What is Justice?

[Peterkin]

I'm not particularly concerned with feelings: feelings are changeable, individual: they can't be legislated or instituted.  Anyway, justice is not an emotional or personal matter: it's a social matter. It is applied by humans to one another, on several levels.

Familial justice is dispensed by parents when there is a dispute or conflict among the children, or when the children break some rule set by the parents. (In patriarchies, rules are set, justice dispensed and punishment - typically harsh - administered by just one parent, the other cowering in abject fear, even as she pleads for leniency.)

Communal justice, which applies to small, interdependent groups, is usually dispensed by an arbitrator or committee empowered by the group to serve its common interest. He, she or they administer justice according to a set of rules enshrined in a founding document, or revered as tradition, that is based in some particular principles shared by the group. It is understood by all mature members, since adherence to the principles is a prerequisite of membership. 

National justice is far more complicated, both in the formulation of its tenets and the administration of its justice. The rules still have to be based in a philosophical stance, or guiding principle (in truths we hold to be self-evident) but they have to cover a much wider range of activities, encounters and transactions among a wider variety of people, with a far greater diversity of interests. Nevertheless, the central purpose of all legal codes is the welfare of the country - and/or its power elite, which are not always the same.    

In considering justice, my concern is with how a system serves the polity at large: the least possible harm to the fewest possible citizens. To that end, I consider:

- the philosophical foundation of the law

- fairness of the law

- the practicality of the law

- the applicability of the law

- the means and methods of enforcement

- the effectiveness of enforcement

- the cost-efficiency of legal procedures

That's why I'm consulting statistical charts, rather than newspaper headlines. 

 

Edited August 15, 2021 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

25 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

- the cost-efficiency of legal procedures

 

[Peterkin]

 I love the Pythons, too... but...

 

Edited August 15, 2021 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 I love the Pythons, too... but...

But what?

[Peterkin]

 At the time, i meant, but you maybe shouldn't carry the subject into the realm of farce.

But I've had second thoughts:

You can find a clip in the Monty Python movies and skits to fit every situation, just as you can find a quote from Shakespeare. They're comprehensive of the human condition - and not in awe of it.

[dimreepr]

 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

 

m

[Peterkin]

You're a scamp, an imp, a loose starer pistol. 

[MigL]

18 hours ago, ShaneK said:

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.

Did you even read my post, or just the first two lines of it ?
How is your post a rebuttal of the fact that we are born with just instinct and no concept of social/community interaction ?

[beecee]

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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.

No argument from me on any point, he was an exceptopnal man.

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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...

Then again we are in agreement, as that is what I have been saying from day one. 

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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.

I listed that before...the goals of prison are three fold...rehabilitation, punishment, and protecting society. 

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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

To deserve forgiveness, one must first be remorseful of what they have done and accept that they deserve punishment. Still in my very humble opinion, the vicitm of serious crime, particularly on children, [as per the case I recently gave] has priority.   

Edited August 15, 2021 by beecee

[beecee]

9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

   In considering justice, my concern is with how a system serves the polity at large: the least possible harm to the fewest possible citizens. To that end, I consider:

- the philosophical foundation of the law

- fairness of the law

- the practicality of the law

- the applicability of the law

- the means and methods of enforcement

- the effectiveness of enforcement

- the cost-efficiency of legal procedures

That's why I'm consulting statistical charts, rather than newspaper headlines. 

Newspaper headlines, while certainly to some extent based on sensationalism, also report acts of crime within our community, along with the results of the justice system within that community. Not withstanding the extreme sensationalistic bullshit tabloids that abound, newspapers do a necessary job. The Internet as a comparison, also does a incredible job in making available information, data, even statistic charts on just about anything you wish, but also as we all know, it is sprinkled with much "Trump like misinformation and even lies"

Here is an account of vicitms rights and justice...

https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/victimsofcrimeandabuseofpower.aspx

Here is a "Victim's Rights Charter" https://www.victimsservices.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/vss/vs_victims/VS_victimsrightscharter2.aspx

Here's another from the United Nations on the question of criminal rights over Victim's rights.......https://www.unodc.org/pdf/newsletter_2000-03-31_1_page007.pdf

Rights of victims The international community agreed in the 1985 United Nations Victim’s Declaration on the following rights for victims:

❏ The right to be treated with respect and recognition;

❏ The right to be referred to adequate support services;

❏ The right to receive information about the progress of the case;

❏ The right to be present and give input to the decision-making;

❏ The right to counsel;

❏ The right to protection of physical safety and privacy; and,

❏ The right of compensation, from both the offender and the state.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Let's all hope that the little girl in the case I highlighted, can rise above her ordeal, and get the probably life long help she will likely need. I havn't any information on any further harm that has been done to this child...will she be able to bear children is one, but if that right has in any way been destroyed by the ordeal she was subjected to, how would, how should we compensate her for that? It's alright to say you aint concerned about feelings, etc, but of course such a hard unsympathetic line of thought can also be seen as inhuman and brutal in the extreme.

