The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Polling Pit => Topic started by: ladyattis on February 01, 2007, 12:30:01 PM
-
There you go. Solve one of the slew of old riddles of philosophy here. :)
-- Bridget
EDIT: Here is a wikiarticle about different theories of justice, if you want to read up on it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice)
Here is a wikiarticle specifically on criminal justice for clarification. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice)
-
Can I vote for any or all of the above?
-
Can I vote for any or all of the above?
I'll add that for you.
-- Bridget
-
philosophizers yammer on ad nauseum about this subject and you think you can narrow it down to a four question quiz?
-
Yep, cause there's not much else to discuss about it in philosophy circles rather than application. And you know most philosophers are not good at that part of the equation, which is why engineers and scientists point and laugh.
-- Bridget
-
shame on you. Philosofistic circles do nothing but talk about senseless things.
-
"The Time has come, " the Walrus said, "to talk of many things: of shoes and ships and sealing wax of cabbages and kings." -- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass.
-- Bridget
-
Plus, it's not as worthless as you think, in that analysis garners us the best possible options to which when the discussion leads to implementation, that part of the problem is easier to solve since the options are restricted by then.
Only with Existentialists and Post-Modern philosophers [more toward the latter than the former] you will find useless drivel, the rest tend toward Empiricism as the foundation of their arguments.
-- Bridget
-
Restitution. Virtue-based sounds nice, but is still forcing a way of thinking on the offender in lieu of compensating for what was taken. Justice belongs to the victim. (note i said justice, not revenge.) Virtue is a definite side-effect of justice, but not the underlying idea. If a thief returns what was stolen from you along with interest and any punitive damages, you got your justice, even if they are still a thief.
I know that the revelations about Mark brought this up, so here's my needless-to-say unconventional take on justice, using our best buddy as an example:
Mark is a party to taking the life of a man. Mark owes a debt to him.
Of course, the man is dead, so the debt is transferred to his heirs.
Florida collects from Mark in the form of time. The state has bought the note.
Debt is now owed to family by Florida.
In other words, the state of Florida collected the sum value of nine years from Mark, but never paid it back to the debtor, the victim's family.
If someone understands what I mean and can explain it better, please do.
-
Yet the intent of justice is really two fold if you think about it.
First, to restore what you take by force.
Second, to bring, on the whole, harmony back to the public.
The first point is easy to understand and to implement, the second point is harder to understand and to implement, yet it is essentially for the first point to exist. An example would be, some person steals from another, the first point states that it is the job of defenders of law to seek out the thief and make him/her restore/replace the stolen property in whole. The second point then states after point one is fulfilled that all status between the thief and the victim are restored to normal, and that no one else, not even the victim, has the right to retaliate. More so, the second point states that society on the whole has no right to interfere with the thief after restitution is made and that the thief as reformed his/her ways. This point may seem confusing and some how sanctioning the aggressor/thief, but in reality what it sanctions is that justice is restricted from covering revenge. More so, it implies justice is owned by no one and that decrees based upon it must come from a universal assertion of 'harmony' of both points one and two.
-- Bridget
-
You have three basic rights which cover all others: Life, Liberty, Property. Sorry hon, but "harmony" ain't one of them.
Edit: And by saying that reform is a prerequisite to justice, you are arguing for thoughtcrime prosecution.
-
Justice should be up to the victim. But should not exceed "an eye for an eye" in compensation or retaliation.
-
Justice should be up to the victim. But should not exceed "an eye for an eye" in compensation or retaliation.
Agreed.
-
Justice should be up to the victim. But should not exceed "an eye for an eye" in compensation or retaliation.
Agreed.
I can agree too, as "should" is only a suggestion.
-
Of course, if you're dead you can't exactly retaliate. Maybe there should be "murder wills" to describe how to apply justice when you are killed.
-
Yes you can. It's called coming back as a ghost and haunting the fuck out of the murderer.
-
"distributive" justice is about who and under what conditions get access to the natural and social commons.
"commutative" justice occurs after the application of labor and is concerned with contracts and exchange.
-
You have three basic rights which cover all others: Life, Liberty, Property. Sorry hon, but "harmony" ain't one of them.
Edit: And by saying that reform is a prerequisite to justice, you are arguing for thoughtcrime prosecution.
