What is Justice?

[swansont]

34 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

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.

 

The criminal justice system as implemented in the US is quite racist in its implementation, so that's not really justice. People should be treated equally under the law.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

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.

With prisons, but not only prisons.

Shouldn't we make an effort to see who can be rehabilitated? Prison, especially when one would be co-mingled with hardened criminals, doesn't seem to be the best environment for that. There are differences between crimes that involve premeditation, ones that aren't, and ones that are accidental (and perhaps other categories)

There are also cases where restitution might be sufficient for justice to be served, i.e. there might be no point in throwing someone in prison for a minor offense. Or, as someone mentioned earlier, cases like someone stealing food in order to survive.

I think one of the major issues (aside from not everyone being equal before the law) is the quasi-one-size-fits-all approach. As Peterkin has suggested, the current system doesn't work. (and I think the US system is probably worse than the Canadian system. If I'm reading the stats correctly, the US incarcerates people at ~6x the Canadian rate)

 

[dimreepr]

On 8/11/2021 at 4:36 PM, Peterkin said:

Devoutly to be wished; seldom attained.

Indeed, it's the next level of justice; if I'm content, I don't care what you do...

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

if I'm content, I don't care what you do...

If we live in the same community, you do care what I do, and what happens to me; you count on me to care about you. In communities where a level of mutual trust, tolerance and interdependence has been achieved, you get very little  or no crime.

It's not just because these people are well off materially: it happens in very poor communities, too. Not because those people are all the same tradition, language and faith; it happens in mixed communities, too - though it's harder to achieve. It's because they understand that they have a common interest in safeguarding one another's welfare. 

Part of what makes that happen is local leadership -- yes, that alpha pair of wolves whom all the rest follow, not because they're tough or mean, but because they're smart and reliable. Every successful project has such leaders - an individual or core group who can envision a plan, organize and inspire others. If you watch the documentary movie  Happy, you see what all good communities have in common.  

And guess what! Happy people don't hurt or steal from each other.

If most of us were safe, reasonably well fed and surrounded by friends, the only justice we'd ever need to worry about is what to do with the 0.001% who can't manage social animalhood. But we'd have the leisure, manpower and other resources to  deal with them case by case, thoughtfully. 

[beecee]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

With prisons, but not only prisons.

Certainly, and I'm sure I have never spoken against that. 

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Shouldn't we make an effort to see who can be rehabilitated? Prison, especially when one would be co-mingled with hardened criminals, doesn't seem to be the best environment for that. There are differences between crimes that involve premeditation, ones that aren't, and ones that are accidental (and perhaps other categories)

There are also cases where restitution might be sufficient for justice to be served, i.e. there might be no point in throwing someone in prison for a minor offense. Or, as someone mentioned earlier, cases like someone stealing food in order to survive.

Of course to the highlighted section, and in total agreement with the rest. I'm speaking exclusively for the inncorrigable criminals, that do not want rehabilitation, for whatever reason. Every person committing a minor crime for the first/second time, deserves every chance to make up for it without the need for a dehumanising prison. But when a person thumbs his nose at the system, and thumbs his nose again, and again, and again, more action needs to be taken. And I am pretty sure the again and again and again, leads to crimes from a probably petty nature, to more severe and possibly even violence.

The locking up and throwing away the key,  thankfully probably only applies to a small percentage. It's that small percentage that we need the harsher prison environment.

9 hours ago, swansont said:

I think one of the major issues (aside from not everyone being equal before the law) is the quasi-one-size-fits-all approach. As Peterkin has suggested, the current system doesn't work. (and I think the US system is probably worse than the Canadian system. If I'm reading the stats correctly, the US incarcerates people at ~6x the Canadian rate)

Can anyone give a guarantee that any "non prison"system as detailed by Peterkin, will work 100% of the time, all the time? Silly question as obviously the answer is no. And that is why we need the imperfect prison system, that thankfully has seen modification and changes over the years.

