|
Post by erictheblue on Mar 23, 2009 10:17:45 GMT -5
I highlighted very important parts of your post. I'm not saying that DNA evidence is perfect. But the use of DNA evidence should, over time, drastically reduce the number of wrongful convictions. And how does that help the murdered and raped innocent people in the meantime exactly? Time sorts out a lot of problems, but what about figuring out how to halt the problems from the get go? You'd be singing a different, higher-pitched tone if it had been YOU getting assbanged in prison for 20 years over some brutal rape/murder that you never did to begin with. Which isn't the point of this discussion. Everyone knows that wrongful convictions happen. These wrongful convictions are often (justifiably) used as arguments against the death penalty. I only said that various methods for obtaining evidence are getting better, which greatly reduces the chances of wrongful conviction.
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Mar 23, 2009 10:24:26 GMT -5
I really don't think you should have included that defintion, as it ruins your argument. ALL punishment - whatever the kind - is revenge. There can be no justice.
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Mar 23, 2009 11:00:20 GMT -5
I really don't think you should have included that defintion, as it ruins your argument. ALL punishment - whatever the kind - is revenge. There can be no justice. How about: all punishment is an attempt to rehabilitate the perpetrator of the offense? How about the strive to remove "cruel" punishment?
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Mar 23, 2009 11:16:13 GMT -5
dantesvirgilPlease reread the post of Mojo to which I replied. It proposes a new reason to support death penalty. It has nothing to do with who decides the intensity of the punishment. And that was exactly the point. I specifically asked: if he supports the attack on society argument, why is he not following other, already existing, systems that use the same argument? What made him stray from them? I can be emotional - I can not imagine a more cruel system than one where the victim decides the punishment. Sharia law at least has consistency. But the point in discussion for me is not to be emotional. I am looking for a logical argument and when I see an inconsistency I need an explanation.
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Mar 23, 2009 11:16:21 GMT -5
I really don't think you should have included that defintion, as it ruins your argument. ALL punishment - whatever the kind - is revenge. There can be no justice. How about: all punishment is an attempt to rehabilitate the perpetrator of the offense? How about the strive to remove "cruel" punishment? While I agree with you, that doesn't address the definition I quoted. Action is taken (jail time) in return for the offense (the crime). Using that definition, there can never be justice - only revenge. Some people may agree with that idea - all prisons are society's revenge on wrong-doers. In a way, I agree with that. Some wrong-doers can't or won't be rehabilitated, leaving revenge as the only reason we're keeping them locked up. (Since it isn't legal to lock someone up for something that MIGHT do, except in cases of conspiracy. But then, we're locking them up for planning the crime - not doing the crime. Conspiracy to commit "crime" is considered a lesser crime than the crime the conspiracy was planning.)
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Mar 23, 2009 11:30:27 GMT -5
erictheblueI think the point of the definition post was to show the difference in spirit between the two words. Both of them address the issue of response to an offence - justice (2) and Revenge (1). So I disagree with your first statement. In response to an offense there can be each of justice and revenge. I certainly understand that semantics is a swampy field and using the idea of "spirit" is ambiguous. Yet the general notion is to attempt to achieve the spirit of justice as opposed to revenge. In the second part of your post you are claiming that wrongdoers can't or won't be rehabilitated. This I addressed in an earlier part of the thread. So I view imprisonment as the condition neccessary to ensure rehabilitation has taken place. This may take very long time, but I view it as possible by the virtue that claiming it is impossible is a null-hypothesis, and as such it can only be refuted and not positively proven.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 23, 2009 14:04:53 GMT -5
dantesvirgilPlease reread the post of Mojo to which I replied. It proposes a new reason to support death penalty. It has nothing to do with who decides the intensity of the punishment. And that was exactly the point. I specifically asked: if he supports the attack on society argument, why is he not following other, already existing, systems that use the same argument? What made him stray from them? I can be emotional - I can not imagine a more cruel system than one where the victim decides the punishment. Sharia law at least has consistency. But the point in discussion for me is not to be emotional. I am looking for a logical argument and when I see an inconsistency I need an explanation. I see what you're saying. But do you also see how saying that just because Sharia law also views crimes as an "attack on society" does not necessarily mean that other systems are anything like Sharia law? Sharia law has vastly different notions of what constitutes an attack on society. It is perfectly plausible that another system could have the same "reason" as Sharia law and look absolutely nothing like Sharia law. Because the systems value different things. There is no reason to think Mojo should follow Sharia law or discredit his idea because of it, because there are so many fundamental differences between it and other systems of justice that his explanation and Sharia have very little in common apart from an "in name only" foundation. Incidentally, you could claim that most systems of justice are designed with "attacks on society" in mind, given that part of what the system is designed to do is keep society cohesive. That doesn't mean it should look anything like Sharia law, even though Sharia wants to keep its societies cohesive as well--the people who want Sharia just want radically different social outcomes. It's the same as saying, well, you and I are both atheist. So why don't you do what I do? We have the same foundation, after all... * Incidentally, I'm not supporting the claim. I'm just pointing out where your criticism might not be valid. I, too, am way too emotional to follow that sort of foundation with any real sense of justice--nor would I want it applied to me if I were on the receiving end of it.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 23, 2009 17:31:05 GMT -5
How about: all punishment is an attempt to rehabilitate the perpetrator of the offense? How about the strive to remove "cruel" punishment? While I agree with you, that doesn't address the definition I quoted. Action is taken (jail time) in return for the offense (the crime). Using that definition, there can never be justice - only revenge. How about this one: the major objective of the law is to prevent crime and it's lesser one, to injure as few people as possible while doing it. Punishment such as jail time significantly deters crime, and also directly prevents criminals who would reoffend from doing so. Furthermore, rehabillitation could create good members out of current criminals, even though we don't give it a chance. No revenge.