The balance between life, liberty, and property of all is called harmony. In this case, it's social harmony. You seem to not grasp abstractions.
/me hands Ryan a copy of ITOE 2nd edition.
-- Bridget
-
What you're describing is actually better described as equilibrium, but let's not play the definition game.
-
What you're describing is actually better described as equilibrium, but let's not play the definition game.
Harmony > equilibrium.
Why? Because Harmony actually has a stricter definition in mathematics than equilibrium!
-- Bridget's brain is overloaded from Discrete Mathematics class...
-
philosophizers yammer on ad nauseum about this subject and you think you can narrow it down to a four question quiz?
:lol: Interesting point, and a hilarious one at that...
-
I am of the ultra-liberal (not leftist but "classical liberal") belief that the justice system should deal purely in "what's best for society". In most cases, that will be the "virtue" system. However, if immediate execution will prevent riots (that would claim more lives than the one criminal) then so be it.
Likewise, if "what's best for society" is to satisfy the emotions of the victims, so be it.
-
I am of the ultra-liberal (not leftist but "classical liberal") belief that the justice system should deal purely in "what's best for society". In most cases, that will be the "virtue" system. However, if immediate execution will prevent riots (that would claim more lives than the one criminal) then so be it.
Likewise, if "what's best for society" is to satisfy the emotions of the victims, so be it.
Commie.
-
I don't color inside the lines. Justice is fluid. It could be a punch in the face three seconds after the transgression, or stepping on someones oxygen line 60 years later.
I have a mental checklist. I'm sure other people do as well. Theres a guy who works at a local bar and is tight with the owners. He got froggy and started a fight with my friend two years ago, Feb 2005. I used to go there a lot and the owners are very tight with money. I have three years to go before I walk in there and tell the owners I've not patronized the place for five years, and at $50 bucks a week that asshole cost them $13000 plus tips and five years worth of bad publicity.
I also know a guy named Kevin who owns a family resturaunt, one of four handed out to four siblings when his old man divided up his business and retired. He pissed me off once. His brother got busted for pedo porn and lost his shirt. I make it a habit of asking him how his brother is doing when I see him and other people are around. He hates me. I enjoy the fact he hates me. If he wasnt such a dick, I never woulda dragged him around the room every chance I get. Now he regrets saying a stupid comment to me, and he should. I buy him a drink and he looks like a dickhead no matter how he responds.
This is just the amusing stuff. There are a few that arent amusing. Those non-amusing guys need to cover their asses forever. I may never get the chance to extract suitable justice, but life is long. I had a talk one night a few years back with my best friend and I told him "This guy better pray to God I never get terminal cancer." He nodded wisely, as he is known to do, and he said: "Yup, he should." And then he packed a new one.
Justice is whatever I say it is.
-
I am of the ultra-liberal (not leftist but "classical liberal") belief that the justice system should deal purely in "what's best for society". In most cases, that will be the "virtue" system. However, if immediate execution will prevent riots (that would claim more lives than the one criminal) then so be it.
Likewise, if "what's best for society" is to satisfy the emotions of the victims, so be it.
I don't really think it's liberal to consider that justice has a component that includes social harmony into it, because is justice does not ensure social harmony then it fails to be just for the victim or the offender. Ultimately, you have to balance the harm against the intent, from there you find the mean by which to judge rightly the facts.
-- Bridget
-
Situation A: A drunk driver runs over a kid, killing him.
Situation B: A sober driver chases down kid, runs him over, backs up, runs him over again.
Does it matter to the victim's family what the killer's intent was? Either way, their loss is the same. Once again, you're talking about thoughtcrimes. You're using the same argument that is used to perpetuate bullshit hate crime laws.
-
(http://img.timeinc.net/ew/img/daily/610/jaybop_l.jpg)
On the left.
-
Vengeance is satisfaction of emotional motivations. It serves only to satisfy the bloodlust of the avengers. Where in justice does vengeance belong? It does not, for emotional satisfaction granted by a cold, heartless government is oxymoronic. The same concepts can be applied even to the justice of an anarchist system.
I do not mean to say "Punishment dictated by the emotions of the victim (or the victim's family) are irrelevant." for they are indeed relevant to the cohesion of society (which is what a justice system works for, no?). However, other factors must be considered (the prosperity of the family of the offender, etc).
