What is Justice?

[beecee]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

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...

Your cynical view may well have some grounds of truth, but it has nothing to do with prisons for incorrigibles and violent offenders, nor is it totally uniform across the system.

Here is a list of Aussie politicians that have been charged with crime, been jailed, and dismissed from their relative parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

 

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

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

Wrong again...I'm speaking of a democratic society that elects or dismisses its leaders, based on results.

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

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

I did, quite thoroughly.

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

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?

A dangerous dog in most cases [not all mind you] is a result of a person who should never own a dog or any animal for that matter.

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

but you want your neighbour/fellow human to suffer for the same crime?

What fellow humans? Hitler? the animal that raped the little girl...the ISIS  suicide bombers? Your too kind dear Sir!

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

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

No I am not religious at all, but have nothing against religious people, unless they reach that extreme fanatical stage, as per the animal suicide bombers today, and their overlords. Isn't it about time you argued in good faith, and stop muddying the waters with nonsense and philosophical jargon?

Edited August 27, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

Your cynical view may well have some grounds of truth, but it has nothing to do with prisons for incorrigibles and violent offenders, nor is it totally uniform across the system.

Please explain why forgiving is 'cynical' and punishment is not?

[beecee]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Please explain why forgiving is 'cynical' and punishment is not?

Again try arguing in good faith. I did not say that. I said.......

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

Your cynical view may well have some grounds of truth, but it has nothing to do with prisons for incorrigibles and violent offenders, nor is it totally uniform across the system.

In reply to your statement thus.....

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 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...

Got it?

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Again try arguing in good faith. I did not say that. I said.......

In reply to your statement thus.....

Got it?

FFS just answer my question, I've answered yours.

Just restating your position doesn't make it truer...

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

Again try arguing in good faith. I did not say that.

I didn't say you did...

Good faith is a two way street... 😉

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Wrong again...I'm speaking of a democratic society that elects or dismisses its leaders, based on results.

So, the righteously indignant is a system of governance?

 

Or are you suggesting that coconut's migrate?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Wrong again...I'm speaking of a democratic society that elects or dismisses its leaders, based on results.

But you also cite (paraphrasing) "this is what society wants" and the two are not synonymous.

Society's psyche contains an element of revenge. There's a reason the affronted do not get to decide what the punishments is for a crime. Our elected leaders should be implementing a system that does not pander to the baser instincts of the constituents, and instead does what is in society's best interests. Saving society from itself.

[Peterkin]

2 hours 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.

Translation: "I speak for the majority; you two are in the minority."

Dimreepr and I are voters, too.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

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.

The first and your all-time favourite example is a deranged person who may or may not be in control of his impulses. Certainly, someone like that needs to be sequestered - and should have been, before he committed that particular act. It's also possible - I have no detailed knowledge of the case - that at least some of his behaviour was aberrant long before, and nobody was paying attention. It's also possible, if you do not overburden the system with unnecessary crimes, to make such sequestering humane, and to give that captive activities beneficial to society.

The other examples are invalid. Hitler was a head of state who greatly influenced or dictated the laws of his society; according to the laws of his land, he committed no crime.* Heads of state are punished only if defeated in war, revolution or election, caught and prosecuted and tried by a constituted authority. Hitler wasn't caught; Ceaușescu was; Trump wasn't prosecuted; the Taliban warlords probably won't be, though some may be assassinated - that's another form of justice available for leaders, good and bad.

*Hence my first argument: If you want an orderly society, make good laws. Eg: criminalizing personal decisions and substance use; letting mentally unstable and untrustworthy persons run around with assault weapons.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

 Again you have it all wrong in making this so personal...

!!!!

Edited August 27, 2021 by Peterkin
clarity

[swansont]

On 8/26/2021 at 10:22 AM, Intoscience said:

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. 

Nothing is going to be perfect, which leaves us with "lock them all up because we can't be 100% sure" There is no such thing as a 100% safe society, so where do you realistically draw this line? This is a matter of acceptable levels of risk.

