Revenge, how is it justice?

[dimreepr]

Suppose I kill your father, does my death mean justice has been done?

 

But what if my death was merely an accident? Does that mean justice has been done or is something further needed?

[DeathShallWait]

Killing someone because they killed someone isn't the right justice. Because if you killed my father, your death is a mere satisfaction to me, it doesn't serve the right justice to me. Because regardless of your death my life is going to be the same, the feeling of missing my father or anyone in particular going to be the same. Death sentence is just a punishment in my opinion. If death was the punishment for a crime, people would refrain from doing that crime is that all. So if you were killed, or die by an accident it simply means you have received the punishment.

[dimreepr]

So if you were killed, or die by an accident it simply means you have received the punishment.

 

 

 

But if my death were by accident, say a road traffic accident, how is that a punishment? I would have suffered no more or less than if I had done nothing?

[DeathShallWait]

If that happened to you after you killed someone or in that case my father , people would consider it as a punishment to you by nature or the god or whatever the force beyond us and it would still give me some degree of satisfaction. But in any case justice is not served by death of a person. It only stops them or stops others from doing the same crime.

[Dekan]

Revenge is an intense feeling of personal satisfaction. Justice, or Road Traffic Accidents, are only weak substitutes.

[kristalris]

Suppose I kill your father, does my death mean justice has been done?

 

But what if my death was merely an accident? Does that mean justice has been done or is something further needed?

"Justice" needs a definition. A question of right and wrong can be answered in several ways. Logically done it needs a goal. But that will only suffice for those people with the logic on the brain primarily on the stated goal.

 

People with a logic primarily on authority driven brain (= 80% in an unsafe environment) will tend to follow what the current authority will deem just. So, in a primitive society of an eye for an eye society your death will be seen as just, and an act of God when you are run down by a car and thus just. Authority driven brains are inherently religious. All humans to a more or less degree have this trait BTW.

 

People with a logic primarily on the relationship (= 10% unsafe) will not feel that nor people with the logic primarily on the ego (= 1%).

 

Most western legal systems have different goals for the consequences for dealing with this question.

 

It begins with the division was it dolus, culpa or accident that you killed my father? And which degree of dolus or culpa?

 

After that we need to see to you personal accountability. Where you compos mentis? Did you have a bad youth? et ceterra?

 

Then, after having established what we take as fact, must we see what the laws and treaties state as how to deal with these facts. If done via a correct procedure most will agree that justice has been done.

 

On the more theoretical basis most penal systems have as goals: vengeance, special (you not doing it again) and general (example) prevention that it happens again and upholding order.

 

Your death only in primitive societies will provide - seeming! - satisfaction to the direct victimizes who lost a loved one or to that society as a whole.

 

Because IMO if you haven't as a victim found your balance in life after twenty years, it is your own problem. Vengeance as a reason to punish only goes so far. So that guy who killed a large group of people in Norway has IMO had a Just punishment (even though if I'm correct he gt thirty years.) After thirty years only then can you see how society and Brevik have changed and see if society is then willing and capable of accepting him as he then is. Judging that directly is IMO extremely arrogant and based on fear of the leaders. Fear is dangerous. It spreads easily. In Norway Brevik can and probably will be held for life.

 

For a death penalty in peacetime would IMO require absolute proof that can't be had.

 

In a situation of extreme crises such as war or after the second world war or say in Romania with Ceaușescu I think being against the death penalty is irrelevant. It happens and is sometimes essential. As killing in war is also.

 

So, define your justice. I hope my reaction provides you food for thought.

 

 

 

P

[Dekan]

So that guy who killed a large group of people in Norway has IMO had a Just punishment (even though if I'm correct he gt thirty years.) After thirty years only then can you see how society and Brevik have changed and see if society is then willing and capable of accepting him as he then is.

In thirty years time, he might be remembered as a patriotic folk-hero. Who fought for the preservation of Norway. It all depends on who's got control of Norway in 2044. Isn't that how history works?