Does it matter to the victim's family what the killer's intent was?
It absolutely does matter. My english teacher's friend got into a car accident which resulted in the death of the other driver. The victim's family pleaded to the judge not to lock up and thus ruin the life of the survivor, but the judge had to comply with the established minimal sentence for vehicular manslaughter. I believe he got 5 years.
I don't really think it's liberal to consider that justice has a component that includes social harmony into it, because is justice does not ensure social harmony then it fails to be just for the victim or the offender.
Perhaps "utilitarian" was the correct word?
-
"Any/All"
It really depends on the situation; I'd say the just response to theft is restitution; the response to murder is imprisonment, etc. I dont think that there is a catch all solution for Crime and Punishment.
Hmm... I'm going to agree with you on this topic; society shouldn't shell out pre-determined punishments when they are not appropriate for the situation.
-
"Any/All"
It really depends on the situation; I'd say the just response to theft is restitution; the response to murder is imprisonment, etc. I dont think that there is a catch all solution for Crime and Punishment.
Why should the response to murder be imprisonment? Restitution ultimately restores the item taken, but imprisonment will not restore someone's life. It seems arbitrary to me.
-
"Any/All"
It really depends on the situation; I'd say the just response to theft is restitution; the response to murder is imprisonment, etc. I dont think that there is a catch all solution for Crime and Punishment.
Why should the response to murder be imprisonment? Restitution ultimately restores the item taken, but imprisonment will not restore someone's life. It seems arbitrary to me.
Restitution doesn't restore life and 'murder someone - get sent the bill' attitude doesn't seem all that appropriate to me.
Show me where I disagreed with that statement.
-
Situation A: A drunk driver runs over a kid, killing him.
Situation B: A sober driver chases down kid, runs him over, backs up, runs him over again.
Does it matter to the victim's family what the killer's intent was? Either way, their loss is the same. Once again, you're talking about thoughtcrimes. You're using the same argument that is used to perpetuate bullshit hate crime laws.
Not even wrong as Fermi would say. By your logic, there shouldn't be Murder 1, Murder 2, and the different Man Slaughter charges, yet we do have grades of intent. If one intended malice, then crime is heinous, if one was negligent then the crime was not heinous. I suggest you study legal theory and the philosophical definitions and theories of justice before posting again.
-- Bridget
-
Situation A: A drunk driver runs over a kid, killing him.
Situation B: A sober driver chases down kid, runs him over, backs up, runs him over again.
Does it matter to the victim's family what the killer's intent was? Either way, their loss is the same. Once again, you're talking about thoughtcrimes. You're using the same argument that is used to perpetuate bullshit hate crime laws.
Not even wrong as Fermi would say. By your logic, there shouldn't be Murder 1, Murder 2, and the different Man Slaughter charges, yet we do have grades of intent. If one intended malice, then crime is heinous, if one was negligent then the crime was not heinous. I suggest you study legal theory and the philosophical definitions and theories of justice before posting again.
-- Bridget
Wait, you start off by asking us to discuss our opinions, then tell me mine is wrong because of established "legal theory"? Need I list all the contemptable actions perpetrated by government on the basis of "legal theory and the philosophical definitions and theories of justice"?
So let me put this a different way: Manslaughter, you get, say, 10 years. Murder, you get 50. The same harm (death) was experienced by the victim in either case, the only difference was intent. So in other words, you're getting 10 years for killing him, and 40 for crimethink.
-
Wait, you start off by asking us to discuss our opinions, then tell me mine is wrong because of established "legal theory"?
I can poll and criticize. The poll itself stands apart from my criticisms. If you can't parse that then I think this conversation is over.
Need I list all the contemptable actions perpetrated by government on the basis of "legal theory and the philosophical definitions and theories of justice"?
Actually that's the problem, the government, like most people, is not very consistent in the application of knowledge. In this case, most government officials are pragmatics like most folks these days, so it follows that their actions will not be truly consistent to any one principle or set of principles.
So let me put this a different way: Manslaughter, you get, say, 10 years. Murder, you get 50. The same harm (death) was experienced by the victim in either case, the only difference was intent. So in other words, you're getting 10 years for killing him, and 40 for crimethink.
