What is Justice?

[iNow]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

It doesn't stop there, why not both?

 

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

It's not either/or. It's both/and. 

 

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

 

Sorry, missed that...

[beecee]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

It's not either/or. It's both and. 

Of course but the money to go around is limited, and therefor the first prioity is the vicitm. I have related one specific horrific case with the little girl and the monster. It's cases like this, where justice and society are attempting to show some understanding and rehab, only to have it thrown back into society's face. All this bloke has done is made it harder for bail and parole conditions to be extended to other probably deserving accidental criminals....I don't want to bore people but we had another example of a person yesterday in Sydney. It isn't isolated instances and again all they are doing is making it harder for the young accidental first timer. The other point of course is the cry of removing emotion and emotove reasoning. Is that really possible? or really desirable? It was emotion ( that I mentioned somewhere the other day) that lead to Australia's tough gun laws. How can any judge/jury not feel emotion in some of the worst horrific crimes one could imagine. How do we gauge mental fitness or impairment, which btw was the judgement for a murderer in another case in Melbourne yesterday. He still of course will be locked up for quite a while. If detaails of these two recent cases are required I'll gladly give the links.

Edited November 23, 2021 by beecee

[Intoscience]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

It's not either/or. It's both and. 

Some of us would prefer focusing on healing and improved health... address root causes instead of symptoms. It won't work in every case, but surely it will work in far more than we're trying today by simply locking people up.

For me, it's also a fiscal argument. If we're going to spend money, let's spend it on making people better, not on giving them free room and board and food for the rest of their lives. 

Interestingly, rehabilitation does this, too. Much more so than punishment, IMO. Punishment comes AFTER the public has already been harmed by this individual, and tends often to let that individual continue harming the public after release. Rehab surely isn't perfect, but does absolutely reduce the chance of repeating the very public harm you and I both agree should be minimized. 

I don't disagree with you regarding focus spent on healing and improving health. I'm a big fan of health improvements whether it be physical and/or mental. For someone to be successfully rehabilitated not only requires resource and time spent, but also requires the "ill"/troubled person to be willing and committed to helping themselves. Some people are not fixable or not willing to be fixed. 

I think the punishment should fit the crime, which is why we have jail terms, parole etc... Rehabilitation maybe part of the conditions and could well be successful for many, this is good and has my vote. However with certain individuals (like those in Beecee's examples) the risk to the public far out weighs the possibility of successful rehabilitation. Yes, there maybe some that unwittingly/unfairly fall under this banner, this maybe unavoidable and very unfortunate for those few. But this (in my opinion) is collateral damage and far better than a released monster who commits further atrocities. After all, further victims fall unwittingly prey to such monsters and the victim's families have to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives, with no reprieve or second chance. 

The hard part of all this starts with the judge and then continues with specialist phycologists and parole board etc...to determine the mental health of each individual. Certainly not a task I would welcome or could possibly deal with. Living with making the wrong choice which costs further deaths or injuries of the innocent people the system is attempting to protect must be a terrible burden.           

Edited November 23, 2021 by Intoscience
spelling

[iNow]

5 hours ago, beecee said:

I have related one specific horrific case with

There will always be exceptions. IMO it’s a mistake to focus policy solely on them instead of the vast majority of others who don’t fit that marginal exception. 

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

There will always be exceptions. IMO it’s a mistake to focus policy solely on them instead of the vast majority of others who don’t fit that marginal exception. 

Aye. Focus on the outliers is not the best use of resources.

[beecee]

55 minutes ago, iNow said:

There will always be exceptions. IMO it’s a mistake to focus policy solely on them instead of the vast majority of others who don’t fit that marginal exception. 

Sure, not too much argument from me on that score, but it is far more them just the odd exception. And my main focus on the one case (although I have related others) was specifically because this was an example of rehabilitation being shown, and then almost immediatly the utmost cruelty, violence and a total lack of any human emotion, taken out on a little girl, who strangely enough we never hear about now, despite that high chance of her ability to have a family taken away from her.

Then we had the case this past weekend of a bloke in his 30's, raping violently a 59 year old woman, and caught in the actual act, let out on bail until next court appearence. This has the real right wing loonies, along with many normal folk and the Police Minister up in arms re the leniency shown in our judicial system.

 https://www.9news.com.au/national/call-for-bail-reform-after-alleged-rapist-released-from-custody-sydney-revesby-crime/28c2ad5a-088f-4a8b-9d28-2f772c3ad939

I understand where you are coming from, and String Junky, and I have thought long and hard about it. We either go hell for leather, focusing on the criminal and hope to Christ that we never make the same mistake made with my number one case with the little girl, or we go hell for leather focusing on society and the victim, and hope to Christ that we never turn a young accidental first timer into a hardened incorridgible criminal.