 

[TheVat]

One reason this thread is so hard to resolve is because of the multiple layers of misdeeds (as @Peterkin sharply observed back there in the welter of yesterday's posts).  To talk about justice regarding illegal parking is to be in a domain quite different from the justice directed towards crimes of great personal harm.  I'd say the former probably doesn't need a lot of sifting in an ethics forum, and it's the latter that calls for the heavy machinery of philosophic analysis and deep psychological understanding.  I see a rough consensus here that we shouldn't harm people as some kind of retributive penalty for harming others.  This seems to be in accord with an idea that justice shouldn't increase the harm in the world but seek to reduce it and give each person a redemptive chance at understanding their harmful acts and making amends for them.  And those that cannot do so must be kept separated from society, in the most humane way possible (especially given the fallibility of any criminal justice system and thus the possibility of a period of wrongful incarceration). 

This humane approach also reduces the chances of the State becoming an embodiment of hypocrisy, i.e. we aren't putting people in harmful and dehumanizing conditions in order to teach that harming and dehumanizing is wrong.  This move away from hypocritical vengeance was supposed to be one of the markers of progress when humans shifted from what anthropologists call an "honor society" to "the rule of law."  The rule of law aspires to be one where fairly adjudicated moral principles are seen as more value than personal autonomy in settling scores.  It aspires to have moral principles be more powerful than any individual or group.  If we agree that rape is morally abhorrent, then we cannot in good conscience have prisons where inmates are regularly subjected to rape, unless they're rich enough to buy themselves protection.  And so on.

Edited August 27, 2021 by TheVat
pyto

[Peterkin]

T^^^hat's about it!

A fine summary.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Peterkin
mot juste

[beecee]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

But you also cite (paraphrasing) "this is what society wants" and the two are not synonymous.

There have been mountains of articles written on what prison does and what it doesn't do. While some alternatives for minor and petty crime have been implemented, [parole, house arrests, suspended sentences, reduced sentences, retribution  etc] other more extreme features are rejected. Features that diminish or reject punishment for crimes of extreme violence and atrocities. 

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Society's psyche contains an element of revenge. There's a reason the affronted do not get to decide what the punishments is for a crime. Our elected leaders should be implementing a system that does not pander to the baser instincts of the constituents, and instead does what is in society's best interests. Saving society from itself.

In general, I don;t believe they do, at least in my society. I could raise an incident of a member of a "racist rapist" that gang raped a number of young girls in western Sydney that looks like getting parole...the outcry from the general public has already begun. But his parole looks certain so far, after 20 years in prison. And I see revenge more as a personal rather the justice which is that handed down by the courts, based on the law.  

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Nothing is going to be perfect, which leaves us with "lock them all up because we can't be 100% sure" There is no such thing as a 100% safe society, so where do you realistically draw this line? This is a matter of acceptable levels of risk.

 

It doesn't mean lock them all up. Rehabilitation takes many forms that have already been accepted in most justice systems. We are talking of the most severe, most violent, most dispicable of crimes, and in many of those cases, no remorse or regret is shown. Prisons cater for this.

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Translation: "I speak for the majority; you two are in the minority."

Dimreepr and I are voters, too.

Yes, as am I. But at present we have a conservative government in both Federal and my state in Australia, and I never voted for either. I will bide my time until the next elections and hope that others judge them as I have.

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

The first and your all-time favourite example is a deranged person who may or may not be in control of his impulses. Certainly, someone like that needs to be sequestered - and should have been, before he committed that particular act. It's also possible - I have no detailed knowledge of the case - that at least some of his behaviour was aberrant long before, and nobody was paying attention. It's also possible, if you do not overburden the system with unnecessary crimes, to make such sequestering humane, and to give that captive activities beneficial to society.

[1]Deranged most probably, afterall most humans would not have done what he did, and obviously deranged or not, he still needs to be kept away from society. [2] He was also at the time of his rape of the little girl, already out on parole, for guess  what? yes the rape of another woman! But a well meaning magistrate still granted him parole. What that animal has actually done, besides the horrific crime he commited, is make it harder for other criminals that may deserve parole or shorter sentences, far less likley to have them granted. Does that trouble you any? If that attempt at rehabilitation and/or sympathy for him, had been refused, he would have still been in jail. [3] I'm not really sure what his  background was, but it certainly does not lessen the severity of his violent crime, and his now life sentence he has rightly received. Here it is again.......https://www.sbs.com.au/news/sydney-man-sentenced-to-life-in-jail-for-rape-of-seven-year-old-girl-in-kogarah-dance-studio/cd82b2f2-2808-4956-97a7-c0b036eddcd3

