What is Justice?

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Every person? Every crime?

Yes of course, if a human commited the crime, then a human is capable of the crime, the only escape clause is, become a petunia. 😉 

Anyone who suggests otherwise, is in for an infinite number of what if question's... 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

PS: I don't at all have faith in the scientific method, rather trust, due to its success rate and logic.

That's either an oxymoron or very ironic in this context:

 

Edited August 30, 2021 by dimreepr

[swansont]

44 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 Every person? Every crime?

Every person.

There are a lot of things that are against the law, that people don't realize.

Harvard University professor Harvey Silverglate estimates that daily life in the United States is so over-criminalized, the average American professional commits about three felonies a day.

https://ips-dc.org/three-felonies-day/

[Peterkin]

30 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Which ever direction takes society to a better level sometimes at cost to the individual, sacrifice for the greater good. 

That's a restatement of the first one. What makes a society good or better? Which good is greater and by what standard of measurement? What level of sacrifice does it take to serve the greatest good?

If societies have trajectories through history, those trajectories can be traced from the point of origin - or constitution -  to the point of extinction. In past civilizations, we can point to the junctions at which pivotal decisions were made or events took place, that determined the direction that society's history was about to take. We can see which of those events and decisions led on to success and which to failure of the society. But the people, even the top leadership, living in those long-ago civilizations could not see where their decisions would lead. They didn't know they were making bad laws and creating unnecessary criminal classes, enemies, ruptures and fractures.  Neither do we. 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Interestingly in the Christian religion, God often punishes those that are "evil" with plagues and floods and all manner of mass genocide. This from the creator of heaven and earth and all within it, the judge and jury for all living things the one who guides humanity. His methods are accepted as punishment and "justice" for the greater good of humanity. And here we are arguing over justice for criminals who commit evil atrocities, with a view to forgiving them for the greater good of society. 

Rather ironic. 

Indeed, since a human wrote it; besides didn't Jesus (also human) say "turn the other cheek"?

Like I said "what's religion got to do with it?"...

[Peterkin]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

49 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Every person? Every crime?

Every person.

I don't think so. Every person might break some laws at some time under some circumstances, but there is a limit to the physical and psychological capability of each one. There are many things I have done, am willing to do or might be provoked to do that are against a law. But there are some things I cannot do, whether they are forbidden or required -  either due to my physical or emotional limitations, and some things I will not do, due to moral constraint.  

 

42 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Yes of course, if a human commited the crime, then a human is capable of the crime,

A human, not all humans. Else, who would throw the stones?

[swansont]

40 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I'm not saying all people should be punished for uncommitted crimes, each individual case requires assessment of the potential danger to society. Why are you insistent on taking my argument out of context as though I'm advocating that all people are criminals and all criminals are likely to re-offend? I'm not saying this at all! Each case requires evaluation and assessment based on the crime committed and the potential danger to society.

Then your argument is inconsistent, because you also insist on 100% protection

" the only guaranteed answer to protect society 100% is by detaining the person for life"

Detaining someone for life, if they did not draw a life sentence, is proposing punishing people for crimes they might commit.

I never said I thought it applies to all. But if it applies to any of them, then we have this problem.

 

40 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

So if someone commits a serious violent crime, and they show no signs of rehabilitation, they should be released back into society, regardless of the potential that they could commit again? Good luck with explaining that to the next victim's family. 

This is a problem we currently have. It's even worse, because you have to e.g. explain to sexual assault victims why their rapist/abuser was never even prosecuted in the first place for previous offenses (and sometimes why they were promoted despite their behavior)

Under your system we'd have to give life sentences to a whole host of violent crimes, based on the probability that some people would later commit crimes. (Also knowing that some people sent to jail are actually innocent). That also seems unacceptable (to me at least)

Picking and choosing who is dangerous and who is not for otherwise identical crimes and applying your plan doesn't seem like equal application of the law. Also the whole bit about punishing for crimes not committed seems like a violation of other rights that we have in the US, and likely exist elsewhere.

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

A human, not all humans. Else, who would throw the stones?

If that was intended as humour, who indeed. Maybe include a 😇 next time.

Else: why not all humans? Given the right training/order's many a German became a Nazi... 😉 

 

[swansont]

16 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I don't think so. Every person might break some laws at some time under some circumstances, but there is a limit to the physical and psychological capability of each one. There are many things I have done, am willing to do or might be provoked to do that are against a law. But there are some things I cannot do, whether they are forbidden or required -  either due to my physical or emotional limitations, and some things I will not do, due to moral constraint.  

If you don't know what laws exist, I don't see how you can say you wouldn't break laws. I think you are thinking only of a small subset of the laws, which are the ones you know about, and including intent.

