|
Post by ltfred on Mar 22, 2009 3:24:51 GMT -5
What other reason could there be for punishment? How about this: murder, rape, child molestation, abuse, and similar crimes are an attack on the very foundations that society is built on. If a foreign nation attacks your society you call up the army, kill thousands or millions of people - many of whom had nothing to do with it, and call yourself a better people for it. People who fight wars indiscriminately are called war criminals. Nations that fight wars even though they have a peaceful solution are committing war crimes. You get to defend yourself (and countries themselves) only to the level that is necessary to end the threat. If an old lady walk up to you and slaps you across the face, you don't get to blow her head off in self-defense. Similarly, if rape, murder, and other crimes against people can be prevented equally well by the death penalty or by life imprisonment, you can't defend the Death Penalty on the basis of self-defense.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 22, 2009 8:45:26 GMT -5
I like this answer, Fred. My little boy is growing up. Seriously, though, nice, succinct explanation and a great analogy. The teacher in me will shut the hell up, now.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Mar 22, 2009 9:57:02 GMT -5
How about this: murder, rape, child molestation, abuse, and similar crimes are an attack on the very foundations that society is built on. If a foreign nation attacks your society you call up the army, kill thousands or millions of people - many of whom had nothing to do with it, and call yourself a better people for it. People who fight wars indiscriminately are called war criminals. Nations that fight wars even though they have a peaceful solution are committing war crimes. You get to defend yourself (and countries themselves) only to the level that is necessary to end the threat. If an old lady walk up to you and slaps you across the face, you don't get to blow her head off in self-defense. Similarly, if rape, murder, and other crimes against people can be prevented equally well by the death penalty or by life imprisonment, you can't defend the Death Penalty on the basis of self-defense. Of course I can use self-defence to support the death penalty. The existance of multiple alternatives doesn't necessarily negate the viablitiy of any one solution to a problem. This is a philosophical debate, not a math question. There can be more than one answer. At any rate, I'm not really disagreeing with you, your view is perfectly valid, I'm just presenting an alternative school of thought. Until very recently in human history, the only bad wars were the ones your side lost. If in the eyes of its people a nation can still fight good wars that kill innocent people in horrible ways with little more than an offical 'oops', than that nation can certainly order the deaths of individuals for harming the country. You've got a modern concept fighting all of recorded history. Right we are talking about the protection (of society) aspect of punishment, which ignores another important consideration. What about the satisfaction of the agrieved party? If a victim thinks death is approriate, who are we to say they are wrong... particularly when a large number of people agree with them? Hell, putting myself in the victim's shoes, I'd probably agree with them depending on the circumtances.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 22, 2009 11:14:28 GMT -5
Well, the goal as a civilization is to become more enlightened, I would assume. So just because we did it this way in the past doesn't justify continuing to do it, which I don't think you're saying, but that's the impression when you make the argument that Fred is presenting a modern idea.
I think the satisfaction of the aggrieved party is an interesting concept to ponder. In civil court, a victim is only allowed to sue for what will make them "whole", meaning they can't sue over and above what they are actually out of pocket unless the judge decides to award punitive damages. Those damages are a representation of being made whole, even though money cannot really fix the psychological damage done by harassment, for example. It's a symbolic gesture. When it comes to criminal and not civil situations, this concept gets really interesting. Suppose someone has been murdered--it's impossible to make the victim "whole" in this case. In order to see what the victim wants, we have to turn to another set of indirect victims, or the family. What sort of punishment would ever make a live victim "whole"? There isn't anything. So you're dealing purely in the symbolic, like the punitive damages in a civil case would.
What kind of symbolic stance are we willing to make as a society? What happens if the shoe is on the other foot, you commit murder or assault out of self defense or rage or heat of the moment? Could you then without hesitation say you'd be willing to submit to whatever punishment the victim would choose to mete out in order to be made "whole," because who are we to say it's wrong?
Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Mar 22, 2009 11:33:29 GMT -5
From here: wordnetweb.princeton.eduJusticeS: (n) justice, justness (the quality of being just or fair) S: (n) justice (judgment involved in the determination of rights and the assignment of rewards and punishments) S: (n) judge, justice, jurist (a public official authorized to decide questions brought before a court of justice) S: (n) Department of Justice, Justice Department, Justice, DoJ (the United States federal department responsible for enforcing federal laws (including the enforcement of all civil rights legislation); created in 1870) RevengeS: (n) retaliation, revenge (action taken in return for an injury or offense) S: (v) revenge, avenge, retaliate (take revenge for a perceived wrong) "He wants to avenge the murder of his brother" ____________________ To paraphrase Gandalf: Can you give life to those who do not have it? If not then don't be so quick to take it. Dead people cannot right any wrongs they committed. Dead people who are acquitted cannot have compensation for unjust punishment. Also, what of those who wrongfully accuse someone who then gets the death sentence? Shall they then be put to death for accessory to murder? What of the jury who passes the conviction? Shall they too be put to death for a wrongful execution? And if not, why not? How can you justify allowing them to go unpunished for one wrongful execution, yet demand such harsh and permanent punishment for even one conviction? [Edited to fix spelling.]
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Mar 22, 2009 15:14:14 GMT -5
What other reason could there be for punishment? How about this: murder, rape, child molestation, abuse, and similar crimes are an attack on the very foundations that society is built on. Hmmm do you support sharia law then? The same argument is used there. If a foreign nation attacks your society you call up the army, kill thousands or millions of people - many of whom had nothing to do with it, and call yourself a better people for it. Killing the thousands and more civillians is considered a war crime last I heard. The concept of justified war has evolved much recently... All these tribunals and such...
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 22, 2009 16:08:22 GMT -5
How about this: murder, rape, child molestation, abuse, and similar crimes are an attack on the very foundations that society is built on. Hmmm do you support sharia law then? The same argument is used there. This sounds suspiciously like the argument "You know who else was a vegetarian (or thing of your choice)? Hitler!!" ;D
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Mar 22, 2009 17:16:15 GMT -5
Hmmm do you support sharia law then? The same argument is used there. This sounds suspiciously like the argument "You know who else was a vegetarian (or thing of your choice)? Hitler!!" ;D I am very confused. How are alike? Here is how I see things. Mojo says: these crimes are an attack on the foundations of society. Proponents of Sharia law say: these crimes are an attack on the foundations of society. Mojo advocates certain punishment for the perpetrators of those crimes and justifies it with the described argument. Sharia law applies harsher punishment for even lesser crimes and justifies it with the described argument. So I asked if he/she is supporting Sharia law as they use the same argument to justify sterngth of punishment. If not, what was the reason for embracing a less stringent punishment system than Sharia? And finally how exactly are the crimes that are an attack on the fundementals of society defined? One would think that all crimes are such an attack. Isn't that the very definition of crimes? Things that are against the social contract?
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Mar 22, 2009 18:22:44 GMT -5
Well, the goal as a civilization is to become more enlightened, I would assume. So just because we did it this way in the past doesn't justify continuing to do it, which I don't think you're saying, but that's the impression when you make the argument that Fred is presenting a modern idea. And this is where I point out that trickledown economics is a modern theory that has recently been debunked. Modern does not have to mean better.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Mar 22, 2009 18:30:26 GMT -5
To paraphrase Gandalf: Can you give life to those who do not have it? If not then don't be so quick to take it. Dead people cannot right any wrongs they committed. Dead people who are acquitted cannot have compensation for unjust punishment. Also, what of those who wrongfully accuse someone who then gets the death sentence? Shall they then be put to death for accessory to murder? What of the jury who passes the conviction? Shall they too be put to death for a wrongful execution? And if not, why not? How can you justify allowing them to go unpunished for one wrongful execution, yet demand such harsh and permanent punishment for even one conviction? [Edited to fix spelling.] We can give the people involved a pass by saying they worked to the best of their abilities, with the information they had available, under the orders of the state. The state therefore bares the ultimate responsibility. The question is whether this is a cop-out since it neatly skirts everything the state is a largly untouchable entity.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 22, 2009 19:00:01 GMT -5
