What is Justice?

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I don't think he did, actually. At first he asked a legitimate philosophical question:

I see only punishment listed. No hint that anything else is being considered.

[dimreepr]

On 8/10/2021 at 1:13 AM, beecee said:

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

Then some people are more equal than other's; I'm just saying Justic for all! 

Because both parties should be considered victim's; the perp is either a victim of life or a victim of an illness, much like the victim of the criminal. A civilised society should be ashamed of the prisons in most of the, otherwise, wealthy countries... That's not to say a prison isn't sometimes necessary, just a kinder version of the one's we got, and to preempt The Daily Mail, yes, more like a holiday home...

Quote

The Latin root of punishment and its related verb, punish, is punire, "punish, correct, take vengeance for, or cause pain for some offense."

I'm just saying we should concentrate on the "correct" part of this translation and ignore the rest. 

50 minutes ago, swansont said:

I see only punishment listed. No hint that anything else is being considered.

My apologies, it often takes a page or two, to get my point across, I wish I could do it in a single post (unfortunately I'm only semi-literate). 

Edited August 11, 2021 by dimreepr

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

And while there are injustices from time to time, it is still the best available. But hey! I'm always open to any better system that sees justice for the vicitim as well as justice for the criminal/perpetrator.

What about restitution? Even the venegful Old Testament demands restitution with interest, plus an offering to the religious authority.

Quote

Leviticus 6:4Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found,

5 Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.

If you lock up a thief, the victims don't get their property back, the incarceration costs society ten times as much as the thief would have in the same amount of time, and he comes even less likely to earn a legitimate income. Of course, if he steals food because his children are hungry, he can't be made either to give it back or to pay a fine - but locking him up or cutting off his hand or hanging him won't do society a damn bit of good in any case. So, what's the point?

Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

In theory, incarceration, and particularly death penalties, should deter the citizenry from breaking the law. The simple, obvious fact that it never has seems to be lost on the law-makers. They're determined to be seen to do something about crime, no matter how ineffective. All law-enforcement is ineffective, because it concentrates on the law-breaker, and the law-breaker is just an ordinary citizen - the same ordinary citizen who pays for all the law-enforcement - until he's caught performing an abortion, stealing a car, tossing his wife's lover out the window, protesting against the government, selling dirty movies, carrying a joint in his pocket, holding up a liquor store, painting on somebody's wall, skimming off a client's investment fund.... breaking a law. And then he magically becomes a different species: criminal.   

What should "we" law-abiding citizens do about "them" criminals?

The same response to crimes of passion, crimes of acquisition, crimes of desperation, crimes of happenstance, crimes of aggression and crimes of defiance cannot do justice to any.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

What about restitution? Even the venegful Old Testament demands restitution with interest, plus an offering to the religious authority.

If you lock up a thief, the victims don't get their property back, the incarceration costs society ten times as much as the thief would have in the same amount of time, and he comes even less likely to earn a legitimate income. Of course, if he steals food because his children are hungry, he can't be made either to give it back or to pay a fine - but locking him up or cutting off his hand or hanging him won't do society a damn bit of good in any case. So, what's the point?

Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

In theory, incarceration, and particularly death penalties, should deter the citizenry from breaking the law. The simple, obvious fact that it never has seems to be lost on the law-makers. They're determined to be seen to do something about crime, no matter how ineffective. All law-enforcement is ineffective, because it concentrates on the law-breaker, and the law-breaker is just an ordinary citizen - the same ordinary citizen who pays for all the law-enforcement - until he's caught performing an abortion, stealing a car, tossing his wife's lover out the window, protesting against the government, selling dirty movies, carrying a joint in his pocket, holding up a liquor store, painting on somebody's wall, skimming off a client's investment fund.... breaking a law. And then he magically becomes a different species: criminal.   

What should "we" law-abiding citizens do about "them" criminals?