Sadly, while being a specific account, there are hundreds and probably likely thousands of other examples out there. How does justice compensate for the probable outcomes of the little girl in the recent account I gave? 

Victims rights, and the possible life long pain and suffering that they must endure in some situations, is what should be paramount. How can that be compensated for? How can justice fully serve the victim in this case?

 

Edited August 15, 2021 by beecee

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Sadly, while being a specific account, there are hundreds and probably likely thousands of other examples out there.

That is what we do not find out from news reports, which tend to be selective. As previously mentioned, the majority of crimes are not newsworthy.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

How does justice compensate for the probable outcomes of the little girl in the recent account I gave? 

It can't. Nobody can. Prevention would have been the better option, but there is no 100% guarantee, for anyone, anywhere, of being safe from the madness of his or her fellow humans. All any society can hope do is take the best possible care of all of its children and help them become their best self. It seems that some of the nations with the resources to do that are not trying very hard. And some less advanced nations don't even pretend to.

Where have I said anything against victims' rights?

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Let's all hope that the little girl in the case I highlighted, can rise above her ordeal, and get the probably life long help she will likely need. I havn't any information on any further harm that has been done to this child...

Why highlight this one? Why not put her in with the thousands of little girls, all over the world, who are abused by random strangers, family members, caregivers, enemy soldiers, soldiers and law-enforcers of their own nation, legally or illegally? It's nice to live in a country where the average citizen has the luxury of outrage over one horrible act - I appreciate that every day, but I don't lose perspective.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

It's alright to say you aint concerned about feelings, etc, but of course such a hard unsympathetic line of thought can also be seen as inhuman and brutal in the extreme.

In fact, I didn't say I aint concerned about feelings etc. What I said, in the context of a discussion of justice, was: "I'm not particularly concerned with feelings: feelings are changeable, individual: they can't be legislated or instituted. "

If I expressed such a sentiment in the context of real and present human crisis, then, yes, it could be seen as inhuman (though perhaps not brutal in the extreme), if it resulted in my failing to take action when I could save somebody, or supporting a hawkish national policy, or voting for the  party that puts children in residential school.

I don't do those things. I do try to discuss concepts and issues objectively. I'm pretty sure nobody's been harmed by my citing data sources instead of repeating anecdotes. 

I suppose I could dig up some horrific instances of young offenders being sent to jail for possession of a handful of pills, brutalized and ruined for life. But I would rather not.

Edited August 16, 2021 by Peterkin

[beecee]

58 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That is what we do not find out from news reports, which tend to be selective. As previously mentioned, the majority of crimes are not newsworthy.

So there are more crimes, criminals, incorridgables out there, then what is reported. Whether there is or not is not the question,but certainly a sad state of affairs.

58 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It can't. Nobody can. Prevention would have been the better option, but there is no 100% guarantee, for anyone, anywhere, of being safe from the madness of his or her fellow humans. All any society can hope do is take the best possible care of all of its children and help them become their best self. It seems that some of the nations with the resources to do that are not trying very hard. And some less advanced nations don't even pretend to.

Again, we seem to be in agreement, difference being, my sympathy is more for the vicitm then the perpetrator, irrespective of his mental condition and/or upbringing.

58 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Why highlight this one? Why not put her in with the thousands of little girls, all over the world, who are abused by random strangers, family members, caregivers, enemy soldiers, soldiers and law-enforcers of their own nation, legally or illegally? It's nice to live in a country where the average citizen has the luxury of outrage over one horrible act - I appreciate that every day, but I don't lose perspective.

 Because that was one that happened in my own city, and not that far from my own backyard. And really there is no other civilised perspective then to feel sympathy for all such crimes, all round the world. Stop reading something into the case that I used as representation of all.

58 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Where have I said anything against victims' rights?

Perhaps that's the problem...you havn't.

58 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Yes, it could, if it resulted in inaction when I could save somebody, or supporting a hawkish national policy, or voting for the  party that puts children in residential school.

I don't do those things. I do try to discuss concepts and issues objectively. I'm pretty sure nobody's been harmed by my citing data sources instead of repeating anecdotes. 

