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

But you are able to dismiss a professional criminologist's reasonable well evinced hypothesis, as unrealistic and unworkable, armed only with a sensational media story and your common sense, and you can tell who the incorridigles are at first glance; you must be so proud. 

Society in general is demanding more thought into the "softly softly" approach, as I exampled earlier, and it is not all based on one sensational media story (not sure how one can sensationalise the violence and repeated rape of a little girl by a monster already out on parole?) It is based on many cases, and near everyday and that's just in my own little corner of the world.

Here's another for your collection..........

https://www.mamamia.com.au/murders-by-people-on-bail/

The question of bail is a question of human rights.

Every person has the right to the presumption of innocence – or is “innocent until proven guilty” – as stated in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It’s about freedom and justice. The entitlement to a fair trial.

But people are dying and we have to ask why.

When people like 40-year-old mother Teresa Bradford is stabbed to death in her own home while her four children (the youngest is eight) are in the next room, we must wonder how, why, the man who killed her – her husband, 52-year-old David Bradford – was free to do so.

Mr Bradford had been in court less than three weeks prior to Tuesday – the day he murdered his estranged wife. He’d been in custody since November for assaulting and choking Ms Bradford. He had knocked her unconscious, gaffa taped her mouth shut, and attempted to strangle her.

Despite police opposing bail, he was released after 44 days in detention.

Bradford, who was in custody for 44 days, had known mental health issues and a domestic violence support group was aware of the risk he posed to his former partner. https://www.9news.com.au/national/bail-laws-masa-vukotic-sydney-siege-jill-meagher/258febb5-4601-4325-a9c4-8360e3336587

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

Oh heck, here's another.....

https://www.mondaq.com/australia/crime/1126996/man-granted-bail-for-proceeds-of-crime-charges-disappears

A man who was granted bail for proceeds of crime charges has disappeared after cutting off his ankle monitor.

Mostafa Baluch is accused of masterminding a 900kg cocaine shipment into Australia.

However, he was granted bail when he agreed to forfeit his $4million property and wear an ankle monitor.

Police described him as "dangerous" and urged the public not to approach him.

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

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Obviously the biggest unworkable scenario re your softly softly approach, is the fact that due to the numbers of incorridgibles and criminals re-offending when being given the softly softly approach, many areas of society are instead increasing incarceration terms, and reducing rehabilitive solutions. As I have said a couple of times, this is just making it harder for the young first timers that deserves a chance, with judges and magistrates being less inclined to be lenient.

You're arguing against yourself and for my position, my 'softly softly' approach is to give everyone a chance to change; those that can't can be locked up and the key thrown, but where we disagree is, I think that's where the punishment end's because society is protected. 

Why do you want revenge beyond their incarceration?

 

[beecee]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You're arguing against yourself and for my position, my 'softly softly' approach is to give everyone a chance to change; those that can't can be locked up and the key thrown, but where we disagree is, I think that's where the punishment end's because society is protected. 

Why do you want revenge beyond their incarceration?

 

No actually I'm arguing against someone who at times is talking in riddles and ignoring hard facts. I'll end this little escapade now, as you finally have agreed to what I am saying in as many words. Far better then any unrealsitic, unworkable system with no jails, which you were pushing.

And really whatever you mean by my revenge beyond incarceration is beyond me. I have already said I disagree with the death penalty for obvious reasons, and I certainly have not mentioned anything about whipping, stoning, or other torture in anyway...perhaps some fabricated drama on your part?

 

 

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Society in general is demanding more thought into the "softly softly" approach, as I exampled earlier, and it is not all based on one sensational media story (not sure how one can sensationalise the violence and repeated rape of a little girl by a monster already out on parole?) It is based on many cases, and near everyday and that's just in my own little corner of the world.

It's based on any number of sensational media story's, but you're surely not suggesting the media is without bias?

The only way to avoid bias is through training, like a professional judge is given, and/or a clear insight into one's own nature