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

The other examples are invalid. Hitler was a head of state who greatly influenced or dictated the laws of his society; according to the laws of his land, he committed no crime.* Heads of state are punished only if defeated in war, revolution or election, caught and prosecuted and tried by a constituted authority. Hitler wasn't caught; Ceaușescu was; Trump wasn't prosecuted; the Taliban warlords probably won't be, though some may be assassinated - that's another form of justice available for leaders, good and bad.

Assasination attempts were also tried with Hitler, but I'm still at a loss to follow you.  In all my rhetoric, I have emphasised a normal western society. His was not normal, but a society based on hatred and racism

Again, I made two points, [1] if he had not been a coward and taken the evil way out, he would have finally faced justice, and [2] When the Allies came across his death camps, they forced in many cases, the general populace to view and observe the sickening inhumane atrocities of the animal they had originally elected as their leader. [3]Trump may not have been prosecuted, [we are talking about the invasion of the White House] but his redneck supporters were, at least some of them. I hope they face the full force of your law. Many of the participants in our violent anti vaxxer march, certainly did with hefty fines, and some kept in prison with bale refused.

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

*Hence my first argument: If you want an orderly society, make good laws. Eg: criminalizing personal decisions and substance use; letting mentally unstable and untrustworthy persons run around with assault weapons.

Any orderly society will always still contain anti social elements. Prison will cater for the more violent and fanatical of these.

5 hours ago, TheVat said:

If we agree that rape is morally abhorrent, then we cannot in good conscience have prisons where inmates are regularly subjected to rape, unless they're rich enough to buy themselves protection.  And so on.

Totally agree. Perhaps more segregation in prison for the perpetrators of minor and petty crimes, and young offenders, from the animals that are described in my prime example. 

I also see and have mentioned about perpetrators of victimless crimes.

The other point I would like to make, was the previous list of members of governments that have been convicted of serious crime in my country, and how in many cases, some have had to be segregated for their own good. There money did them no good in prison.

Edited August 27, 2021 by beecee

[beecee]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Society's psyche contains an element of revenge. There's a reason the affronted do not get to decide what the punishments is for a crime. Our elected leaders should be implementing a system that does not pander to the baser instincts of the constituents, and instead does what is in society's best interests. Saving society from itself.

Let me reword my previous answer to that, [not much sleep last night]what beecee should have said was....

2 hours ago, beecee said:

While it is true that society do not get to decide what the punsishment for a particular crime should be, revenge itself, need not be the prime reason. I could raise an incident of a member of a "racist rapist" that gang raped a number of young girls in western Sydney that looks like getting parole...the outcry from the general public has already begun. It received plenty of press coverage at the time. But his parole looks certain so far, after 20 years in prison. While revenge is more as a personal issue, I believe most people after the initial revulsion at some crime, simply want justice, the justice which is that handed down by the courts, based on the law.  My only question/doubt, on him getting parole is that he still seems to blame those girls themselves for being gullible enough to have gone with him...and that appears to be why the outrage is happening....here is the history, ..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_Skaf

and his likely parole...https://www.youngwitness.com.au/story/7404763/gang-rapist-skaf-could-be-paroled-soon/?cs=9676

Sorry for not expressing myself clearly in the first reply....

Edited August 27, 2021 by beecee

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

But a well meaning magistrate still granted him parole. What that animal has actually done, besides the horrific crime he commited, is make it harder for other criminals that may deserve parole or shorter sentences, far less likley to have them granted. Does that trouble you any?

Why should it? I didn't appoint or advise that magistrate. If that wrong decision influences other jurists to be unfair to other convicts, I have no control over that, either.  Remember, my [uninformed] opinion was that the rapist had probably behaved abnormally long before the first major crime, and should have been flagged as potentially dangerous - possibly contained - sooner. 

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Assasination attempts were also tried with Hitler, but I'm still at a loss to follow you.  In all my rhetoric, I have emphasised a normal western society. His was not normal, but a society based on hatred and racism

Hitler didn't live in Australia: where and when he lived, it was normal. Racism has been, and is, quite normal and legal in many countries, and so were/are atrocities. Your definition of a normal western country does apply to modern Germany.  You have no jurisdiction in the past.