People who fight wars indiscriminately are called war criminals. Nations that fight wars even though they have a peaceful solution are committing war crimes. You get to defend yourself (and countries themselves) only to the level that is necessary to end the threat. If an old lady walk up to you and slaps you across the face, you don't get to blow her head off in self-defense. Similarly, if rape, murder, and other crimes against people can be prevented equally well by the death penalty or by life imprisonment, you can't defend the Death Penalty on the basis of self-defense. Of course I can use self-defence to support the death penalty. The existance of multiple alternatives doesn't necessarily negate the viablitiy of any one solution to a problem. This is a philosophical debate, not a math question. There can be more than one answer. This isn't even a new argument. I already showed why this was incorrect in the post you relied to. To expand on my original point, under United States law (and I looked it up, too) the defense of self-defense allows a person attacked to use reasonable force in their own defense and the defense of others. If you have several remedies, you have to use the least harmful of them. You even have a 'duty to retreat'. That's a legal obligation. Chosing to use deadly force if you have an alternative is murder. Until very recently in human history, the only bad wars were the ones your side lost. And, until very recently in human history, only male, white, property owners between the ages of 30 and 50 counted as fully people. What's you point? We have a bloody and amoral history. If in the eyes of its people a nation can still fight good wars that kill innocent people in horrible ways with little more than an offical 'oops', than that nation can certainly order the deaths of individuals for harming the country. I've already answered this argument. Furthermore, the comparison is unfair. Wars are confused, messy affairs, wheras the legal system is totally in control, well structured and organised and has a clear choice. [ What about the satisfaction of the agrieved party? If a victim thinks death is approriate, who are we to say they are wrong... particularly when a large number of people agree with them? Hell, putting myself in the victim's shoes, I'd probably agree with them depending on the circumtances. And here we have another argument, not simply a restatement of earlier refuted arguments. My question is: what makes a crime against criminals not a crime? Perhaps the victim does want to murder the perpetrator. What right of life and death does the victim gain from victimhood? None.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Mar 22, 2009 19:02:56 GMT -5
This sounds suspiciously like the argument "You know who else was a vegetarian (or thing of your choice)? Hitler!!" ;D I am very confused. How are alike? Here is how I see things. Mojo says: these crimes are an attack on the foundations of society. Proponents of Sharia law say: these crimes are an attack on the foundations of society. Mojo advocates certain punishment for the perpetrators of those crimes and justifies it with the described argument. Sharia law applies harsher punishment for even lesser crimes and justifies it with the described argument. So I asked if he/she is supporting Sharia law as they use the same argument to justify sterngth of punishment. If not, what was the reason for embracing a less stringent punishment system than Sharia? And finally how exactly are the crimes that are an attack on the fundementals of society defined? One would think that all crimes are such an attack. Isn't that the very definition of crimes? Things that are against the social contract? I'm a he, not that it really matters. Every legal system uses the justification that it is necessary for the protection of society. Some are very harsh and draconian, and others aren't. I'm not very familiar with Sharia law, but it is my understanding that, in its modern usage a least, it is more about opression than anything else. Our system focuses on the rights and freedoms of the individual. They are opposites, even if the punishments handed out may be similar. All crimes can be considered an attack on society, but some are more serious than others. Property can be replaced, lives and innocence can't.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 22, 2009 19:57:30 GMT -5
This sounds suspiciously like the argument "You know who else was a vegetarian (or thing of your choice)? Hitler!!" ;D I am very confused. How are alike? Here is how I see things. Mojo says: these crimes are an attack on the foundations of society. Proponents of Sharia law say: these crimes are an attack on the foundations of society. Mojo advocates certain punishment for the perpetrators of those crimes and justifies it with the described argument. Sharia law applies harsher punishment for even lesser crimes and justifies it with the described argument. So I asked if he/she is supporting Sharia law as they use the same argument to justify sterngth of punishment. If not, what was the reason for embracing a less stringent punishment system than Sharia? And finally how exactly are the crimes that are an attack on the fundementals of society defined? One would think that all crimes are such an attack. Isn't that the very definition of crimes? Things that are against the social contract? The example of Hitler pops up when someone wants to equate something really bad with something that may not really be as bad. Sort of like the way that some Xians like to say atheists like Pol Pot and Mao committed more crimes against humanity (therefore, there must be something about atheism that's inherently horrible). I've seen many spats over vegetarianism (and other silly fights) end in something like "Well, you know who else was a vegetarian? Hitler!" As though having that in common with Hitler must mean you are Hitler-esque. Your example of Sharia sounded very much in the same vein. Sharia law has the same excuse as to why it is applied--but it has little to do with what Mojo was describing, which was about letting the victim decide the intensity punishment (unless I misunderstood Mojo's argument). Sharia quite often punishes the victim, especially in rape cases, etc. Sharia might say it's for the greater protection of society--but how it defines protection of society is probably very different than how Mojo would. It sounds like the equivalent of saying, "You know who else believes that? People who support Sharia law!" Doesn't necessarily equate.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 22, 2009 20:27:01 GMT -5
Pol Pott was probably a Buddhist.
/is pedantic.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 22, 2009 21:11:05 GMT -5
Pol Pott was probably a Buddhist. /is pedantic.
|
|