[CharonY]

According to popular opinion/school history, yes. Good think that historians tend to look at things a bit deeper (though it may take a while until things get pieced together).

 

In this particular situation even a rather insane government would have a bit of hard time explaining how killing Norwegian kids ultimately preserves Norway. Unless it will be come a Battle-Royal-style dystopian future. Then yes.

Edited September 10, 2014 by CharonY

[kristalris]

Yes, yet I hope that that scenario doesn't present itself. yet one in which Brevik fundamentally changes his ways and can and will be forgiven or accepted at least by those who lost loved-ones. Probably neither will ensue unless we all fundamentally start to change ourselves.

[dimreepr]

The idea of justice and revenge, it seems to me, is inextricably linked; in such a way that it blinds us to the possibility that neither is necessary to our advancement, in terms of, understanding our fellow humans.

 

Sure there are those that seek to gain advantage over the rest of us because a genetic abnormality allows them to not feel and suffer, psychologically, the way the rest of us do (sociopaths and the like).

 

Might that advantage, through understanding, be mitigated and countered; that maybe leads to a more enlightened future?

 

Just a thought.

[Genecks]

Law is trivial and subjective. Perhaps there is some Aquinian (Thomas Aquinas) nature to it, but I'm not sure. I think Nature finds a way to balance things out. Perhaps this balance is best recognized of the various forms of justice that exist: Retributive, transformative, therapeutic, restorative, etc.. And the legal system falls under Nature. The one kid that killed people escaped from prison. One question is whether or not he was justified in killing those people: Well, by Nature it happened, I could argue (and do). One could say that the legal system's act (actus reus) of retributive justice against him was unjustified, which is evidenced by his outbreak.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/notorious-high-school-shooter-tj-lane-escapes-prison/story?id=25446686

 

Nature spoke. The evidence occurred. He was able to escape; but was captured after the outbreak. Whether or not the event is interpreted that his punishment is too harsh and a negative against all of society is a different story and a matter of interpretation. I reason if people say he is as intelligent as he is, the government failed (government negligence) him and is to blame. Sometimes members of the government ignore members of society in order to better themselves: This is the corrupt and fraudulent aspect of government.

 

But in relation to the original poster, to attack someone as that person be alleged a proximate cause to some deed, why not having undergone a legal recourse first?

 

Granted, there are plenty of people who do undergo a legal recouse, not get what they believe they deserve, and shoot people. Judges have been shot dead by people before them in their courtroom.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Genecks

[Amity]

Justice is circumstantial to the parties involved. I don't believe in a clear cut form of justice, because justice is a general term for the punishing a law breaker. How we punish them is completely up for interpretation to all parties.

[MigL]

Dimreepr, are you suggesting that sociopaths and the like, do not feel and suffer psychologically like the rest of us do, because of a genetic abnormality ?

Please provide references.

 

That there is no free will and no such thing as evil in this world ?

Please provide a valid argument or references.

 

That this ( unproven ) condition absolves them of any and all responsibility for their actions ?

And that understanding is the solution ?

 

Sometimes you have to understand that something ( or someone ) has gone bad ( for whatever reason ) and to protect the rest, quarantine (segregation ) or destruction is the only option. Notice that this works for wine, cheese, plants, etc. so we also use it for people ( rightly or wrongly ).

 

Knowing the cause and understanding doesn't affect what has become.

It may help prevent.

Edited September 18, 2014 by MigL

[Ten oz]

In my opinion justice doesn't apply to things that have past. A person can work toward a more equal, fair, safe, etc future but the same for past events can never be achieved. I think past events should be used as examples to help improve the future. The future should not be a platform to re-live or avenge the past. If a person is imprisoned it should be because they are a current or future threat to the safety and security of society. At the OP's example; killing the killer of ones father or that killer dying by other means may possibly make society more safe but would not provide justice so to speak. What happened can not be reserved or made different.