And I don't see how pointing to laws you wouldn't break matters to this. If you break one, it doesn't matter that you didn't break the other bazillion laws that are on the books. I affirmed every person, not every crime.

 

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I have a mentally disabled daughter, she has no concept of "good and evil" she hasn't the ability to sympathise or empathise, she has no morals simply because she hasn't the mental capacity to understand them.

How do you know?

She might just lack the ability to explain it to you...

[Peterkin]

27 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Given the right training/order's many a German became a Nazi... 

All Germans obeyed some of the laws. Most Germans disobeyed some of the laws. Some Germans committed heinous war crimes. Some Germans disobeyed the law by refusing to abet the war crimes.

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

If you don't know what laws exist, I don't see how you can say you wouldn't break laws.

Ignorance or knowledge, legality or illegality doesn't figure into individual capability or individual conscience.

It doesn't matter whether something I am is against a law or not. If it's illegal to be albino and I lack pigmentation, I can't help breaking the law. If it's legal, and richly rewarded, to defraud pensioners of the equity in their home, I still wouldn't do it, because I consider it wrong. If the law says, thou shalt not suffer a witch to live, I won't light the bonfire and might, if i were brave enough, help one escape her legal punishment. 

Everyone is capable of breaking laws. Not everyone might break every law.

Edited August 30, 2021 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

All Germans obeyed some of the laws. Most Germans disobeyed some of the laws. Some Germans committed heinous war crimes. Some Germans disobeyed the law by refusing to abet the war crimes.

You're missing the key variable, not all German's were subjected to the same training...

Edited August 30, 2021 by dimreepr

[Peterkin]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You're missing the key variable, not all German's were subject to the same training...

You are basing a very big generalization on an untested theory. I'm not saying it's impossible to turn every person on Earth into a depraved child-raping murderer, but I'm skeptical. Even the craziest-making societies raise a variety of criminals and law-enforcers - I'm guessing because there is a variety of temperaments and mentalities.

 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

I'm guessing because there is a variety of temperaments and mentalities.

Indeed, their not taught the same or don't think the same; but that doesn't change the fact that they're all human; ergo they're all capable of being human.

Much like a worm, trained to eat shit, instead of good old-fashioned, dirt...

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Ignorance or knowledge, legality or illegality doesn't figure into individual capability or individual conscience.

I think legality and illegality figures into whether or not you broke the law.

 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Everyone is capable of breaking laws. Not everyone might break every law.

And it's the former I am contending, not the latter.

[Peterkin]

50 minutes ago, swansont said:

I think legality and illegality figures into whether or not you broke the law.

 

Yes, but not into which person can, would, or is likely to break which law.

It's illegal in most cultures to strangle a man. I might even desire to strangle some particular man for some particular reason. But I could not do it, simply because my hands are weak and stiff with arthritis. 

Besides, I have several times made the distinctions between breaking a law and committing a crime, between committing a crime and being a criminal, between unlawful and antisocial behaviour.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Much like a worm, trained to eat shit, instead of good old-fashioned, dirt...

No, it just dies. That's often, though not always, an available option for humans faced with impossible laws.

However, if you're insisting that every citizen can be trained to commit antisocial acts, then you should consider the converse: that perhaps every citizen can be trained to refrain from antisocial acts.

Edited August 30, 2021 by Peterkin

[beecee]

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That doesn't answer my question, what definition of punishment did he use?

You have already given a  definition...but anyway, my own definition is a court sanctioned deserved burden/retribution, in line with the relevant justice system, for crimes against that system. While not that into Kant, his definition, seems to hold and be similar to mine anyway.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Like I said "what's religion got to do with it?"...

Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember you quoting some biblical passage or similar throughout this merry-go-round. 😜

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Then your argument is inconsistent, because you also insist on 100% protection

" the only guaranteed answer to protect society 100% is by detaining the person for life"

Detaining someone for life, if they did not draw a life sentence, is proposing punishing people for crimes they might commit.

I never said I thought it applies to all. But if it applies to any of them, then we have this problem.

 

This is a problem we currently have. It's even worse, because you have to e.g. explain to sexual assault victims why their rapist/abuser was never even prosecuted in the first place for previous offenses (and sometimes why they were promoted despite their behavior)

Under your system we'd have to give life sentences to a whole host of violent crimes, based on the probability that some people would later commit crimes. (Also knowing that some people sent to jail are actually innocent). That also seems unacceptable (to me at least)

Picking and choosing who is dangerous and who is not for otherwise identical crimes and applying your plan doesn't seem like equal application of the law. Also the whole bit about punishing for crimes not committed seems like a violation of other rights that we have in the US, and likely exist elsewhere.