The same response to crimes of passion, crimes of acquisition, crimes of desperation, crimes of happenstance, crimes of aggression and crimes of defiance cannot do justice to any.

+1 It's what |I would have said, if I was bright enough...

First we ask why?

Then we ask how?

That's a wealthy country... 😉

[Peterkin]

Thanks! Fact is, all complex societies require conformity - which is impossible - and obedience to authority - which is difficult, in some degree, for all citizens and impossible for some. When it requires obedience to more than one authority, such as religious and civil institutions, or sets up contradiction between its stated principles and its practice ("All men are created equal" except the Africans, Indians, indentured servants, prisoners, resident aliens, etc) All complex societies generate inequality, competition, conflict, friction and disparity of interests. There is innate, inescapable injustice in the very structure of such a society. So the main purpose of the legal code is not to maintain peace and good order, but to maintain control.  That's why the criminal justice systems are focused on punishment of the disobedient - on the pattern carved into the tablets Moses brought down from the mountain or Hammurabi's stele. Law is primarily concerned with the status quo; secondly, with orderly commerce, thirdly with removing disruptive and dangerous elements from the public realm, fourthly with protection of property and persons (yes, in that order), and somewhere down the line, amends or retribution for the victims and rehabilitation of the lawbreaker. 

Fair dealing can come into play at any stage, and a fair principle may be constituted into the code, but it can't be legislated or ensured: it's up to the police, jurists and enforcers, the criminals and taxpayers: fairness is in how members of a society regard one another.    

[dimreepr]

30 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

So the main purpose of the legal code is not to maintain peace and good order, but to maintain control.

So, in order to maintain control we have to be dominant? 

I offer a different hypothesis; in order to maintain peace, we have to be content... 

[TheVat]

 

A more humane Mikado never Did in Japan exist, To nobody second, I'm certainly reckoned A true philanthropist. It is my very humane endeavour To make, to some extent, Each evil liver A running river Of harmless merriment.

 

My object all sublime I shall achieve in time — To let the punishment fit the crime — The punishment fit the crime; And make each prisoner pent Unwillingly represent A source of innocent merriment! Of innocent merriment!

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, TheVat said:

 

A more humane Mikado never Did in Japan exist, To nobody second, I'm certainly reckoned A true philanthropist. It is my very humane endeavour To make, to some extent, Each evil liver A running river Of harmless merriment.

 

My object all sublime I shall achieve in time — To let the punishment fit the crime — The punishment fit the crime; And make each prisoner pent Unwillingly represent A source of innocent merriment! Of innocent merriment!

 

“To freeze the moment
In seventeen syllables
Is very diffic

- Haiku No. 1”

[Peterkin]

51 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So, in order to maintain control we have to be dominant? 

Reverse that: In order for those who dominate to remain dominant, they need to control the population. 

"We" are not dominant; we are controlled by a small elite minority.

53 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I offer a different hypothesis; in order to maintain peace, we have to be content... 

Devoutly to be wished; seldom attained.

 

There's a little list.

If you know what's good for you,

don't get on his list!

[beecee]

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Then some people are more equal than other's; I'm just saying Justic for all! 

Not at all...Justice as generally perceived, is that "just deserts" that is handed out to a person, in the event of a crime. That generally is pretty straight forward for the perpetrator, based on law. The victim on the other hand, can be put in an invidious, cruel, and mentally cruel position. eg: A woman that is viciously raped. In my country [and I believe in other reasonable democratic countries] a woman that has undergone such an ordeal, at one time would need to appear in court, in the presence of the animal or animals that committed the rape, testify, be put through the wringer of questioning and examination by an uncomprimising prosecutor, which many times [more often then not] amounted to mental torture of that victim. Now mostly statements of the accounts are accepted by the courts, or appearence by video link, where she is not "comprimised" by the presence of the defendant, and in consideration of her ordeal. 

9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

What about restitution? Even the venegful Old Testament demands restitution with interest, plus an offering to the religious authority.