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

[3]Trump may not have been prosecuted, [we are talking about the invasion of the White House] but his redneck supporters were, at least some of them.

I am talking about all kinds of crime committed by heads of state. If they broke the laws of their own country, they can be prosecuted through its own legal apparatus, after they have left office. If they broke international laws, they can be prosecuted in the International Court of Justice, or in a war crimes tribunal set up for the purpose, after their defeat and apprehension. Suicide strikes me a quite sensible precaution in those circumstances. 

 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Why should it? I didn't appoint or advise that magistrate. If that wrong decision influences other jurists to be unfair to other convicts, I have no control over that, either.  Remember, my [uninformed] opinion was that the rapist had probably behaved abnormally long before the first major crime, and should have been flagged as potentially dangerous - possibly contained - sooner. 

Obviously he did spoil it for others, so as not to make the same mistake, and agree with your last senetnce, contained in prison and the key thrown away.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Hitler didn't live in Australia: where and when he lived, it was normal. Racism has been, and is, quite normal and legal in many countries, and so were/are atrocities. Your definition of a normal western country does apply to modern Germany.  You have no jurisdiction in the past.

Normal?? you mean the death camps and gas chambers and incinerators were normal? Yeah sure some racism exists, even in Australia, but you really are stretching the friendship in comparing it to the holocaust and attempted extinguishing of an entire race. Just another question if I may, Do you believe they were too hard on the copper that killed George Floyd and that the judge and jury did not show a sufficient amount of sympathy for the poor old copper? 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I am talking about all kinds of crime committed by heads of state. If they broke the laws of their own country, they can be prosecuted through its own legal apparatus, after they have left office. If they broke international laws, they can be prosecuted in the International Court of Justice, or in a war crimes tribunal set up for the purpose, after their defeat and apprehension. Suicide strikes me a quite sensible precaution in those circumstances. 

Heads of state are and have faced justice in my country many times and gone to jail while in office...there money and influence meant nothing. Our justice system didn't give a rat's arse about there standings in the community. I posted it before but here it is again...Trump it appears, speaking as an outsider of course, simply had too many republican supporters in your house.

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

You will also [I hope] note that most were also given other forms of punishment and sometimes leniancy shown, as it generally is for all in society, and in some cases, jail was the only punishment.

Edited August 28, 2021 by beecee

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

contained in prison and the key thrown away.

That wasn't in my sentence. It's okay to agree with things I didn't say, but not to pretend I said them.

I think I'll skip the history lesson today.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Just another question if I may, Do you believe they were too hard on the copper that killed George Floyd and that the judge and jury did not show a sufficient amount of sympathy for the poor old copper? 

I'm never particularly sorry for people who abuse their power, when they finally - rarely - come to some kind of judgment. I can sort of appreciate why you mix in extraneous material, but I won't. 

Yay for Australia! (I mean that: it's one of the better western countries. But it's not the world standard - yet.)

[beecee]

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0085531

Abstract

Motivated by recent efforts by the criminal justice system to treat and rehabilitate nonviolent offenders rather than focusing solely on their punishment, we introduce an evolutionary game theoretic model to study the effects of “carrot and stick” intervention programs on criminal recidivism. We use stochastic simulations to study the evolution of a population where individuals may commit crimes depending on their past history, surrounding environment and, in the case of recidivists, on any counseling, educational or training programs available to them after being punished for their previous crimes. These sociological factors are embodied by effective parameters that determine the decision making probabilities. Players may decide to permanently reform or continue engaging in criminal activity, eventually reaching a state where they are considered incorrigible. Depending on parameter choices, the outcome of the game is a society with a majority of virtuous, rehabilitated citizens or incorrigibles. Since total resources may be limited, we constrain the combined punishment and rehabilitation costs per crime to be fixed, so that increasing one effort will necessarily decrease the other. We find that the most successful strategy in reducing crime is to optimally allocate resources so that after being punished, criminals experience impactful intervention programs, especially during the first stages of their return to society. Excessively harsh or lenient punishments are less effective. We also develop a system of coupled ordinary differential equations with memory effects to give a qualitative description of our simulated societal dynamics. We discuss our findings and sociological implications.