The following silly statement made though helps no one..."Justice is about how you'd want to be treated; if you accidentally become a criminal,"

 

Edited November 24, 2021 by beecee

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

 

The hard part of all this starts with the judge and then continues with specialist phycologists and parole board etc...

While the study of algae has many applications, I am not sure criminal rehabilitation is one of them.  Though perhaps some understanding of scum is relevant. 

Sorry,  some typos are too fun to resist.  

These issues of case management are so complex.  Some sci-fi  authors like to imagine societies where violent people wear shock collars or other devices.  Behave peaceably and the collar is just inert,  an unattractive piece of jewelry.  Get violent and you are zapped.  

Such dystopian visions are meant to awaken us to the loss of human dignity and free choice when the state tries to exert absolute control.  Rehabilitation should be about relinquishing control and replacing it with the person's self-control.   We have to accept that doesn't always work and teach people caution in dangerous situations (like the proverbial dark alley).   Some people will always slip through the cracks. 

[Intoscience]

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

While the study of algae has many applications, I am not sure criminal rehabilitation is one of them.  Though perhaps some understanding of scum is relevant. 

Sorry,  some typos are too fun to resist.  

These issues of case management are so complex.  Some sci-fi  authors like to imagine societies where violent people wear shock collars or other devices.  Behave peaceably and the collar is just inert,  an unattractive piece of jewelry.  Get violent and you are zapped.  

Such dystopian visions are meant to awaken us to the loss of human dignity and free choice when the state tries to exert absolute control.  Rehabilitation should be about relinquishing control and replacing it with the person's self-control.   We have to accept that doesn't always work and teach people caution in dangerous situations (like the proverbial dark alley).   Some people will always slip through the cracks. 

Nice, that was funny, I'm always putting the h's in the wrong place. In fact where I come from, during speech we tend to drop the pronunciation of h's from words. For example we would say "ad" instead of "had" etc...

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, beecee said:

Sure, not too much argument from me on that score, but it is far more them just the odd exception. And my main focus on the one case (although I have related others) was specifically because this was an example of rehabilitation being shown, and then almost immediatly the utmost cruelty, violence and a total lack of any human emotion, taken out on a little girl, who strangely enough we never hear about now, despite that high chance of her ability to have a family taken away from her.

Then we had the case this past weekend of a bloke in his 30's, raping violently a 59 year old woman, and caught in the actual act, let out on bail until next court appearence. This has the real right wing loonies, along with many normal folk and the Police Minister up in arms re the leniency shown in our judicial system.

 https://www.9news.com.au/national/call-for-bail-reform-after-alleged-rapist-released-from-custody-sydney-revesby-crime/28c2ad5a-088f-4a8b-9d28-2f772c3ad939

I understand where you are coming from, and String Junky, and I have thought long and hard about it. We either go hell for leather, focusing on the criminal and hope to Christ that we never make the same mistake made with my number one case with the little girl, or we go hell for leather focusing on society and the victim, and hope to Christ that we never turn a young accidental first timer into a hardened incorridgible criminal.

The following silly statement made though helps no one..."Justice is about how you'd want to be treated; if you accidentally become a criminal,"

 

“A person often meets his destiny on the road he took to avoid it.” ― Jean de La Fontaine.

A harsh prison creates harsher criminal's and we can't keep them all locked up forever; isn't it more cost effective, for society as a whole, to spend money on creating less harsh people? 

To continue arguing that I could never (under no circumstances) do anything evil, I couldn't possibly do what Hitler did, is like saying I can't catch rabies...

Edited November 24, 2021 by dimreepr

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

A harsh prison creates harsher criminal's and we can't keep them all locked up forever; isn't it more cost effective, for society as a whole, to spend money on creating less harsh people? 

Sadly, there are always bad eggs as you have continually been shown., no matter how much money you throw at rehabilitation. Such monsters need to be locked up, irrespective. That's the way it is. A lock em up, throw away the key scenario. 

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

To continue arguing that I could never (under no circumstances) do anything evil, I couldn't possibly do what Hitler did, is like saying I can't catch rabies...

I'll certainly argue that point until the cows come home, at least for myself.

Again, perhaps if you were more inclined to debate facts rather then some unworkable philosophy and politics you hold to, you wouldn't be so blinkered.

ps: Attests to the fact that prison systems (sadly) are getting harsher for the incorridgibes.

Edited November 24, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Sadly, there are always bad eggs as you have continually been shown.

Yes, you've brought it up ad nauseum, which is strange since no-one has argued otherwise, neither is it an argument to not try, because we can't know ahead of time who the incorrigible recidivist is going to be, unless you have access to some floaty people who can see the future.

17 hours ago, beecee said:

I'll certainly argue that point until the cows come home, at least for myself.

Again, perhaps if you were more inclined to debate facts rather then some unworkable philosophy and politics you hold to, you wouldn't be so blinkered.