If you lock up a thief, the victims don't get their property back, the incarceration costs society ten times as much as the thief would have in the same amount of time, and he comes even less likely to earn a legitimate income. Of course, if he steals food because his children are hungry, he can't be made either to give it back or to pay a fine - but locking him up or cutting off his hand or hanging him won't do society a damn bit of good in any case. So, what's the point?

Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

Agreed, restitution is desirable, but as usual, you forget the percentage of inncorigables that are present in society, irrespective of any potential undesirable aspects of the criminal in his early childhood and upbringing.

Plus mt statement earlier thus, "Justice for all! particularly including justice for victims and criminal justice." was also accompanied with the following,  "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". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

 

9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

In theory, incarceration, and particularly death penalties, should deter the citizenry from breaking the law. The simple, obvious fact that it never has seems to be lost on the law-makers.

It takes all kinds of citizens to make up a society. Incarceration and/or death penalty most certainly do deter the majority of committing a crime or breaking a law, but as always, there are some who totally disregard any and all laws, over looking after and total consideration of one person, themselves.

9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

They're determined to be seen to do something about crime, no matter how ineffective. All law-enforcement is ineffective, because it concentrates on the law-breaker, and the law-breaker is just an ordinary citizen - the same ordinary citizen who pays for all the law-enforcement - until he's caught performing an abortion, stealing a car, tossing his wife's lover out the window, protesting against the government, selling dirty movies, carrying a joint in his pocket, holding up a liquor store, painting on somebody's wall, skimming off a client's investment fund.... breaking a law. And then he magically becomes a different species: criminal.   

What should "we" law-abiding citizens do about "them" criminals?

The same response to crimes of passion, crimes of acquisition, crimes of desperation, crimes of happenstance, crimes of aggression and crimes of defiance cannot do justice to any.

Not only be seen to do something about crime, but doing it! Many normal ordinary citizens have also faced difficulty, injustices, poverty, cruelty, even worse...but they rise above it all. Prisons are a necessary evil, as to are police forces, military orginisations etc, as to are courts, judges, juries etc. What sort of society do you believe we would live is without those evils. 

If you can show me where the "bleeding heart" approach will work exclusively, then you will have my support. But you know as well as I do, it doesn't and won't...We as a society must meter out justice as we see fit, sadly. And while that system, just like your bleeding heart system, may not work all of the time, it is still far more desirable. 

I mentioned just above an example with rape and the consideration of the victim." Here is the other side of the story. A couple of years ago, in Sydney, we had a woman with car trouble...a "good samaritan" stopped to assist. He got her car going again, and she embraced him in thanks. Then accused him of sexual assault. https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/caitlyn-gray-in-court-over-accusing-good-samaritan-of-indecent-assault-stalking/news-story/6afe58fe6bff5f65b302778ae3d5f48d

A young woman, whose actions led to a good Samaritan being locked up in a maximum-security jail for a week after she lied and claimed he had stalked and sexually assaulted her, has made another accusation.

Caitlyn Gray, 19 at the time of the offence, fronted Bankstown Local Court yesterday accused of lying for days over the way Sydney dad Kenan Basic behaved after he spent more than two hours helping her get her damaged car back on the road at a local BP petrol station.

Mr Basic, 36, lost his job, was served with divorce papers from his wife and spent a week in Silverwater Jail in Sydney’s west after he was accused of the horrific crime on November 22 last year.

Gray initially claimed the father-of-one lunged at her and grabbed her breast and vagina after she refused his advances as “payment” for helping with her car. She then claimed he stalked her through the streets of western Sydney before she called her boyfriend, who reported it to police.

Seven days later, Gray admitted to making the whole thing up.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Justice must be served, or as you say, not only done, but be seen to be done.

