Swiss Mercenary on 9/3/2009 at 07:40
Quote Posted by Tocky
In order to prevent injustice we settle for a lesser justice then. Best we can do since we could never achieve justice in the first place. But there is no reason for parole for murder. A life in jail for a life is as close as we can come. It also has the benefit of release due to exculpatory evidence although we can't give back those years. Lesser justice is the best we can do.
I'm under the impression that parole is a part of the rehabilitative facet of the justice system, rather then the punitive... And rehabilitation usually doesn't concern itself with fairness any more then it has to.
Kolya on 9/3/2009 at 09:13
Quote Posted by Tocky
To reap what you sow is justice. That is to recieve exactly what you give.
1. No. Revenge is a thing seperate from justice. I certainly empathize more with the victim but it does not dull my cognitive capabilities.
2. Morality is not justice. We cannot do justice and retain a moral high ground.
3. The law is not justice. The goals of a government are not justice.
That is a moral stance. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice) Justice itself is a moral term, not an absolute. You define it as "an eye for an eye". Others will do differently. If you think you cannot have justice and keep a moral high ground then something is going wrong with your moral system. Doesn't matter here though.
A modern government passing a law is not out to do "justice". (Not counting the Taliban or sth.) Instead they aim for an efficient solution to create a set of rules that serves to keep the peace.
Example: If enough people oppose the death penalty it will be abolished. So was the law just before or is it now? No one cares. While the people may have their moral values, law merely changed to a new rule that suffices to keep the peace.
Why am I even saying that when you already agreed that the law is not justice?
Because you make law sound like some poor odd compromise, implicitly sympathising with lynch justice. Which would be *real* justice on your terms and only our humanity keeps us from doing so.
Quote Posted by Tocky
Our very humanity prevents us from administering justice. While I understand and do empathize with those who thirst for it, justice is a thing we cannot do. True justice is a thing too terrible and would wound the giver as deeply.
So what do you do when the people who thirst for justice simply say:
"Yo Tocky, don't worry about us! It won't wound us so deeply to kill that guy! In fact we'll feel great about it."You're not much of a defense against that kind of "justice". That's all I'm concerned with. I'm not into discussing morality with you. You're not supportive of the law because it doesn't meet your personal moral definition of justice.
Quote Posted by Tocky
The law and justice suffer a severe disconnect even in the best of circumstances. Personally I'm not so tied to the vagaries of the law that I can't see when something is wrong. I might feel bad for the people who have to execute or the society that feels it necessary to cling to a lower standard but it would be closer to actual justice than the way things are.
Shug on 9/3/2009 at 13:45
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
Well, it kind of is - if a punishment is deemed absolute, then so too shouldn't judgement?
I appreciate the need for practicalities, but purely at face value if a punishment is appropriate for a particular crime the burden of proof is a related but ultimately different matter. That's all I'm getting at, and I fully understand the extensive points made above.
Tocky on 10/3/2009 at 03:12
Swiss Mercenary: If a person has proven that they are so selfish that they would take a life to satisfy a base urge then punishment might teach them not to do it again because the person they do care about might recieve harm. It can't rehabilitate them. Neither can letting them out. They are always a risk once they have willfully broken the final and largest legal and moral barrier. Why risk? It is not our place to forgive. It is not our place to cause another innocent to die doing so. Aren't we guilty then?
Quote Posted by Kolya
Quote:
That is a moral stance. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice) Justice itself is a moral term, not an absolute. You define it as "an eye for an eye". Others will do differently. If you think you cannot have justice and keep a moral high ground then something is going wrong with your moral system. Doesn't matter here though.
I ask you to define justice and you give me an amorphous moral term as if justice could mean anything. Does only wiki have a brain? I defined it as getting what you give. You could give love. Nothing is wrong with my moral system. What you do is to expose your predjudice of me as I probe you for definition.
Quote:
Because you make law sound like some poor odd compromise, implicitly sympathising with lynch justice. Which would be *real* justice on your terms and only our humanity keeps us from doing so.
The law IS a poor odd hodgepodge of differing ideas with differing aims. Your mention of lynch justice is once again your predjudice of me however. Once again I defined justice as getting what you give. Lynch justice isn't justice unless you just hung someone. Then of course the person who hung would have to be hung and so on ad infinitum. I said you cannot achieve justice.
Quote:
So what do you do when the people who thirst for justice simply say:
"Yo Tocky, don't worry about us! It won't wound us so deeply to kill that guy! In fact we'll feel great about it."You're not much of a defense against that kind of "justice". That's all I'm concerned with. I'm not into discussing morality with you. You're not supportive of the law because it doesn't meet your personal moral definition of justice.
You're not much of a defense for or against any kind of justice if you can't define it other than nebulous blob of morality. What I would say is to let the law handle it. What I would not say is that the law is a compromise between actual justice and what we can do to not become like the criminal and by passing the buck to an imperfect societal system we can sleep better. It's true though.
Swiss Mercenary on 10/3/2009 at 09:16
Quote Posted by Tocky
Swiss Mercenary: If a person has proven that they are so selfish that they would take a life to satisfy a base urge then punishment might teach them not to do it again because the person they do care about might recieve harm. It can't rehabilitate them. Neither can letting them out. They are always a risk once they have willfully broken the final and largest legal and moral barrier. Why risk? It is not our place to forgive. It is not our place to cause another innocent to die doing so. Aren't we guilty then?
There's definitely a risk. There's also a risk that somebody given two months of community service for a bar fight will kill someone the next time around. The risk is clear and significant in some cases... Not so much in others. Not to mention that life without parole accomplishes the same ends, without the unfortunate side effect of, well, irreversible judgements.
On the practical side of the death penalty, here's something wonderful - apparently juries are screened, such that only those willing to apply it are chosen... Which biases them towards conviction, moreso then a more random sampling of 12 of your "peers" would.
Kolya on 10/3/2009 at 09:27
Yes Tocky, I didn't define what I regard as "justice" because I'm (still) not into discussing morality with you. I merely pointed out that justice is indeed a subject of morality and how that differs from what laws try to achieve.
In my opinion it's a good thing if the legislative doesn't try to implement some form of moral justice but instead implements the minimum of punishment that serves to prevent crime and hence keeps the peace.
In your opinion that's a weakness of the law because it doesn't meet your morals (your idea of justice), which is so extreme that you say yourself it can't be done for humanity's sake.
I don't have any prejudices about you Tocky, I don't know you. I'm merely going by what you said. There may be misunderstandings of course.
Quote Posted by Tocky
What I would not say is that the law is a compromise between actual justice and what we can do to not become like the criminal and by passing the buck to an imperfect societal system we can sleep better. It's true though.
So you're not saying it, but you're saying it's true? That actual justice would make us all into criminals? And so we pass the buck
of justice to the imperfect law so we can sleep better?
See, that's what I'm about the whole time: Law isn't involved with your or anyone's extreme moralistic ideas of justice at all. And it's better for that. It's a crime prevention system, not a punishment system.
PigLick on 10/3/2009 at 14:11
Its time to break out the JUSTICE LEAGUE
doing what governments arent man enough to do!
had some trouble, with the law
killed some guys, with my colt 44
now Im busted with fatigue
time to break out the JUSTICE LEAGUE
PigLick on 10/3/2009 at 14:17
justice league=my cock
justice ALL NIGHT LONG
AR Master on 10/3/2009 at 14:22
talk about a slap on the wrist