Objectively certainly, but also sympathetic and outrage at human despots that can undertake such actions. Again, our system aint perfect, and much reform has been undertaken, both concerning the victim, and criminal reform. I recognise both and have given examples on both sides, including personal ones where I did not do the "christian thingy" and turn the other cheek.

58 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I suppose I could dig up some horrific instances of young offenders being sent to jail for possession of a handful of pills, brutalized and ruined for life. But I would rather not.

As could I. And by extenstion, am against the death penalty, despite sometimes "spur of the moments" feelings of this arsehole aint worth keeping in prison. This is the issue, we all seem to agree there are low life despotic arseholes in this otherwise big wide wonderful world! We have to deal with them, after first total consideration for the vicitm. 

Edited August 16, 2021 by beecee

[Peterkin]

I understand your viewpoint. You present it fully and forcefully and very clearly.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I understand your viewpoint. You present it fully and forcefully and very clearly.

Thank you, I hope so as I don't want anyone to get the wrong impression. 

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, beecee said:

To deserve forgiveness, one must first be remorseful of what they have done and accept that they deserve punishment.

Why?

What are you going to do to them, if they don't appear (or have the capacity) to play by your rules? 

Your only option is some form of torture; while that may make you feel a bit better for a moment or two, I can't imagine how that would benefit your victim.

15 hours ago, beecee said:

Still in my very humble opinion, the vicitm of serious crime, particularly on children, [as per the case I recently gave] has priority.   

What would that achieve?

The best thing we can do for the victim (as per your case), is to teach them the power of forgiveness, and the futility of revenge.

The only thing we seem unable to agree on, is the potential of even the cruellest of criminal's to also be a victim; and the importance of that possibility in a just society. 

 

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Why?

Because that's what I and generally people in a just society expect. Otherwise, yes you guessed it...lock them up and throw away the key...why I hear you ask? Because then they are a danger to society.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What are you going to do to them, if they don't appear (or have the capacity) to play by your rules? 

Not my rules, the rules of a reasonble just society, and as I said above, if they show no remorse for what they have done, and accept that they deserve punishment, then they for all intents and purposes, are incorridgible...so yes lock em up where they can't do any more harm to society. 

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 Your only option is some form of torture; while that may make you feel a bit better for a moment or two, I can't imagine how that would benefit your victim.

Stop being so presumptious. I have already expressed my thoughts on torture. But if locking them up and throwing away the key is torture in your eyes, then so be it. No, of course it won't benefit the victim. One can only hope that with governemnts and socieity's help, this little girl can rise above her ordeal, and hope to christ she has not lost the ability to marry and raise a family.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The best thing we can do for the victim (as per your case), is to teach them the power of forgiveness, and the futility of revenge.

Is that right? Thankfully, where I live, the previous answer of mine, will almost certainly be invoked and carried out, rather then ignored and inferences put on the christian edict of turning the other cheek, and the "poor criminal victim." That will be looked on with the disdain it deserves.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The only thing we seem unable to agree on, is the potential of even the cruellest of criminal's to also be a victim; and the importance of that possibility in a just society. 

Be that as it may, thankfully, I don't believe we will ever see any society, where the perpetrator is treated with kid gloves and given more consideration then the victim.

 

Edited August 16, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, beecee said:

Because that's what I and generally people in a just society expect. Otherwise, yes you guessed it...lock them up and throw away the key...why I hear you ask? Because then they are a danger to society.

Not my rules, the rules of a reasonble just society, and as I said above, if they show no remorse for what they have done, and accept that they deserve punishment, then they for all intents and purposes, are incorridgible...so yes lock em up where they can't do any more harm to society. 

Stop being so presumptious. I have already expressed my thoughts on torture. But if locking them up and throwing away the key is torture in your eyes, then so be it. No, of course it won't benefit the victim. One can only hope that with governemnts and socieity's help, this little girl can rise above her ordeal, and hope to christ she has not lost the ability to marry and raise a family.

Is that right? Thankfully, where I live, the previous answer of mine, will almost certainly be invoked and carried out, rather then ignored and inferences put on the christian edict of turning the other cheek, and the "poor criminal victim." That will be looked on with the disdain it deserves.

There is no justice, there's just us...

Forgiveness isn't about what they deserve, it's about what we deserve, and the best chance of your victim recovering from her ordeal is to forget about the perp and let other's deal with him; with compassion initially, if that doesn't bear fruit and he/she truely is incorrigible, then by all means throw away the key; in fact string em up I say, that's probably kinder...

15 hours ago, beecee said:

Be that as it may, thankfully, I don't believe we will ever see any society, where the perpetrator is treated with kid gloves and given more consideration then the victim.

 Now who's being presumptive, all I've said is, start by considering them both as victim's. 