PS: 

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/caitlyn-gray-sentenced-for-knowingly-making-a-false-statement-against-kenan-basic/news-story/4a4c9cae521751b9a5c58a05d2ad8b32

Caitlyn Gray, 20, was sentenced to a non-parole period of five months earlier today after she pleaded guilty to claiming Sydney dad Kenan Basic stalked and indecently assaulted her after he helped her with her damaged car.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Edited August 11, 2021 by beecee

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I offer a different hypothesis; in order to maintain peace, we have to be content... 

BINGO!

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Devoutly to be wished; seldom attained.

BINGO!

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Agreed, restitution is desirable, but as usual, you forget the percentage of inncorigables that are present in society, irrespective of any potential undesirable aspects of the criminal in his early childhood and upbringing.

No, I don't forget them; I just have a different perspective from yours - bold print notwithstanding.  In the instance you cited, I was talking about theft, which is a very common crime, and which can, in practical fact, be compensated.

 

3 hours ago, beecee said:

It takes all kinds of citizens to make up a society. Incarceration and/or death penalty most certainly do deter the majority of committing a crime or breaking a law, but as always, there are some who totally disregard any and all laws, over looking after and total consideration of one person, themselves.

Do you assume that all or most citizens desire to commit crimes and refrain only out of fear of retribution? It's not an uncommon assumption, but it doesn't go very far toward explaining why most people support law and order in the first place. If you have proof of the deterrent value of severe sentences, as compared to rehabilitation, I would like to see statistics to support it.

[beecee]

55 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No, I don't forget them; I just have a different perspective from yours - bold print notwithstanding.  In the instance you cited, I was talking about theft, which is a very common crime, and which can, in practical fact, be compensated.

And as I said, I agree, at least with some cases. By the same token, if an individual proves inncorrigable and does not take the hint to conform, we have no other choice then the prison status quo, as deemed by the law.

55 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Do you assume that all or most citizens desire to commit crimes and refrain only out of fear of retribution? It's not an uncommon assumption, but it doesn't go very far toward explaining why most people support law and order in the first place. If you have proof of the deterrent value of severe sentences, as compared to rehabilitation, I would like to see statistics to support it.

A fair percentage, yes.

Sure it does! Most, the very vast majority, support law and order, because they understand that without it, they could also be a vicitim. It's a "F%$& you Jack, I'm alright" type of syndrome with many people. If they know they could get away for instance, with funneling a large amount of money from a banking institution, without getting caught, they would. 

No I havn't figures on the deterrent value of sentences [the severe comment was yours] and only bring in the "severe" with repeated many times offenders. I would also without doubt be leniant with first timers, and also take into account the WIKI comment I put in bold print.

That be this one......."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've given two sides of the coin here, one concerning consideration with the victim, particularly in instances of violent rape, and the pain and torture they were often put through, to achieve justice, and then the false allegation of some low life woman, that accused a bloke of sexual assault, and caused an injustice to that individual, and destroying his whole life in fact.

In the first instant, my sympathies lie with the woman, and the reforming taking into account her status as a victim, in the second with the bloke falsely accused.

The two sides totally show that there is no pleasing everyone, and that we will always have those that will cheat, lie, steal, rape, murder, no matter how much society bends over backwards for them in efforts to reform and change to an accepted standard.

 

 

 

Edited August 12, 2021 by beecee

[MigL]

12 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Of course, if he steals food because his children are hungry, he can't be made either to give it back or to pay a fine - but locking him up or cutting off his hand or hanging him won't do society a damn bit of good in any case.

Why do people always use the example of the poor person who steals food to feed his kids ?
What about the mass murderers, the rapists, and other who 'get off' on the suffering they cause to other people ?What about the rich people who are just plain greedy, and cheat others out of their life savings ?
Do they not need to be separated from a safe and orderly society ?

 

13 hours ago, Peterkin said:

In theory, incarceration, and particularly death penalties, should deter the citizenry from breaking the law. The simple, obvious fact that it never has seems to be lost on the law-makers.

That does not hold true for the large percentage of criminals who re-offend.
No-one who is incarcerated for life, or who gets the death penalty, has ever re-offended.
Do I need to cite references for this statistic ?
 