 

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

If we live in the same community, you do care what I do, and what happens to me; you count on me to care about you. In communities where a level of mutual trust, tolerance and interdependence has been achieved, you get very little  or no crime.

It's not just because these people are well off materially: it happens in very poor communities, too. Not because those people are all the same tradition, language and faith; it happens in mixed communities, too - though it's harder to achieve. It's because they understand that they have a common interest in safeguarding one another's welfare. 

I am reasonably well off and live in a community reasonably free from crime and violence...even loud all night parties are an extreme rareity as my community do consider others.

My parents on the other hand, did not [when I was a tin lid and teenager] own there own home, [we rented] we did not have a land line until I was around 13, and did not posess a car until I had left school and was working and contributing.

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

And guess what! Happy people don't hurt or steal from each other.

That certainly helps, but again no 100% assurance.

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

If most of us were safe, reasonably well fed and surrounded by friends, the only justice we'd ever need to worry about is what to do with the 0.001% who can't manage social animalhood. But we'd have the leisure, manpower and other resources to  deal with them case by case, thoughtfully. 

The world is far far bigger than one's local community, family and friends. I chose to go beyond my safe little community bubble and through charitable orginizations, and World Vision, attempt in a small way, to hopefully improve the life of someone less fortunate, that despite that, remains a law abiding, considerate, tolerant human being. But the world is a big place with all kinds of people, that are inconsiderate,  bullies, and violent criminals. That is a fact of life.

If world militaristic endeavours and associate cock waving with different nations ceased, think of all that money that could be dispersed among poorer groups and countries, as well of course to science.

11 hours ago, swansont said:

The criminal justice system as implemented in the US is quite racist in its implementation, so that's not really justice. People should be treated equally under the law.

Sadly, we have also had cases where the  indigenous population in Australia, are discriminated against. That though is improving and certainly not as prevelant in city environments as in rural small town environments, with 1 or 2 police on hand. We have had cases, sadly of indigenous people, dying in custody. 

12 hours ago, Peterkin said:

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

And a system with prisons will also not work for some.

[Peterkin]

57 minutes ago, beecee said:

That certainly helps, but again no 100% assurance.

Aside from death, taxes and wildfires, what is? What percent security does the present justice system offer the average citizen? If we could raise the security level by 10%, would you consider change?

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Aside from death, taxes and wildfires, what is? What percent security does the present justice system offer the average citizen? If we could raise the security level by 10%, would you consider change?

None, and that's the point. My position though is sympathy first and foremost for the vicitms of violent crime, and somehow containing the incorridgable perpetrators of those crimes from society...reform, sure, I'm all for it...compassion, sure, I'm all for it, you don't know me, but I'll tell you a secret, I'm the biggest softie, you would meet, but sometimes forgiving and forgetting just isn't a choice. I reject the death penalty, because of that small chance that an innocent victim of justice gone wrong, maybe put to an untimely end. But by the same token, [and examples given in this and the torture thread] the horrific and violent nature of some crimes, gets me angry at any so called human, that could lower him or herself to such animalistic level. Yes, the system is imperfect, but I am unable to see how your approach will improve it.

[Peterkin]

23 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yes, the system is imperfect, but I am unable to see how your approach will improve it.

Preventing crime might improve things. Deliberately ruining the lives of thousands of people who made a stupid decision, and turning thousands of wayward boy into life-long criminals, in order to support a resource-gobbling edifice like the prison system, just to contain a tiny handful of monsters doesn't sound like a bargain.

However, "my approach", whatever that is, won't prevail, so you're quite safe.   

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, Peterkin said:

If we live in the same community, you do care what I do, and what happens to me; you count on me to care about you. In communities where a level of mutual trust, tolerance and interdependence has been achieved, you get very little  or no crime.

Indeed, wrong word the sentence should read "if I'm content, I don't mind what you do..."

15 hours ago, Peterkin said:

And guess what! Happy people don't hurt or steal from each other.