So, you think you're immune to rabies/disease/illness or the human condition and you say I'm blinkered, now that's obtuse.

My, so called, unworkable philosophy is to give everyone a chance to heal before we condemn them as blind, even you.  

[beecee]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

So, you think you're immune to rabies/disease/illness or the human condition and you say I'm blinkered, now that's obtuse.

I said nothing about your invalid analogy. It's just that silly and invalid, fabricated to support your santised society, that just won't happen.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

My, so called, unworkable philosophy is to give everyone a chance to heal before we condemn them as blind, even you.  

Try something workable then. As you have been shown, some are simply incorridgible and in actual fact, condemn themselves.

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Yes, you've brought it up ad nauseum, which is strange since no-one has argued otherwise, neither is it an argument to not try, because we can't know ahead of time who the incorrigible recidivist is going to be, unless you have access to some floaty people who can see the future.

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

At least and until we find some "floaty" people that can see the future.

The following photo that I was unaware of, but at the same time, is an example of improvements that should/must be made within some prison systems. I am certainly not immune to such examples of injustices within the justice systems. This is a terrible example of a particular prison system gone wrong. 

It's obviously sad that such occurences can happen with either side of this debate, and while certainly as in this case, it may have been responsible for a person taking his own life,  I still see the prioity being with the vicitm and society in general, and avoidance of any incorridgible animal ( that we all admit exist) ever being released from prison, and obviously the fact that prisons are always needed.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalief_Browder#Arrest

 

 

Edited November 25, 2021 by beecee

[beecee]

On 11/24/2021 at 11:03 PM, dimreepr said:

To continue arguing that I could never (under no circumstances) do anything evil, I couldn't possibly do what Hitler did, is like saying I can't catch rabies...

While I have addressed that misnomer earlier, A better term of phrase, that I have just pinched off another in another thread, and which aptly applies is a "logical absurdity", and further more an aspect often occurring with your posts, in your attempts to spread your gospel.

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, beecee said:

While I have addressed that misnomer earlier, A better term of phrase, that I have just pinched off another in another thread, and which aptly applies is a "logical absurdity", and further more an aspect often occurring with your posts, in your attempts to spread your gospel.

Your incredulity springs to mind among other's.

 

 

Quote

 

A formal fallacy is an error in the argument's form.^[2] All formal fallacies are types of non sequitur.

• Appeal to probability – a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).^[3][4]
• Argument from fallacy (also known as the fallacy fallacy) – the assumption that, if a particular argument for a "conclusion" is fallacious, then the conclusion by itself is false.^[5]

 

•  

[beecee]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Your incredulity springs to mind among other's.

And your delusions are exceptional and your apparent fanatical efforts in pushing the unworkable. But hey! you keep your security blanket! 🤭

Again which strangely you have found too hard to address.....

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

At least and until we find some "floaty" people that can see the future.

Edited November 26, 2021 by beecee

[studiot]

I can't speak for the legal systems of other countries, but this thread is about legalities.

In the UK we have two sorts of wrongdoing in legal terms.

Civil wrongdoing and criminal wrongdoing.

The concept of Justice applies to both, as does the burden of proof lying with the accuser.

However the required level of proof in alleged criminal wrongdoing is much much higher than in civil cases.

The 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' phrase applies to criminal cases

The 'balance of probabilities' applies in civil cases.

Scotland also operate the famous 'not proven vedict'.

 

For cases that end in a guilty verdict, in sentencing and redress another balance of probabilities is also taken into account.

This is 'the cost of being wrong', which includes both the probability of reoffending and the harm that could be caused be such reoffending.

Sadly, being human, our system is not perfect and they do not always get it right.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

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

Some people are locked up for a lifetime, because of their crimes; they were judged, by a professional within the confines of their judicial system, to be to ill to be cured. Everyone else deserves a 2nd chance, despite your incredulity.

You once said you're not a scientist, are you instead a judge?

If not, how are you qualified to judge the validity of a criminologist's take on the subject, ie. the video I posted, which you summarily dismissed as unrealistic.

 

[dimreepr]

On 11/24/2021 at 7:23 PM, beecee said:

I'll certainly argue that point until the cows come home, at least for myself.

Again, perhaps if you were more inclined to debate facts rather then some unworkable philosophy and politics you hold to, you wouldn't be so blinkered.

If it's not been done to you, how do you know you're free?

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Some people are locked up for a lifetime, because of their crimes; they were judged, by a professional within the confines of their judicial system, to be to ill to be cured. Everyone else deserves a 2nd chance, despite your incredulity.

Nothing incredulious about it at all, despite your efforts at trolling...I agree, but also add to the "too ill to be cured", just plain ordinary evil.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You once said you're not a scientist, are you instead a judge?