It's you that wanted to give more consideration to one side and unbalance the scales.

Justice for all under the law, is the target for every civilised society; I don't know if that's achievable when so many are persuaded to seek revenge on a freedom fighter, because we're told that they're terrorist's, by the law maker's or The Daily Mail. 

It's not a coincidence that I referred to "The Holy Grail"... 😉

 

Edited August 17, 2021 by dimreepr

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

There is no justice, there's just us...

Forgiveness isn't about what they deserve, it's about what we deserve, and the best chance of your victim recovering from her ordeal is to forget about the perp and let other's deal with him; with compassion initially, if that doesn't bear fruit and he/she truely is incorrigible, then by all means throw away the key; in fact string em up I say, that's probably kinder... 

Did you ever see the movie, "A Time to Kill?" I don't know the girl in question, nor do I know any of the other vicitms of violent crime. But I often try and imagine if any of those vicitms were my close family, how I would feel. Sure I'm all for compassion, as I said...as long as the perpetrator is remorsful for what he or she has done. 

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 Now who's being presumptive, all I've said is, start by considering them both as victim's. 

It's you that wanted to give more consideration to one side and unbalance the scales.

You have misinterpreted what I am saying. I'm all for  the impartiality and obligatory scales of justice to weigh up all the evidence either way and justice be done on that score. Sometimes though, as in the 7 year old little girl, and many many more cases, the scales are totally over-balanced to one side...an open and shut case is often the case. That in my humble opinion, is where one must then consider the victim. That has nothing to do with unbalancing the scales of justice, simply taking a humane approach to someone who has had their life totally and more then likely irrepairably destroyed. Do you consider that?  Since you have admitted the fact that there are those that are incorridgible, [as in this case] then your answer must be yes. 

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Justice for all under the law, is the target for every civilised society; I don't know if that's achievable when so many are persuaded to seek revenge on a freedom fighter, because we're told that they're terrorist's, by the law maker's or The Daily Mail. 

We seem to be going round in circles as I agree with justice for all. Terrorists? I believe that would be off topic in this thread, despite being prevalent for discussion in the current climate.

Thanks anyway for the debate, with you and Peterkin, and again I am in agreement with the basic premise both of you are pushing.

All I'm saying is that the world is full of people of various political, economical and mental persuasions...some are good, some are bad...some that are bad can be reformed, some cannot.  

[Peterkin]

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

Terrorists? I believe that would be off topic in this thread,

Not if you recall all the demands of "Bring them to justice!" Then it concentrated on the one man who made some videotapes - which is all we know for certain - taunting his enemies. It's not unusual for people to mean revenge when they say "justice"; it's not unusual to call the military invasion of nation "punishment" for what its extremists may have done. It's not unusual for those scales of justice to have a witch in one pan and NATO in the other. When governments act like offended individuals, far too many people suffer undeserved harm.

The feeling of anger and desire for vengeance are natural. For an administrative process to be ruled by those feelings is counterproductive. We need the justice system to be more dispassionate, consistent and balanced than individual persons can be.  And in order for that to happen, we need a clearly articulated principle of justice.

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, beecee said:

But I often try and imagine if any of those vicitms were my close family, how I would feel. Sure I'm all for compassion, as I said...as long as the perpetrator is remorsful for what he or she has done. 

14 hours ago, beecee said:

We seem to be going round in circles as I agree with justice for all. Terrorists? I believe that would be off topic in this thread

We're going round in circle's, precisely because you let your imagination dictate your empathy; all I'm doing is suggesting, we're all capable, given the right (by which I mean correct/unfortunate) condition's, of being a nasty perp/terrorist. 

Try imagining, what the right/correct/unfortunate condition's would drive you to commit a crime or become a freedom fighter?

I very much doubt that you would EVER consider yourself to be a terrorist...  😉

 

It's only a model... 

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

We're going round in circle's, precisely because you let your imagination dictate your empathy; all I'm doing is suggesting, we're all capable, given the right (by which I mean correct/unfortunate) condition's, of being a nasty perp/terrorist. 

Try imagining, what the right/correct/unfortunate condition's would drive you to commit a crime or become a freedom fighter?

I'll stick to what I said, with regards to compassion, as long as the perpetrator is remorseful.

Oh yeah and certainly I have also dished out my own justice, in the playground as a kid against a well known bully [as detailed in the torture thread] and getting my Son when he was about 4 years old to dish out his justice, as opposed to that old christian edict of turning the other cheek, [as also mentioned in the torture thread] and a few other personal cases also. Strangely all worked out for the greater good for both parties in all situations mentioned.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Try imagining, what the right/correct/unfortunate condition's would drive you to commit a crime or become a freedom fighter?