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That wasn't in my sentence. It's okay to agree with things I didn't say, but not to pretend I said them.

what you said.....

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

 Remember, my [uninformed] opinion was that the rapist had probably behaved abnormally long before the first major crime, and should have been flagged as potentially dangerous - possibly contained - sooner. 

contained? yep, as society and the law dictates...in prison, and as you have agree to previous, sometimes the key thrown away.

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I think I'll skip the history lesson today.

That's OK, *shrug*  all factual though.

8 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I'm never particularly sorry for people who abuse their power, when they finally - rarely - come to some kind of judgment. I can sort of appreciate why you mix in extraneous material, but I won't. 

I'm never particulalrly sorry for any person whether in a position of power or not, that is the perpetrator of a crime and jailed. I believe all should be [and mostly are] treated with those three principals in mind...[1]Punishment [2] protection of victim and society, [3] Rehabilitation.

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Yay for Australia! (I mean that: it's one of the better western countries. But it's not the world standard - yet.)

My apologies if I gave the impression we are perfect. We are not. I have already said that racism exists here, although not to the extent as in the USA. We have had Police charged and convicted over black deaths in custody. 

My position is one that you already know...justice without what is normally recognised as torture, meaning adequate punishment, protection of society and possible rehabilitation. Society enforces the first two, the third needs genuine co-operation with the criminal.

I'm pretty sure you understand that.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I'm pretty sure you understand that.

I do. I also very much appreciate how many more interesting sources of information you have contributed since the beginning of this thread. Maybe internet forums are not just a way to kill time, after all!

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I do. I also very much appreciate how many more interesting sources of information you have contributed since the beginning of this thread. Maybe internet forums are not just a way to kill time, after all!

No problems. If I can make someone aware that we aint all generally  reasonable, caring human beings, then I'm satisified. And no, I am definitely not your self rightious totally law abiding citizen. Just a knock about, sometimes maybe uncouth contributor and part of society in general. 

ps: Have never, and I mean never, used the computer for anything else but information, banking etc......a game console in my house, it never has been.

Edited August 28, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, beecee said:

I'm never particulalrly sorry for any person whether in a position of power or not, that is the perpetrator of a crime and jailed. I believe all should be [and mostly are] treated with those three principals in mind...[1]Punishment [2] protection of victim and society, [3] Rehabilitation.

Answer me, these question's three; Ayre the other side you'll see:

[1] What!!! Is your name?

[2] What!!! Is your favourite colour?

[3] What!!! Is your take on punishment?

No decent parent want's to damage their offspring, but to much love can be just as damaging as total neglect.

Now imagine that it's your son (that you inadvertently damaged (read The Catcher in the Rye)), that raped that poor little girl; do you want the same retribution for him, that you'd dish out for someone you didn't love?

 

Note to self, the one who crossed, without hesitation, was not afraid... 😉

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, beecee said:

That's OK, *shrug*  all factual though.

Really, was it the day after?

 

8 hours ago, beecee said:

No problems. If I can make someone aware that we aint all generally  reasonable, caring human beings, then I'm satisified.

What if we are?

What then is satisfying for you?

22 hours ago, TheVat said:

One reason this thread is so hard to resolve is because of the multiple layers of misdeeds

Another, is the multiple layers of mis-understanding... 

Edited August 28, 2021 by dimreepr

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Answer me, these question's three; Ayre the other side you'll see:

[1] What!!! Is your name?

[2] What!!! Is your favourite colour?

[3] What!!! Is your take on punishment?

No decent parent want's to damage their offspring, but to much love can be just as damaging as total neglect.

Now imagine that it's your son (that you inadvertently damaged (read The Catcher in the Rye)), that raped that poor little girl; do you want the same retribution for him, that you'd dish out for someone you didn't love?

Note to self, the one who crossed, without hesitation, was not afraid... 😉

[1] you can call me beecee.  [2] havn't got one really.  [3] you have my take on punishment, but in summing, "a justified consequence for an unlawful act"

No I havn't read the fictional novel you mention, and if by any stretch of the imagination, my Son did what the evil criminal did, yes most certainly, I would want the same punishment. But my Son was raised properly, now an adult and successful in his own right, and that included corporal punishment administered when he was a kid, when necessary, thankfully not too often.