No more a judge then you matey. We each have an opinion, difference being my opinion has plenty supporting it every day.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If not, how are you qualified to judge the validity of a criminologist's take on the subject, ie. the video I posted, which you summarily dismissed as unrealistic.

Criminologists, Psychiatrists And Psychologists are not always right, and that is why they are labeled "soft sciences" And of course I know more dismiss your video, then you have seemingly dismissed the many examples I have given. Again, your view has been shown exclusively to be unrealistic and a dream. Jails will sadly always exist and always be required.

Edited November 26, 2021 by beecee

[StringJunky]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If it's not been done to you, how do you know you're free?

When one has peace of mind.

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If it's not been done to you, how do you know you're free?

I'm free to make my own decisions in life, and those decsions along with my family, always take in the consequence of what I do. In essence it seems to me at least, that again, instead of publicly confirming that evil people exist, and that jails will always be necessary as a consequence, you are simply playing a game, pushing your philosophical, political stance and one-upmanship. I've even given a case that supports an "evil unjust" travesty of justice with... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalief_Browder#Arrest which you failed to comment on. Instead you would rather keep trying to paint me as a hard nose, unsympathetic person when my position is clearly summed up with "I'm all for rehabilitation after punishment, and protection of the victim and society, but some crimes are so animalistic, so violent, so horrific, so utterly evil, that rehabilitation is out of the question. In other words, I would rather err on the side of caution, and chance not giving a criminal a second chance that may well deserve it, to giving some (unknown)  incorridgilble bastard a second chance ( as in my "ad naeseum" example) that will go out and commit another horrific deed. ( as per the ad nauseum example) which of course has been shown to be more common than what you are trying to pretend it is not".

and you answer that with this doozy......

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Some people are locked up for a lifetime, because of their crimes; they were judged, by a professional within the confines of their judicial system, to be to ill to be cured. Everyone else deserves a 2nd chance, despite your incredulity.

Which completely ignores what I have said....again, the guts of what I'm saying, and in a shorter form to help you understand...."but some crimes are so animalistic, so violent, so horrific, so utterly evil, that rehabilitation is out of the question. In other words, I would rather err on the side of caution, and chance not giving a criminal a second chance that may well deserve it, to giving some (unknown)  incorridgilble bastard a second chance ( as in my "ad naeseum" example) that will go out and commit another horrific deed"

That essentially means that I would rather err on the side of caution, and sadly, mistakenly, accidently fail to give a deserved criminal a second chance, rather then giving another criminal a second chance, that will go out again, to rape, murder, torture again.

You seem to (correct me of course if I am wrong)  rather give a second chance ( that perhaps does not deserve it because essentially he is evil or maybe mentally ill) to a criminal like the second chance given in my ad nauseum example, that then went out to ruin a little girl's life, and adding to your political, philosophical, religious stance, then say that "emotion"should not ever be entered into.   

My position is clear...your's at best is wishy washy.

Edited November 26, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, beecee said:

I'm free to make my own decisions in life

Not when you're drunk. 😉

15 hours ago, beecee said:

Which completely ignores what I have said....again, the guts of what I'm saying, and in a shorter form to help you understand...."but some crimes are so animalistic, so violent, so horrific, so utterly evil, that rehabilitation is out of the question. In other words, I would rather err on the side of caution, and chance not giving a criminal a second chance that may well deserve it, to giving some (unknown)  incorridgilble bastard a second chance ( as in my "ad naeseum" example) that will go out and commit another horrific deed"

That essentially means that I would rather err on the side of caution, and sadly, mistakenly, accidently fail to give a deserved criminal a second chance, rather then giving another criminal a second chance, that will go out again, to rape, murder, torture again.

You seem to (correct me of course if I am wrong)  rather give a second chance ( that perhaps does not deserve it because essentially he is evil or maybe mentally ill) to a criminal like the second chance given in my ad nauseum example, that then went out to ruin a little girl's life, and adding to your political, philosophical, religious stance, then say that "emotion"should not ever be entered into.   

My position is clear...your's at best is wishy washy.

I'm not ignoring your position, I'm trying to explain why you're not qualified to decide, who is ill and who is 'evil'.

Your position is very clear, you want an excuse to seek revenge on the son's of satan.

Mine is also very clear, I want a reason before I condemn anyone.

Before you just repost your 'evidence', yes that's a reason, since he'd been given his chance. 

16 hours ago, StringJunky said:

When one has peace of mind.

Indeed, everyone is free to achieve that provided they're given the chance.

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Not when you're drunk. 😉

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

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not ignoring your position, I'm trying to explain why you're not qualified to decide, who is ill and who is 'evil'.

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

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Your position is very clear, you want an excuse to seek revenge on the son's of satan.

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

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Mine is also very clear, I want a reason before I condemn anyone.

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

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Before you just repost your 'evidence', yes that's a reason, since he'd been given his chance. 

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

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