[Moontanman]

In my opinion justice doesn't apply to things that have past. A person can work toward a more equal, fair, safe, etc future but the same for past events can never be achieved. I think past events should be used as examples to help improve the future. The future should not be a platform to re-live or avenge the past. If a person is imprisoned it should be because they are a current or future threat to the safety and security of society. At the OP's example; killing the killer of ones father or that killer dying by other means may possibly make society more safe but would not provide justice so to speak. What happened can not be reserved or made different.

 

 

No you are correct but sometimes what ever happened can be avenged...

[Ten oz]

@ Moontanman, As posted I do not believe the future should be used to avenge the past.

 

I am a sports fan. In sports there is often talk of avenging a loss or getting revenge against a specific rival for something but ultimately the past is never altered and the present exists as it otherwise could've/would've anyways. If team "A" beats team "B" in a championship game and then the following year team "B" avenges the previous years loss and beats team "A" won't history still view both teams as champions? Team "B" can never erase their loss. Team "A" won that year and that is forever. Actions made today only effect today and perhaps the days after. The longer a person lugs around the past looking to avenge, revenge, make right, re-live, or otherwise retroactively influence the past the longer they aren't giving the here and now the attention it deserves.

 

*****"deserves" be a very subjective word of course******

[MigL]

I would agree with Ten oz.

Although sometimes justice can be restitution. For example, fining a thief so that restitution can be made to the victim of his theft. I just don't see how taking the life of, or incarcerating a murderer does any justice or restitution to the victim.

 

It may however, prevent the murderer from doing further harm to society.

Edited September 20, 2014 by MigL

[dimreepr]

Dimreepr, are you suggesting that sociopaths and the like, do not feel and suffer psychologically like the rest of us do, because of a genetic abnormality ?

Please provide references.

 

This study.

 

 

That there is no free will and no such thing as evil in this world ?

Please provide a valid argument or references.

 

 

 

Since I didn't say it or imply it I see no reason to.

 

 

That this ( unproven ) condition absolves them of any and all responsibility for their actions ?

 

 

 

Again not my words.

 

 

And that understanding is the solution ?

 

 

 

Again not my words but I do think understanding may lead to solutions.

 

 

Sometimes you have to understand that something ( or someone ) has gone bad ( for whatever reason ) and to protect the rest, quarantine (segregation ) or destruction is the only option. Notice that this works for wine, cheese, plants, etc. so we also use it for people ( rightly or wrongly ).

 

Sure quarantine is necessary in some cases. Quarantine isn't, or shouldn't be, the only aim of prison; understanding why is just the first step in the process of rehabilitated. I fail to see when or under what circumstance "destruction is the only option".

Knowing the cause and understanding doesn't affect what has become.

It may help prevent.

 

Agreed.

[Moontanman]

@ Moontanman, As posted I do not believe the future should be used to avenge the past.

 

I am a sports fan. In sports there is often talk of avenging a loss or getting revenge against a specific rival for something but ultimately the past is never altered and the present exists as it otherwise could've/would've anyways. If team "A" beats team "B" in a championship game and then the following year team "B" avenges the previous years loss and beats team "A" won't history still view both teams as champions? Team "B" can never erase their loss. Team "A" won that year and that is forever. Actions made today only effect today and perhaps the days after. The longer a person lugs around the past looking to avenge, revenge, make right, re-live, or otherwise retroactively influence the past the longer they aren't giving the here and now the attention it deserves.

 

*****"deserves" be a very subjective word of course******

 

 

When I use the word avenge sports is not what I am referring to, diminishing the idea of punishing those who do wrong is not a trivial thing and it is necessary in a civilized society. Yes some people do get away with atrocities but actively weeding out those people cannot change the past but it is good for the future of society...

[Ten oz]

When I use the word avenge sports is not what I am referring to, diminishing the idea of punishing those who do wrong is not a trivial thing and it is necessary in a civilized society. Yes some people do get away with atrocities but actively weeding out those people cannot change the past but it is good for the future of society...