Wrong word "Contented people don't hurt or steal from each other."

People who chase happy, chase the impossible and so can't find a contented state in which to be happy.

15 hours ago, Peterkin said:

If we live in the same community, you do care what I do, and what happens to me; you count on me to care about you. In communities where a level of mutual trust, tolerance and interdependence has been achieved, you get very little  or no crime.

It's not just because these people are well off materially: it happens in very poor communities, too. Not because those people are all the same tradition, language and faith; it happens in mixed communities, too - though it's harder to achieve. It's because they understand that they have a common interest in safeguarding one another's welfare. 

Part of what makes that happen is local leadership -- yes, that alpha pair of wolves whom all the rest follow, not because they're tough or mean, but because they're smart and reliable. Every successful project has such leaders - an individual or core group who can envision a plan, organize and inspire others. If you watch the documentary movie  Happy, you see what all good communities have in common.  

And guess what! Happy people don't hurt or steal from each other.

If most of us were safe, reasonably well fed and surrounded by friends, the only justice we'd ever need to worry about is what to do with the 0.001% who can't manage social animalhood. But we'd have the leisure, manpower and other resources to  deal with them case by case, thoughtfully. 

Otherwise you've nailed it, we just need to find a way to allay the fear of those who can't see past the incorrigible recidivist.

[beecee]

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Preventing crime might improve things.

Sure it would...It would be great to eliminate all serious crime.

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Deliberately ruining the lives of thousands of people who made a stupid decision, and turning thousands of wayward boy into life-long criminals, in order to support a resource-gobbling edifice like the prison system, just to contain a tiny handful of monsters doesn't sound like a bargain. 

As I already said, I'm all for giving young wayward boys/girls a second chance, even a third chance...I said that here....

11 hours ago, beecee said:

Every person committing a minor crime for the first/second time, deserves every chance to make up for it without the need for a dehumanising prison.

 

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

 just to contain a tiny handful of monsters doesn't sound like a bargain.

Put yourself in a situation where you or your family was a victim of these handful of monsters.

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

However, "my approach", whatever that is, won't prevail, so you're quite safe.   

You have it wrong. I'm as disappointed as you that such a system as "your approach"  will not prevail. And it won't prevail because of exactly what you yourself said....

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

just to contain a tiny handful of monsters doesn't sound like a bargain.  

 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Otherwise you've nailed it, we just need to find a way to allay the fear of those who can't see past the incorrigible recidivist.

No, we simply need to find a way [if we eliminate prison] to keep the incorrigible violent criminals from doing more harm and violence. Or as Swansont said here, 

21 hours ago, swansont said:

With prisons, but not only prisons.

 

Edited August 13, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

24 minutes ago, beecee said:

No, we simply need to find a way [if we eliminate prison] to keep the incorrigible violent criminals from doing more harm and violence. Or as Swansont said here, 

Who said anything about eliminating prison's?

What we need to eliminate, for justice to be served, is the fear that every/most violent criminal's are incorrigible; that's a feedback loop that creates more incorrigible recidivist's.

Much like making drug use criminal, which just encourages a drug dealer to make money criminally; rather than paying a tax to pay for the justice of the victim's of drug abuse.

Instead all of our taxes goes on a war we can't win and prison's that aren't needed.

 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Wrong word "Contented people don't hurt or steal from each other."

I was referring to the movie. The people in it are not 'chasing' anything. Contented is good, too, but that wasn't the title.

 

33 minutes ago, beecee said:

Put yourself in a situation where you or your family was a victim of these handful of monsters.

We all potentially always are. We don't know where they come from or who they are, until after they have done a very bad deed. Keeping repeat car thieves and burglars locked up makes no difference to our level of danger from the unsuspected crazies. And they will repeat, if the second and third chance you offer puts them back in the same, or worse, circumstances than what caused their first crime.  Did you not see the charts? Serious crime is lower in countries with a relatively mild justice system (of which yours and mine are examples btw), and higher in some countries with a very harsh system.