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Mar 23, 2009 19:10:30 GMT -5
dantesvirgilI did not propose that Mojo follows Sharia. And there is no doubt different systems exist that use the same attack argument. What probably distinguishes among them is other principles. Be it tradition, religion, perceived damage to society or whatever else there could be. What I rebeled against was a unsubstantiated blanket argument. In the line of thought that crime is damage to society, a major problem is how to distinguish between the severety of different crimes. In the blanket argument it necessarily follows that all crimes deserve the same punishment as all of them are by definition attacks on society. Of course I personally haven't heard of such a system to have ever existed. People have developed much more complicated systems taking into account different principles and factors. There is no uniform, hopefully objective way to ascribe punishment. What I consider as an alternative approach is to start from the idea of rehabilitation. I argue that assigning punishment on the basis of how probable it is to succeed in rehabilitating criminals is a more uniform and objective method than the one discussed above.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Mar 23, 2009 20:59:10 GMT -5
I really don't think you should have included that defintion, as it ruins your argument. ALL punishment - whatever the kind - is revenge. There can be no justice.Actually I feel it helps illustrate that it can be an easy path to shift from justice to revenge. We need a system that can rehabilitate criminals, not just punish them. I mean, what good is a punishment if the one being punished doesn't/can't learn from it? If it's just vindictive, then it's purely revenge and not justice, and as such then has no reason to be in the justice system.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Mar 23, 2009 21:10:38 GMT -5
Looks like I did a pretty decent job of poking a stick at a hornets nest. I hope I didn't ruffle too many feathers, my intention was to see how far this debate/discussion could go. I must say that I'm quite impressed, most of the time it seems to degenerate into 'you're a barbarian' vs. 'you're a bleeding heart' name calling almost instantly. This is way beyond that.
The thing that always struck me about laws and systems of justice is that they all seem to be strictly morals based. I remember leaving my high school law teacher momentarily dumbfounded and unable to reply in a discussion about the death penalty when my retort to his question "what about judeo-Christan morality?" was "what about it?". Basically it came down to if I dismiss your moral construct as being flawed, I can dismiss your entire position as to what is just or in-just.
Does anyone want to take a shot at explaining why their beliefs are right? I know I can't do it, not even for a position I believe, never mind playing devil's advocate. Or is this akin to asking a Christan why they believe in god -- ultimately it comes down to they just do.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 23, 2009 21:30:48 GMT -5
you hornets nest poker, you. I don't think the debate has gotten nasty at all; I think it's quite good so far, actually. I think it's done a lot to clarify positions and such.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Mar 24, 2009 5:12:14 GMT -5
you hornets nest poker, you. I don't think the debate has gotten nasty at all; I think it's quite good so far, actually. I think it's done a lot to clarify positions and such. I didn't mean to imply that this debate has gotten nasty, which re-reading my last post I may have with the 'gotten way beyond this' part. It's poor wording on my part. What I mean is that most times a debate like this amounts to little more than name calling, but we are actually exploring and discussing the issues in depth. Being able to have real discussions is one of the things I really like about FSTDT. What's really cool about the place is that it can be a discussion with somebody half my age or twice my age, and you can expect both posters are going to have really good points.
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Mar 24, 2009 6:59:27 GMT -5
How about this one: the major objective of the law is to prevent crime and it's lesser one, to injure as few people as possible while doing it. Punishment such as jail time significantly deters crime, Do you have stats for this? Not saying you are wrong, just that different studies show different things. Until they are released from jail and can then reoffend. Rehabilitation can work - if the offender is willing to be rehabilitated. I talked to a forensic psychatrist friend of mine about this issue not long ago and that is a widely held premise. Many offenders ARE willing to be rehabilitated, given the right environment and circumstances. Some are not. For them, the best we can do is try to keep them away from situations that would allow them to reoffend. (I'm thinking of child molesters here.)
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 24, 2009 17:15:19 GMT -5
How about this one: the major objective of the law is to prevent crime and it's lesser one, to injure as few people as possible while doing it. Punishment such as jail time significantly deters crime, Do you have stats for this? Not saying you are wrong, just that different studies show different things. What's the murder rate in Somalia or the Congo, or Afghanistan? Where there is no reasonable deterrence from a strong state, the law and the police force? What's the rate in the United States, where there is? Until they are released from jail and can then reoffend. Thee's a very simple solution to that. Rehabilitation can work - if the offender is willing to be rehabilitated. I talked to a forensic psychatrist friend of mine about this issue not long ago and that is a widely held premise. Many offenders ARE willing to be rehabilitated, given the right environment and circumstances. Some are not. For them, the best we can do is try to keep them away from situations that would allow them to reoffend. (I'm thinking of child molesters here.) Hey, I'm not going to argue. But the majority of your prisoners are petty drug users and non-violent thieves. Methinks that there may be a greater chance of rehabilitation for they then, say, Jeffrey Dahmer.
|
|