I don't believe the argument is inconsistent. In fact I see it as analogous in applying the scientific methodology. eg: If we look at the real example I gave, the perpetrator was already on parole for rape, OK? That may or may not have been justified at the time, [analogous to a hypothetical] but in hindsight, it obviously was not justified, because within a short time, he decided again to rape and torture, this time a little girl, plus to stab and harm the rescuer/heros when he was caught in the act. I think at this stage, it becomes fairly certain that this monster cannot be rehabilitated, and is a definite danger to society...we have gone from his parole, [a hypothesis] to a reoffend and total disregard for his fellow human being, and consequently his new life sentence, because of the greatly increased evidence for re-offence. [analogous to a definite scientific theory] in other words based on the evidence available this bloke would very likely offend again.

Note: I am talking specifically about serious violent crime.

Edited August 30, 2021 by beecee

[swansont]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I don't believe the argument is inconsistent. In fact I see it as analogous in applying the scientific methodology. eg: If we look at the real example I gave, the perpetrator was already on parole for rape, OK? That may or may not have been justified at the time, [analogous to a hypothetical] but in hindsight, it obviously was not justified, because within a short time, he decided again to rape and torture, this time a little girl, plus to stab and harm the rescuer/heros when he was caught in the act. I think at this stage, it becomes fairly certain that this monster cannot be rehabilitated, and is a definite danger to society...we have gone from his parole, [a hypothesis] to a reoffend and total disregard for his fellow human being, and consequently his new life sentence, because of the greatly increased evidence for re-offence. [analogous to a definite scientific theory] in other words based on the evidence available this bloke would very likely offend again.

Note: I am talking specifically about serious violent crime.

Hindsight is not available at the time of sentencing.

Another perpetrator does not do these acts. How do you tell - with 100% certainty (the standard that’s been proposed) - which one is the greater danger? How do you confine them for life without violating their rights?

[beecee]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Hindsight is not available at the time of sentencing.

Another perpetrator does not do these acts. How do you tell - with 100% certainty (the standard that’s been proposed) - which one is the greater danger? How do you confine them for life without violating their rights?

You can't, agreed, we can never with a 100% certainty. But again sometimes [analogous to an hypothesis advancing to theory stage] the evidence is such [as per re-offending with the same crime after parole] that we must consider it as "highly likely" that a re-offence will occur...Not trying to teach Granny to suck eggs, but most scientific theory, remain as that, we are always open to further observational and experimental evidence, modifying or changing that theory. 

[1]which one is the greater danger? ANS: The obvious continued danger to society after throwing away a lifeline given to him.[previous parole]

[2]How do you confine them for life without violating their rights? ANS: After throwing away their previous lifeline,[parole] coupled with the brutality and violence of the crime, not to mention "caught in the act" do they really have any rights left? 

Which incidently as I have mentioned, is why I am against the death penalty. That is reasonably final.😉

Edited August 30, 2021 by beecee

[Intoscience]

17 hours ago, swansont said:

Then your argument is inconsistent, because you also insist on 100% protection

" the only guaranteed answer to protect society 100% is by detaining the person for life"

Detaining someone for life, if they did not draw a life sentence, is proposing punishing people for crimes they might commit.

I never said I thought it applies to all. But if it applies to any of them, then we have this problem.

 

This is a problem we currently have. It's even worse, because you have to e.g. explain to sexual assault victims why their rapist/abuser was never even prosecuted in the first place for previous offenses (and sometimes why they were promoted despite their behavior)

Under your system we'd have to give life sentences to a whole host of violent crimes, based on the probability that some people would later commit crimes. (Also knowing that some people sent to jail are actually innocent). That also seems unacceptable (to me at least)

Picking and choosing who is dangerous and who is not for otherwise identical crimes and applying your plan doesn't seem like equal application of the law. Also the whole bit about punishing for crimes not committed seems like a violation of other rights that we have in the US, and likely exist elsewhere.

I'm not advocating we adopt the system, I'm just stating a fact. So I'll say it again -  To guarantee 100% a violent criminal doesn't harm another person within society ever again you have 2 options. 1. Detain them for life  2. kill them.

(And to be pedantic, even detaining them for life won't guarantee they don't harm again, since they will have opportunities at the facility they are detained at). 

My point is that, what ever improvements, investments and all the will in the world won't guarantee 100% protection for society. So going back to my argument, if neither of those 2 options are adopted, and some sort of rehabilitation method with a very high success rate is used. Even if the system has a 99.999% success rate, there will always be causalities. There will always be the one that re-offends. 

So to reiterate my point I made about for the greater good of society, what ever is deemed to be the greater good, there will always be some sacrifice made. 