We were already on the way to do something right by not "throwing away the key". (Now, we're facing a whole new wave of madness, racism, paranoia and violence that our justice system is not equipped to handle. I fear they will react in the American way and escalate it. The Americans intended to build a good, fair system, but the situation got away from the good guys; that could happen to Australia and Canada, too).

All I'm proposing is that we should prevent more crime than we punish. How's that unreasonable?

Must go! Back later.

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I was referring to the movie. The people in it are not 'chasing' anything. Contented is good, too, but that wasn't the title.

Never seen that movie, but I have seen the one that shows the average joe, plan his/her perfect holiday and look forward to it, all year, with sooo much anticipation of happiness, only to have it entirely spoiled because of a stain on the pillow.

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Never seen that movie

I think you would like it. It's a very good documentary.

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Who said anything about eliminating prison's?

What we need to eliminate, for justice to be served, is the fear that every/most violent criminal's are incorrigible; that's a feedback loop that creates more incorrigible recidivist's.

Then we are in agreement. Prison for those that show they are incorridgible.

In Australia, we have a system for first timers and crimes that are commited under duress, of suspended sentences. A person may be given a 2 year suspended sentence for robbery say. As long as he doesn't reoffend or break the law in that 2 years, then the sentence is dismissed.....then we have community correction orders, and good behaviour bonds. Sex offenders are monitored with ankle bracelets...we also have compulsory registration of sex offenders for the good of the community... domestic violence crimes can have the perpetrator banned from being withing a certain distance from the victim.

The justice system it seems, has undergone change.

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

All I'm proposing is that we should prevent more crime than we punish. How's that unreasonable?

It's not unreasonable, in fact its a nice approach, but there are reasons it won't prevail. 

 

Edited August 13, 2021 by beecee

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

It's not unreasonable, in fact its a nice approach, but there are reasons it won't prevail. 

I know.

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, beecee said:

Then we are in agreement. Prison for those that show they are incorridgible.

Fundamentally, no we aren't; your approach is to decide/judge they're incorrigible through an emotional responce to the crime, with an emphasis on the obvious victim, rather than a balanced approach that considers the possibility, that the criminal's also a victim; besides how do we know their incorrigible before they re-offend?

An incorridgible recidivist doesn't automatically deserve prison either. A theif for instance can be tagged and monitored, a fraudster can be denied access to a computer; only a rapist or otherwise dangerous criminal need be confined away from society. So we lock them up, and give them a chance to change; only then, can we get a sense of their incorrigibility.

14 hours ago, beecee said:

The justice system it seems, has undergone change.

Indeed, in the UK and the USA, it has been monetised and subjected to the lowest bid. 

How can justice possibly servive that process?

It makes the poor poorer and the rich richer; and the rich are much better at hiding their crimes.

Therefore the scales of justice are unbalanced and unfair; much like a greedy butcher with a fingure on them and distracting the customer by showing how we should fear the starving among us.

Edited August 14, 2021 by dimreepr

[beecee]

42 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Fundamentally, no we aren't; your approach is to decide/judge they're incorrigible through an emotional responce to the crime, with an emphasis on the obvious victim,

Not at all...I let our courts and justice system decide who is guilty and who isn't, and just as obviously, one that offends, reoffends and offends again, and thumbs his or her nose at authority and society, brands him or herself as incorrigible.

I've also mentioned about ankle bracelets and monitoring, and while it serves a purpose, still some deserve prison, specifically where violence is involved.

Yes, you are correct, I believe, as do the vast majority of western society, that consideration be first given to the victim, and as also mentioned, particularly in sexual assaults and rapes, rather then going through the harrowing process of some enthusiastic prosecutor. That though does not mean that a balanced decision based on the evidence will not be forthcoming for the accused. 