 

 

[Peterkin]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Why do people always use the example of the poor person who steals food to feed his kids ?

Because both poverty and high birth-rate and high petty crime rate among the poor are historical facts - most prevalent in nations with harsh criminal justice systems. Of course, my example was about restitution: i.e., that in certain instances, it's not possible. 

 

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

What about the mass murderers, the rapists, and other who 'get off' on the suffering they cause to other people

Restitution wouldn't work there, either. 

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

What about the rich people who are just plain greedy, and cheat others out of their life savings ?

 An excellent example where restitution with interest, plus a hefty fine for the public coffers would work admirably.

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

Do they not need to be separated from a safe and orderly society ?

Some do, certainly. Not the burglars, embezzlers, shoplifters and fraudsters so much: they would be much better put to work, repaying their debts. Which would save a whole lot of tax-money and cage-space for the mass murderers.  

 

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

No-one who is incarcerated for life, or who gets the death penalty, has ever re-offended.

That's doesn't deter all those who believe that they won't be caught.     

[beecee]

28 minutes ago, MigL said:

Why do people always use the example of the poor person who steals food to feed his kids ?
What about the mass murderers, the rapists, and other who 'get off' on the suffering they cause to other people ?What about the rich people who are just plain greedy, and cheat others out of their life savings ?
Do they not need to be separated from a safe and orderly society ?

 

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Because both poverty and high birth-rate and high petty crime rate among the poor are historical facts - most prevalent in nations with harsh criminal justice systems. Of course, my example was about restitution: i.e., that in certain instances, it's not possible. 

None of that invalidates what MigL  said.

13 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Restitution wouldn't work there, either.     

So we have a prison system for these innorrigables. That is all anyone is saying.

15 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 An excellent example where restitution with interest, plus a hefty fine for the public coffers would work admirably.  

Bloody oath! And fine them to the extent that it would mean they don't ever do it again.

19 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Some do, certainly. Not the burglars, embezzlers, shoplifters and fraudsters so much: they would be much better put to work, repaying their debts. Which would save a whole lot of tax-money and cage-space for the mass murderers.  .     

How many times would re-offending see the need to them locked up?

22 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That's doesn't deter all those who believe that they won't be caught.     

Yep, just as I said here....

47 minutes ago, beecee said:

Sure it does! Most, the very vast majority, support law and order, because they understand that without it, they could also be a vicitim. It's a "F%$& you Jack, I'm alright" type of syndrome with many people. If they know they could get away for instance, with funneling a large amount of money from a banking institution, without getting caught, they would. 

I really believe you understand where I and others are coming from and actually agree. I mean, it isn't rocket science that some people just do not, will not, and even never have, fitted into an otherwise just society.

Perhaps you are practising your philosophical stance and psychology with me?😉 

[Peterkin]

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

None of that invalidates what MigL  said.

So? I just answered the questions.

 

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

That is all anyone is saying.

That is not what the prison system - at least in the US - is doing, however.  It is not what most prisons do, or ever have done.

 

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

How many times would re-offending see the need to them locked up?

I'm not sure what you mean by "see the need". The rate of recidivism is dependent on several factors. I should think sitting in a prison cell is easier than working off one's debt. Give them the opportunity and see what happens.

16 minutes ago, beecee said:

I really believe you understand where I and others are coming from and actually agree.

See, yes; agree, no.

 

16 minutes ago, beecee said:

some people just do not, will not, and even never have, fitted into an otherwise just society.

We'll never know, because there is no such society. 

 

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

Perhaps you are practising your philosophical stance and psychology with me?

I thought I was participating in dimreepr's thread about the meaning of justice. I have no other agenda here.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

So? I just answered the questions.

Why not simply agree that he too, like you, has a point. Otherwise you seem to be avoiding an answer, more then actually answering.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

That is not what the prison system - at least in the US - is doing, however.  It is not what most prisons do, or ever have done.