The question is who would you prefer to sacrifice?   

8 hours ago, swansont said:

Hindsight is not available at the time of sentencing.

Another perpetrator does not do these acts. How do you tell - with 100% certainty (the standard that’s been proposed) - which one is the greater danger? How do you confine them for life without violating their rights?

The caveat in this (my bold), what about the rights of the victim that the perpetrator violated? People bang on and on about the constitution and the rights of all people, especially in such circumstances.

The teacher hands out candy bars to all the kids. Little Jonny runs around the play ground steals all the candy bars off the kids playing there. Little Jonny is made to stand in the corner as punishment, but he can have his candy bar because each every kid has the right (including Jonny) to have one.  

What a crock of crap, little Jonny gave up his rights when he decided to steal off all the other kids.

Edited August 31, 2021 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

34 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

The teacher hands out candy bars to all the kids. Little Jonny runs around the play ground steals all the candy bars off the kids playing there. Little Jonny is made to stand in the corner as punishment, but he can have his candy bar because each every kid has the right (including Jonny) to have one.  

What a crock of crap, little Jonny gave up his rights when he decided to steal off all the other kids.

What if LJ has learned his lesson from standing in the corner; He might go on to be candy bar moniter?

But if you go on to deny him the candy, all you teach him is not to get caught stealing.

If you haven't been to room 101, you can't say you wouldn't "turn on Julia and accept Big Brother."

[Intoscience]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What if LJ has learned his lesson from standing in the corner; He might go on to be candy bar moniter?

But if you go on to deny him the candy, all you teach him is not to get caught stealing.

If you haven't been to room 101, you can't say you wouldn't "turn on Julia and accept Big Brother."

Why is it that he only learns not to get caught stealing? I don't see how this is the inevitable outcome? 

What LJ learns depends on how & what he is taught subsequent to his crime, and whether or not he responds to his lessons positively. 

He may decide that standing in the corner is just fine cause he gets to have his candy bar anyway, in which case getting caught is irrelevant and doing the crime is worth the time.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, beecee said:

 

[2]How do you confine them for life without violating their rights? ANS: After throwing away their previous lifeline,[parole] coupled with the brutality and violence of the crime, not to mention "caught in the act" do they really have any rights left? 

You are describing multiple violent crimes after someone has been incarcerated and released on parole, which is not the scenario under discussion. Existing law should be sufficient to put such a person away for a very long time, so I don't see how it's relevant to the situation Intoscience had proposed.

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm not advocating we adopt the system

So what's the point of discussing it?

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

The caveat in this (my bold), what about the rights of the victim that the perpetrator violated? People bang on and on about the constitution and the rights of all people, especially in such circumstances.

This part isn't about rights. The victim's rights haven't been violated, unless the perpetrator is a government entity.

Quote

 

The teacher hands out candy bars to all the kids. Little Jonny runs around the play ground steals all the candy bars off the kids playing there. Little Jonny is made to stand in the corner as punishment, but he can have his candy bar because each every kid has the right (including Jonny) to have one.  

What a crock of crap, little Jonny gave up his rights when he decided to steal off all the other kids.

 

How is this relevant? Has anyone proposed not having some kind of response/punishment to a crime?

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

You are describing multiple violent crimes after someone has been incarcerated and released on parole, which is not the scenario under discussion. Existing law should be sufficient to put such a person away for a very long time, so I don't see how it's relevant to the situation Intoscience had proposed.

I'm describing a situation where the generous alternatives to a prison justice system, has been granted and failed miserably. The scenario that two others are championing.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

I'm describing a situation where the generous alternatives to a prison justice system, has been granted and failed miserably. The scenario that two others are championing.

Which is not the discussion I was having. Introscience is proposing locking someone up for life because they might offend again.

Or not, because now they say they aren't advocating for that.

[Intoscience]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which is not the discussion I was having. Introscience is proposing locking someone up for life because they might offend again.

Or not, because now they say they aren't advocating for that.

No, I'm not proposing we should do anything. I'm pointing out a fact that should not be ignored in the face of applying punishment or justice in an attempt to protect society at the same time.

The criminal does the crime, serves the time and is released. As you correctly pointed out the justice system if working correctly should apply the right amount of punishment (incarceration, since this is the context we are discussing) that fits the crime. This we all agree on yes?

My point which I'm not advocating we should do, other than consider the implications of releasing a violent offender back into society, especially if that criminal has not been rehabilitated enough to a level of acceptable confidence that they will not offend again. The only way we can guarantee society is protected from such a person is to lock them up for life or commit them to death. 

So to re-iterate a point I made earlier and it was thrown back in my face. Under certain circumstances imprisonment serves as punishment and protection for society.