Edited August 14, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

39 minutes ago, beecee said:

Not at all...I let our courts and justice system decide who is guilty and who isn't, and just as obviously, one that offends, reoffends and offends again, and thumbs his or her nose at authority and society, brands him or herself as incorrigible.

Everything we do comes with a price; help and our soul is in credit, cheat and we damage that credit, do nothing and we let other's decide what our soul is worth.

Didn't Mandela, among other's, thumb his nose at authority?

39 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yes, you are correct, I believe, as do the vast majority of western society, that consideration be first given to the victim

The problem, it seems, is the vast majority of western society, doesn't know what a victim look's like; because The Daily Mail has it's fingure on the scale and is very good at distracting it's customer's... 

Edited August 14, 2021 by dimreepr

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 

Indeed, in the UK and the USA, it has been monetised and subjected to the lowest bid. 

How can justice possibly survive that process?

It makes the poor poorer and the rich richer; and the rich are much better at hiding their crimes.

Therefore the scales of justice are unbalanced and unfair; much like a greedy butcher with a finger on them and distracting the customer by showing how we should fear the starving among us.

I think you've nailed it,  so far as UK and USA are concerned.   The privatization mantra that got such momentum in the Reagan/Thatcher era has proven to not work with penal systems. 

In America, especially, law and order has been too much equated with "defense of property and goods" and less with people,  especially the most vulnerable who are most in need of protection and help.   

[Peterkin]

5 minutes ago, TheVat said:

In America, especially, law and order has been too much equated with "defense of property and goods" and less with people,  especially the most vulnerable who are most in need of protection and help.   

And who supply the bulk of both the actual criminal and incidental prison populations.

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Everything we do comes with a price; help and our soul is in credit, cheat and we damage that credit, do nothing and we let other's decide what our soul is worth.

Didn't Mandela, among other's, thumb his nose at authority?

Mandela did not live in a society that could in any stretch of the imagination, be seen as just and moral. But hey, don't let me stop you, if you believe whatever it is that you are after, and if you can show it serves both the criminal, the vicitm, and society in general, better then what we currently have, then go for it. You will certainly have mine and societies support.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The problem, it seems, is the vast majority of western society, doesn't know what a victim look's like; because The Daily Mail has it's fingure on the scale and is very good at distracting it's customer's... 

I have given a few cases that show what a vicitm looks like, in this and the "torture" thread. I'll give one of those again. Here........

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-12/anthony-sampieri-sentenced-for-dance-studio-child-rape/11955590

extracts:

A Sydney man who bound, choked and then filmed himself raping a seven-year-old girl in the bathroom of a dance studio in Kogarah, in southern Sydney, will die in jail.

Judge Paul Conlon sentenced Anthony Sampieri, 56, to life in prison for the brutal attack and sexual assault of the primary school girl in November, 2018.

In sentencing, the judge said the rape was "marked by a complete lack of empathy" and described it as "every parent's worst nightmare".

Sampieri, who was asked by the judge to stand for his sentencing, was told his crimes were "so grave" they warranted the maximum penalty.

The 56-year-old pleaded guilty to 10 charges related to the rape, including three counts of having sexual intercourse with a child and seven charges related to sexually explicit and harassing phone calls he made to women in the weeks before the attack.

In November 2018, he was out on parole and high on ice when he wandered into the Kogarah dance studio and grabbed the young girl.

He punched her in the face, threatened her with a knife, tied a cord around her neck and then raped her in the men's toilet cubicle for 40 minutes.

A court heard Sampieri filmed at least four-and-a-half minutes of the attack on a mobile phone.

Nick Gilio, a diesel mechanic and father of another child at the studio, was stabbed in the stomach and neck during the scuffle and said he was left traumatised by the ordeal.

Outside court, he said it was an "honour to have ... freed [the victim] from the hands of evil."

In court, Acting Judge Conlon praised Mr Gilio for his efforts to save the girl while injured.