I very much doubt that you would EVER consider yourself to be a terrorist...  😉. 

In a right just society, I don't need to consider, [at least in any reasonable time frame, that being my lifetime, my Son's lifetime, and his kid's lifetimes] becoming a freedom fighter...commit a crime? perhaps, I don't know...again, did you see the movie "A Time to Kill"? My opinion on that scenario...The Father of the little black girl indeed could not be held responsible for his actions in killing the two redneck incorridgibles that ruimed his little girl's life. Again, whether I would commit a "serious crime" like murder for example, I don't know. But what has that got to do with the necessity for prisons, looking after the vicitms of crime, attempts at rehabilitations, and the udesirable incorridgibles where rehabilitation fails and the only choice is locking them up and throwing away the key. 

Some words of advice to you and Peterkin....Instead of practising your philosophical, psychological, political correctness with me, try absorbing what I am saying....let me sum it up again....

Prisons are necessary in any society and always will be. There purpose are as follows. You both have agreed with that.

Society consists of all types of people with different political persausions, capabilities, and outlooks, including criminally inclined incorridgibles. You both have agreed with that.

The purpose of a prison is as follows...[1] Punishment: [ to reduce the likelyhood that they will reoffend, and deter others ] [2] Protection: Of society and the vicitm from the incorridgibles among the criminals. [3] Rehabilitation: Attempting to show the criminal the error of his ways, and attempts to prepare him to re-enter society. Rehabilitation would consist of such things as paroles, suspended sentences, house arrests, tracking devices, and psychiatric and mental assessements.

Like I said above....

23 hours ago, beecee said:

We seem to be going round in circles as I agree with justice for all.

 

23 hours ago, beecee said:

 Terrorists? I believe that would be off topic in this thread, despite being prevalent for discussion in the current climate.

23 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Not if you recall all the demands of "Bring them to justice!"

You are welcome to start a thread on terrorists and your definition of them. In fact one is already operational.  I certainly still think it would be off topic. But hey! if a mod deems different, thatn sure, we can discuss them also. 

Edited August 18, 2021 by beecee

[Peterkin]

21 minutes ago, beecee said:

You are welcome to start a thread on terrorists and your definition of them. In fact one is already operational.  I certainly still think it would be off topic.

Okay.

I thought the topic was Justice - concept, theory and practice. Terrorism, treason, insurrection and inciting to riot are all crimes under the present legal codes of our respective countries, and thus would come under the auspices of justice.

However, if you think otherwise, there is no need to pursue the matter.

Edited August 18, 2021 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, beecee said:

I'll stick to what I said, with regards to compassion, as long as the perpetrator is remorseful.

A trained pitbull fighting dog shows no remorse, but given the horrific nature of their training, they deserve my pity and the opportunity (love) to have a better life.

15 hours ago, beecee said:

Oh yeah and certainly I have also dished out my own justice, in the playground as a kid against a well known bully [as detailed in the torture thread] and getting my Son when he was about 4 years old to dish out his justice,

Lucky you, I was luck too, I had a very bad rep at school and all the bullies left me well alone.

But not everyone is capable of dishing out their own justice.

15 hours ago, beecee said:

as opposed to that old christian edict of turning the other cheek

 You're letting your bias show; perhaps think about it from a different viewpoint/perspective, turning the other cheek is necessary for that.

15 hours ago, beecee said:

You are welcome to start a thread on terrorists and your definition of them. In fact one is already operational.  I certainly still think it would be off topic. But hey! if a mod deems different, thatn sure, we can discuss them also. 

Don't I get a say, it is my topic?

15 hours ago, beecee said:

In a right just society, I don't need to consider, [at least in any reasonable time frame, that being my lifetime, my Son's lifetime, and his kid's lifetimes] becoming a freedom fighter...commit a crime?

Because you don't have too, again you lucky duck.

Don't you think the people less fortunate than you deserve protection?

That's why, at school, I befriended the most bullied among us, so as to extend my privilege, too them.

I think that policy should extend to everyone in our society, after all the pitbulls training is basically an extreme regime of being bullied... 😉

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by dimreepr

[Peterkin]

Top-down rule through intimidation becomes a way of life; it is embedded in patriarchal, militaristic cultures. That the strong and privileged have the right to demand obedience from lower ranks and mete out punishment for infractions of rules made by themselves and imposed on those who can't or are not permitted to oppose them. It's called a pecking order, or chain of command or meritocracy  - but it's still institutional bullying. Under such a regime, that is the behaviour children learn; that is the hierarchy in which they must make or find or be shown their place. They don't know anything else.