Prisons are prisons and are there to help in the justice system, and like anything else, have evolved over the years, particularly with regards to the subject matter, re torture, discussed in another thread. Perhaps more reformation and evolution is needed in the system, but it is also understood that there are those that reject any and all those good intentions.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "see the need". The rate of recidivism is dependent on several factors. I should think sitting in a prison cell is easier than working off one's debt. Give them the opportunity and see what happens.

The loss of freedom and being continually monitored has its drawbacks. Seeing the need? C'mon you understand that if a criminal continues to re-offend,  again and again and again, that harsher Methods maybe needed. Especially when more then likley he has gotten away with a criminal act before finally being caught...this may lead to more seriousness, more violence and possibly worse. 

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

See, yes; agree, no.

I can only hope to hell, that if I ever decide to turn to a life of crime, violence and harm to others, that you are the presiding judge! You can practise your reformation philosophy on me then.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

We'll never know, because there is no such society. 

As I have said a few times now in different threads, we will never get a perfect santised society that you seem to be dreaming of. Why? because of the vastly different, natures comprising individuals, both good and bad. Generally speaking though, I personally would not swap my society for any other that I am aware of...improvements needed? sure, but nothing is or ever will be perfect.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I thought I was participating in dimreepr's thread about the meaning of justice. I have no other agenda here.

If you say so.

 

In summing again, any justice system has prisons.

Prisons are part of the justice system and are built to [1] Rehabilitate the criminal, [2] punish the criminal, and [3] act as a deterrent to the criminal and others.

 

Edited August 12, 2021 by beecee

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Why not simply agree that he too, like you, has a point.

I'm sure he does.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Otherwise you seem to be avoiding an answer,

To what?

1 hour ago, beecee said:

C'mon you understand that if a criminal continues to re-offend,  again and again and again, that harsher Methods maybe needed.

Possibly. But I can also see other possibilities. In any case, the thieves I sentenced to restitution instead of incarceration have not continued "re-offend,  again and again and again". You just assume they're going to. No alternative to incarceration has been tried. The recidivism rate of incarcerated burglars, car thieves and cheque-kiters is fairly high (around 50% in Canada) - after prison sentences. For drug dealers and smugglers, it's even higher. (Obviously, if you killed them all, the same ones would never do it again, on which point  MigL is absolutely correct.) 

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Especially when more then likley he has gotten away with a criminal act before finally being caught...this may lead to more seriousness, more violence and possibly worse. 

Why? Is there more profit in burglary with assault than a quiet, efficient burglary, or just more risk? Is there any reason to escalate fraud to murder?  Criminals are not necessarily stupid. 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I can only hope to hell, that if I ever decide to turn to a life of crime, violence and harm to others, that you are the presiding judge! You can practise your reformation philosophy on me then.

That would be lovely!

1 hour ago, beecee said:

In summing again, any justice system has prisons.

Any national one does, yes. And they all have crime. It would be logical to suppose that the ones with the least crime have the best law-enforcement. Or maybe that the ones with the most severe punishments have the least crime. If both were true, I'd take it as proof that a harsh criminal justice system is effective. 

But.... Is that condition met?  High crime rates can coexist with harsh punishments, and low crime rates can coexist with progressive correction methods.  So maybe crime isn't caused or prevented by prisons. Maybe justice is not that simple. 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Prisons are part of the justice system and are built to [1] Rehabilitate the criminal, [2] punish the criminal, and [3] act as a deterrent to the criminal and others.

Care to mark your country's record in each of those categories?

Edited August 12, 2021 by Peterkin
misplaced quote

[Intoscience]

What is justice? reading through this thread just shows how ambiguous the definition of justice is, and what, if anything, is the best approach to acting on it. 

In simple terms, justice for me is about retribution that fits the crime. The punishment however doesn't necessarily have to be pain or suffering, but rather education and learning empathy. 