On the rest of your utterings, perhaps you need to be straight to the point, and drop the cryptic references. 

 

 

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, beecee said:

On the rest of your utterings, perhaps you need to be straight to the point, and drop the cryptic references. 

I'm just trying to provide evidence, to you (a scientist), that evil doesn't exist in reallity and humans, any more than it does in any other animal.

Our intelligence can hide the truth, ironically backed up by our emotions; we assume it separates us from (the animal's) causality and automatically gives us a choice to ignore our training.

The ability to think past our emotions, is our true strength.

The consequences of not recognising that as a strength, leads to regression, into a more animalistic approach to justice. 

 

[dimreepr]

[beecee]

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm just trying to provide evidence, to you (a scientist), that evil doesn't exist in reallity and humans, any more than it does in any other animal.

No I am not a scientist, and I'm pretty sure I have made that point known in my time here...A retired maintenance Fitter/Machinist/welder that left school at the age of 16, and has absolutely no university education at all. Read plenty due to my interest in astronomy/cosmology, and hold science and the scientific methodology to be the best system by many lengths. And I couldn't disagree more with your hypothesis that evil does not exist, despite the teachings and so called learnings of buddhism.

 

And no, quantum mechanics is not magic at all but a well evidenced scientific theory describing the quantum/Planck world under a different set of rules and regulations.  It simply does not operate under Newtonian concepts that we are familiar with.

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The ability to think past our emotions, is our true strength.

The consequences of not recognising that as a strength, leads to regression, into a more animalistic approach to justice. 

Emotions are part and parcel of who and what we are...we all love, hate etc                 And while emotions probably do play a part in any justice system, punishment is most certainly also a rational response to anyone that commits a serious criminal act.

That doesn't mean all justice systems are totally fair and just of course, but I am pretty sure I have given more then one example of how our westernised justice systems, are in the main, equitable and accessible, and at least make best efforts to be just that...fair and just for all.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2021 by beecee

[Intoscience]

On 8/27/2021 at 3:51 PM, swansont said:

Nothing is going to be perfect, which leaves us with "lock them all up because we can't be 100% sure" There is no such thing as a 100% safe society, so where do you realistically draw this line? This is a matter of acceptable levels of risk.

 

I'm not advocating that anything is or can be. This was my point, nothing is infallible, therefore to protect society from someone who has committed a violent crime (especially an atrocity as per Beecee's example) what can we do to be sure it won't happen again? Then to make things even more difficult each individual is different, some would respond to rehabilitation some won't. 

So yes, you are correct, it's a matter of acceptable levels of risk, I thought I made this clear in my arguments. 

We can't blanket over the whole system with either one approach or the other. We can't just go ahead lock everyone up and throw away the key, nor can we just forgive and rehabilitate everyone. The only difference (and this was my point, though I'm not advocating we do this) between the 2 is, one guarantees protection from society, the other doesn't.

So to reiterate my point, the level of risk has to be assessed, but my approach would be to err on the side of caution. Rehabilitation and all the other "humane" approaches are great when they work, they get my full support. But when they fail the outcome can be catastrophic and unacceptable.  Unfortunately my approach means that some may feel they have been unjustly punished for their crime and not given the chance to redeem themselves that they and society might believe they deserve. Me personally, in some cases this cost is far less than the risk of loss that could occur should the justice system get it wrong. You may say I shouldn't tar all with the same brush, indeed I shouldn't but at high levels of violent crimes these criminals have proven to be a danger, so this danger should take the upmost consideration as priority.   

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm not advocating that anything is or can be. This was my point, nothing is infallible, therefore to protect society from someone who has committed a violent crime (especially an atrocity as per Beecee's example) what can we do to be sure it won't happen again? Then to make things even more difficult each individual is different, some would respond to rehabilitation some won't. 

You lack the same assurance that someone who has never been convicted won't commit a crime either. The post-trial system is not set up to anticipate future crimes. (Good thing, too, since most of us commit crimes, even if we don't know we have done so. We'd all be in jail if it were to prevent future crimes)