No and no. You get 10 years because you never intended to harm him. You act was not malicious. When you murder someone you meant to kill that someone. So your act was malicious. Do you understand? You seem to think that an act can be divorced from the thoughts that lead to the act. And that's a problem in your reasoning. You're basically concept stealing [definition: a fallacy that implicitly declares a concept as to refute it.] from here on out.
Remember, humans have to think before they do.
-- Bridget
-
You get 10 years because you never intended to harm him. You act was not malicious. When you murder someone you meant to kill that someone. So your act was malicious. Do you understand?
So you're implying that recompense is secondary to punishment.
-
You get 10 years because you never intended to harm him. You act was not malicious. When you murder someone you meant to kill that someone. So your act was malicious. Do you understand?
So you're implying that recompense is secondary to punishment.
Main Entry: 1rec·om·pense
Pronunciation: 're-k&m-"pen(t)s
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -pensed; -pens·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French recompenser, from Late Latin recompensare, from Latin re- + compensare to compensate
1 a : to give something to by way of compensation (as for a service rendered or damage incurred) b : to pay for
2 : to return in kind : REQUITE
synonym see PAY
Not all acts are equal because of what the intent behind them changes it.
To clarify this with you, I'll ask you a question. Are all acts the same for humans?
-- Bridget
-
Clarify please.
-
Clarify please.
Does everyone do anything for the same reasons?
or AxEy (P(x)^Q(y)) ?
-- Bridget
-
No, everyone is different. All I'm saying is that on the basis of restitution, the victim's loss is in no way altered by the offender's state of mind.
We are trying to argue the same points from two totally different paradigms, neither of which we are going to change, so let's just agree to disagree. :-P
-
No, everyone is different. All I'm saying is that on the basis of restitution, the victim's loss is in no way altered by the offender's state of mind.
Yet the punishment must fit the offense, not just in quantity, but in quality.
We are trying to argue the same points from two totally different paradigms, neither of which we are going to change, so let's just agree to disagree. :-P
Only cause you spam RedDel's 9/11 thread with Chuck facts.
-- Bridget
-
Just have to have the last word, don't you? :mrgreen:
-
Just have to have the last word, don't you? :mrgreen:
Always.
-
ok, fine.
-
I win.
-
If you must.
-
Yes.
-
I declare boner the winner.
-
That's fine with me.
-
Evolution has equipped humans with a strong desire for retribution for wrongs done to them. Recent studies have shown that victims of perceived wrongs will even go as far as to suffer losses themselves in order to gain revenge against their abuser. It is speculated that the emotional need for retribution is based on the need for an orderly society. In a primitive society, it is risky to harm or kill another member, since the harmed individual or his family and friends will try to seek revenge.
This system works in a small, closed society, but as increasing numbers of people share the same community, vendettas become more common. Such "Hatfield vs McCoy" situations make life uncomfortable for other members of society, and there is a very real fear of vengeance being placed on the wrong party. Therefore, governments usually take over the role of meriting out retribution. "There is no need for YOU to seek vengeance," the state says. "Instead, WE will do it for you, in a fair and just manner."
Unfortunately, many modern governments have forgotten the purpose of punishment, thinking that justice is merely a matter of repaying loses due to the victim. "Don't worry. You may have lost your loved one, but he's paying his debt to society by making license plates for a couple of years."
Governments, being inefficient at everything they do, also simply botch the function of justice. A criminal, even a murderer, is very unlikely to be caught. If caught, he (and most criminals are male) will almost certainly not go to trial. If tried, he will probably get off. And, if sentenced, he'll almost never serve out his entire term. This system ends up with victims and their families bitter and unsatisfied, and sometimes seeking to gain revenge on their own.
-
The conversation was over :-P
-
Mike's a total pimp. He just lays it down like it is.
-
Governments, being inefficient at everything they do, also simply botch the function of justice. A criminal, even a murderer, is very unlikely to be caught. If caught, he (and most criminals are male) will almost certainly not go to trial. If tried, he will probably get off. And, if sentenced, he'll almost never serve out his entire term. This system ends up with victims and their families bitter and unsatisfied, and sometimes seeking to gain revenge on their own.
/\ equals \/
Justice is whatever I say it is.
-
Redemption, it can be found through moral change or restitution but most of the time it should be both.
-Jarrod