Someone breaks into my house and kills my family. I want this person tortured and killed.

Someone breaks into my house and steals some valuables. I want this person locked up and made to pay back my loss. 

In both scenarios I would feel that justice has been done. However in reality the events have happened and can't be changed, so understanding the motives behind both and maybe learning from them to help to prevent similar happening to others makes more sense. Is there potentially a threat to the public in either scenario? One is an obvious yes.

Turns out that the murderer has severe mental health problems accentuated by drug use, the burglar has mental health problems and as a result become a drug addict. 

So what would be justice for all?

 

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

So what would be justice for all?

Remove the emotional responses and focus on reparation, for both victim's; anything else strays into revenge. 

We, normal citizens, don't know what motivates a criminal; it's fairly well known that an abused child can often grow up to be an abuser.

The emotional response is to seek revenge on the more recent and obvious abuse, especially when it manifests as particularly brutal and ignore the root cause; it's easier and more satisfying, not too mention feeling safer because they can't possibly do it again, if we lock em up and throw away the key.

Given the right motivation/illness we're all capable of criminality, justice for all, means we're all given a second chance. 

Seeking revenge just damage's your own soul.

[beecee]

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I'm sure he does.

I'm sure he does also, so as I acknowledge your point, you need to acknowledge other points that don't align with your agenda.

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

To what?

To admitting that we do have innorrigables that thumb their noses at authority and justice, and any and all attempts at rehabilitation and lack any regret for their crimes, other then getting caught  and that prison is a part of that justice system. They exist.

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Possibly. But I can also see other possibilities. In any case, the thieves I sentenced to restitution instead of incarceration have not continued "re-offend,  again and again and again". You just assume they're going to. No alternative to incarceration has been tried. The recidivism rate of incarcerated burglars, car thieves and cheque-kiters is fairly high (around 50% in Canada) - after prison sentences. For drug dealers and smugglers, it's even higher. (Obviously, if you killed them all, the same ones would never do it again, on which point  MigL is absolutely correct.) 

I make an entirely reasonable and logical assumption that not all criminals can be rehabilitated, and that some are simply evil. And yes there has been an alternative tried...the prison another poster mentioned in the "torture thread" and certainly reform has been made over the last few years, that enable victims of violent rape to testify via video, and not undergo the pain of living through such an event, on examination by a prosecutor. That is decent reform along with others such as parole.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Why? Is there more profit in burglary with assault than a quiet, efficient burglary, or just more risk? Is there any reason to escalate fraud to murder?  Criminals are not necessarily stupid. 

 Assaults with burglaries are likely to happen if someone walks in, and while criminals are not necessarily stupid as you say, some are, correct? And some are also cowards, and others simply evil.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

That would be lovely!

The fact still remains, and always will, that your softly softly approach may work with me, but just as certain, it will not work with all.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Any national one does, yes. And they all have crime. It would be logical to suppose that the ones with the least crime have the best law-enforcement. Or maybe that the ones with the most severe punishments have the least crime. If both were true, I'd take it as proof that a harsh criminal justice system is effective. 

But.... Is that condition met?  High crime rates can coexist with harsh punishments, and low crime rates can coexist with progressive correction methods.  So maybe crime isn't caused or prevented by prisons. Maybe justice is not that simple. 

A  criminal justice system, with prisons is the best we can do...some work, some may not...Some may rehabilitate, others will not and have no intention of rehabilitation...Whether our justice system is effective, is desirable, but the important thing that society needs is that dangerous criminals are kept separate until rehabilitation takes place.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Care to mark your country's record in each of those categories?

 I believe my country

My country's 's record on criminal justice is on a level scale with most other westernised countries....It does act as a deterrent, it has rehabilitated and  it most certainly does punish.

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Given the right motivation/illness we're all capable of criminality, justice for all, means we're all given a second chance. 