 

I understand your point but can't entirely agree. Simply moving on is how many societies have gotten beyond any number atrocities. There has never been any sort of punishment or retribution that comes anywhere near the level of the massacre of natives and aboriginal people's in the Americas. Black people have not avenged slavery. Following the end of segregation in the United States south in the 60's no one was punished. Mayors, Govenors, Police, Judges, and etc who employed and supported segregation were not forced out or put on jail. The nation simple moved forward. Same goes for the British in India. They left and that was that. India's first act of independence was not to wage war against England in an effort to seek revenge. Just as Israel has not waged war against Germany.

 

Society seems to seek revenge when it is easy to do so. Like a cheap emotional thrill. When revenge is hard or the atrocities were committed by the majority of people societies tend to just forgive and forget. Acknowledge that something bad happened and move on. Europeans living in the Americas and Australia get to keep their blood soaked stolen land, German today is again one of the strongest and most influential in the world, and so on and so on. All we can do is look for ways to improve the future.

[MigL]

Probably not worded properly, Dimreepr.

Even a person with a genetic abnormality knows the difference between right and wrong ( unless insane ) and can choose to act accordingly ( free will ).

 

But at least we agree on the main point I was trying to make.

[Moontanman]

I understand your point but can't entirely agree. Simply moving on is how many societies have gotten beyond any number atrocities. There has never been any sort of punishment or retribution that comes anywhere near the level of the massacre of natives and aboriginal people's in the Americas. Black people have not avenged slavery. Following the end of segregation in the United States south in the 60's no one was punished. Mayors, Govenors, Police, Judges, and etc who employed and supported segregation were not forced out or put on jail. The nation simple moved forward. Same goes for the British in India. They left and that was that. India's first act of independence was not to wage war against England in an effort to seek revenge. Just as Israel has not waged war against Germany.

 

Society seems to seek revenge when it is easy to do so. Like a cheap emotional thrill. When revenge is hard or the atrocities were committed by the majority of people societies tend to just forgive and forget. Acknowledge that something bad happened and move on. Europeans living in the Americas and Australia get to keep their blood soaked stolen land, German today is again one of the strongest and most influential in the world, and so on and so on. All we can do is look for ways to improve the future.

 

 

If you were raped would you just move on or would you want justice?

[tar]

Thread,

 

Heard a story a few weeks ago, about an event that happened a while back, where a drunk driver killed to kids. A man walked a hundred yards to his house, got his 45, came back and shot the injured guy, still in his vehical, in the head. It was his kids, the man had killed.

 

I think I might have done the same, (if I had a 45).

 

I would not have been interested in why the guy was drunk, or in his reabilitation, or the fact that he had a family as well. He just took my kids, everything I was living for, and the only justice is for him to be dead.

 

Regards, TAR

two kids

[Ten oz]

If you were raped would you just move on or would you want justice?

 

Interesting example. What do people who go through that do?

 

"Nearly one in five women surveyed said they had been raped or had experienced an attempted rape at some point, and one in four reported having been beaten by an intimate partner. One in six women have been stalked, according to the report."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/nearly-1-in-5-women-in-us-survey-report-sexual-assault.html?_r=0

 

Considering the staggering numbers it would seem that the majority find a way to pick up the pieces and move on with their lives. No justice so to speak is ever had. Otherwise there would be tens of millions of men in prison for rape and/or assualt.

[Moontanman]

Interesting example. What do people who go through that do?

 

"Nearly one in five women surveyed said they had been raped or had experienced an attempted rape at some point, and one in four reported having been beaten by an intimate partner. One in six women have been stalked, according to the report."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/nearly-1-in-5-women-in-us-survey-report-sexual-assault.html?_r=0

 

Considering the staggering numbers it would seem that the majority find a way to pick up the pieces and move on with their lives. No justice so to speak is ever had. Otherwise there would be tens of millions of men in prison for rape and/or assualt.

 

 

Well sometimes they die, sometimes their attackers die, sometimes they go to jail, sometimes both of them go to jail sometimes they are so dominated they put up with it. If I was violated in any way reprisal would come, if not the police then... well.. bad things happen to people all the time...

Edited September 22, 2014 by Moontanman