"To you sir, I would say this: the victim, her family, everyone at the dance school and indeed the whole community are indebted to you for the courage you displayed in the face of a person wielding a knife and in successfully subduing and detaining the offender."

KEY POINTS:

• Anthony Sampieri sexually assaulted the young girl for 40 minutes
• He slashed people who tried to save the girl in 2018 with a knife
• He was on parole at the time of his attack
• :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

There are two victims in that sad account....the 7 year old little girl who most likely will be scarred for life, and the hero who tried to help her and was stabbed. 

 

Edited August 14, 2021 by beecee

[ShaneK]

On 8/9/2021 at 9:06 PM, MigL said:

You guys have it wrong.
Nobody is born 'good'.

 

Wrong.  Society has grown on the basis of community.  It is what makes us strong.  The problem is that now, we tolerate the greedy way more than we did 10k years ago.  We need to reverse that of they will bring us down.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

There are two victims in that sad account....the 7 year old little girl who most likely will be scarred for life, and the hero who tried to help her and was stabbed. 

 

11 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Fundamentally, no we aren't; your approach is to decide/judge they're incorrigible through an emotional responce to the crime, with an emphasis on the obvious victim, rather than a balanced approach that considers the possibility, that the criminal's also a victim; 

Yes, certainly an emotional response, and the same emotional response taken by virtually all of Sydney. Think of this little 7 year old and how she now confronts the rest of her life after such a harrowing, despicable, most violent 40 minutes of her life, that has now been likely totally ruined by this depraved, drug fueled maniac, that you are suggesting is also a victim and to be pitied. Yes an entirely emotional response, as per any worthwhile human being.

I hope that it will not be too much for her, and that she can one day rise above it, marry and have a family of her own.

I don't know what sort of childhood or life that this depraved maniac had, but what I do know is that there are plenty of others, that have probably had similar or worse upbringings and bad situations in their lives, and they have not had the need or urge to stoop to such depravity...most are probably normal everyday citizens...some probably have rose to positions of great respect. 

It's sad and regretful, that society in general, still need prisons to isolate away these sad people, and it's sad and regretful, that such incorridgable people exist at all. Sure undertake reform, I have already expressed my affirmative feelings re that scenario, give first, even second and third timers another chance [depending on the situation] and hope that such reasonable attempts at rehabilitation works.  It does in many situations, but it also fails in others, and that simply means we must resort to the sad and regretful situation of prisons.

I believe I have expressed my feelings clearly, reasonably and adequately. Please do not read into those feelings something which is not. I have compassion for those that deserve compassion...I respect those that deserve respect, and I am all for rehabilitation in most situations. 

Edited August 14, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, beecee said:

Mandela did not live in a society that could in any stretch of the imagination, be seen as just and moral. But hey, don't let me stop you, if you believe whatever it is that you are after, and if you can show it serves both the criminal, the vicitm, and society in general, better then what we currently have, then go for it. You will certainly have mine and societies support.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, it depends on which end of the cutlery we're viewing it from.

What Mandela did was:

Demanded they listen.

Convince them they're wrong.

Forgave them for being wrong.

And so allay their fear of revenge.

Seems like something we can learn from.

12 hours ago, beecee said:

Yes, certainly an emotional response, and the same emotional response taken by virtually all of Sydney. Think of this little 7 year old and how she now confronts the rest of her life after such a harrowing, despicable, most violent 40 minutes of her life, that has now been likely totally ruined by this depraved, drug fueled maniac, that you are suggesting is also a victim and to be pitied. Yes an entirely emotional response, as per any worthwhile human being.

Of course there are extreme examples and of course they're abhorrent and of course the perp needs to be in a prison; no argument here...

And in that protective custody, we have the chance to correct his/her obviously disturbed mental condition, it's only when we fail; that we can consider him/her incorrigible, and justifiably throw away the key.

That doesn't mean they don't deserve forgiveness. 

 

Edited August 15, 2021 by dimreepr