 If I had to steal to feed a child, I probably would...If I had to kill someone who was causing harm to my family, and it was the only way, I probably would also...I would also protect my property with appropriate force. And I would go as far as to say, that there are real living examples of all the above "actions" that any reasonable justice sysetm would excuse. It has happened. That's not criminality. I have never committed a serious breach of the law and never would...stole a few grapes, acted as a larrikan when a kid, been in a few fights...stiff armed a young hoodlum rampaging through a seven/eleven store, had a few traffic fines, and probably a few more I cant remember. But we are not talking about such minor misdemeanors. We are talking about justice for criminals that seriously offend society [some examples I have given, here and elsewhere] we are talking about just punishment...we are talking about a deterrent to others, and we are talking about rehabilitation if possible. It will work with some, will not work with others.

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Someone breaks into my house and kills my family. I want this person tortured and killed.

Someone breaks into my house and steals some valuables. I want this person locked up and made to pay back my loss. 

That's a victim's POV. Of course you feel like extracting vengeance for your grief and restitution for your loss. Everyone who is wronged in some way by a fellow citizen feels that way. But what happens to the community around people who act on those feelings? Escalating personal violence, vendettas, family feuds and society breakdown.

That's exactly why state instituted law is impersonal.

In turn, that very impartiality can lead to a new set of problems: indiscriminate punishment of the wicked, the hapless, the stupid, the desperate, the insane and the wrongly convicted. The fact of institution itself is prone to problems: corruption, political bias, religious and ethnic prejudice, poor selection of personnel, increasing cost to the public, etc.

So, a justice system is only an approximation (or travesty, or something in between) of a collective sense of personal justice.

A fair and effective court of justice would consist of a council of elders, who personally know the individuals and circumstances in each instance of rule-breaking and figure out what course of action is least damaging to the community. We can't do that with millions of people - but I believe it should be the model we try to emulate.

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Turns out that the murderer has severe mental health problems accentuated by drug use, the burglar has mental health problems and as a result become a drug addict. 

Did you check the crime statistic I cited above?  A whopping 46% of incarcerations in the US are directly drug-related; this doesn't even account for crimes such as weapons possession and tax evasion incidental to the drug trade, and crimes committed indirectly due to drug use. One would almost suspect there was something unhealthy going on in that society.

   

[dimreepr]

20 minutes ago, beecee said:

 If I had to steal to feed a child, I probably would...If I had to kill someone who was causing harm to my family, and it was the only way, I probably would also...I would also protect my property with appropriate force. And I would go as far as to say, that there are real living examples of all the above "actions" that any reasonable justice sysetm would excuse. It has happened. That's not criminality. I have never committed a serious breach of the law and never would...stole a few grapes, acted as a larrikan when a kid, been in a few fights...stiff armed a young hoodlum rampaging through a seven/eleven store, had a few traffic fines, and probably a few more I cant remember. But we are not talking about such minor misdemeanors. We are talking about justice for criminals that seriously offend society [some examples I have given, here and elsewhere] we are talking about just punishment...we are talking about a deterrent to others, and we are talking about rehabilitation if possible. It will work with some, will not work with others.

That just shows that you lack the motivation to abuse because you haven't been, not that you're not capable.

[Peterkin]

27 minutes ago, beecee said:

To admitting that we do have innorrigables that thumb their noses at authority and justice, and any and all attempts at rehabilitation and lack any regret for their crimes, other then getting caught  and that prison is a part of that justice system. They exist.

Okay. What percent of all crime do they commit? What societal, parental, environmental, chemical or genetic factors produce these incorrigible sociopaths? Have you looked into means and methods of stopping them before the heinous crimes are committed - prevention? And why are you wasting so many resources on them that could be better used rehabilitating the majority of lawbreakers?

27 minutes ago, beecee said:

A  criminal justice system, with prisons is the best we can do

On this, I cannot concur. It is what we have done, and it hasn't worked.

 

 

Edited August 12, 2021 by Peterkin