eye for an eye

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Person A harming person B with impunity would indeed harm the state, which is why the state dispenses justice. Anarchy is harmful to any state, after all.

That's like saying that person C is harmed because person B did business with him and his business suffered. That's ridiculous.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kidicious
That's like saying that person C is harmed because person B did business with him and his business suffered. That's ridiculous.

Um, no. See, the state encompasses everyone, we're all a part of it. So persons A and B are both part of the state. Person B is not part of person C.

You seem to be ignoring/dodging the point, however. Allowing people to harm other people with impunity harms society. Since the role of government is to protect society, then the conclusion is pretty damn obvious as to why justice is about society, not the victim.

[Pekka]

aneeshm, yes, great leader. I'm not saying he was a bad person either. No no.. he was pretty good. Yes..

[Mrs. Tuberski]

So I guess most agree that person c, the state cant treat person a the same way as person b treated person a

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Um, no. See, the state encompasses everyone, we're all a part of it. So persons A and B are both part of the state. Person B is not part of person C.

The state is just the state. I think you are confusing it with society. It doesn't really make sense to talk about society here. If society hurts society is it justice if society hurts society again?

You seem to be ignoring/dodging the point, however. Allowing people to harm other people with impunity harms society.

I'm not ignoring that. I agree with it.

Since the role of government is to protect society, then the conclusion is pretty damn obvious as to why justice is about society, not the victim.

Justice /= protection. Justice is the peace of mind that those who harm you can not do so with impunity at least where there are laws against it.

[Ramo]

Justice is whatever you happen to believe would be the moral resolution to the given situation. You believe that means revenge, while I believe that revenge is unjust.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The state is just the state. I think you are confusing it with society. It doesn't really make sense to talk about society here. If society hurts society is it justice if society hurts society again?

Huh?

The state is the political representation of society. At least in a democracy, the state is by and large a mirror of the values of societies. So seperating the state from society is not really kosher. Even less so is separating the criminal justice system from society. It's inextricably linked.

Justice /= protection. Justice is the peace of mind that those who harm you can not do so with impunity at least where there are laws against it.

Justice serves one overarching purpose: To protect society against those who would do it harm. That it gives victims "solace" that their harmers will be punished is a part of that package, but it's not the real goal. If a punishment that would give solace to a victim is egregiously cruel and unusual, then it would actually harm society and therefore be anathema to true justice.

That's the problem with basing punishment on what the victims feel. Human beings are wildly different in their emotional responses, and cannot be relied upon to each be fair in his behavior towards someone who has wronged him. The only way to proceed is to make justice uniform and dispassionate to what the victim wants done. It is what society wants done that matters to the mission of the justice system.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo
Justice is whatever you happen to believe would be the moral resolution to the given situation. You believe that means revenge, while I believe that revenge is unjust.

The only thing that gives you the right to harm a person is that they have harmed you. What else is there? If person A steals from person B the only reason person has to seek recovery is that person A has harmed him.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Huh?

The state is the political representation of society. At least in a democracy, the state is by and large a mirror of the values of societies. So seperating the state from society is not really kosher. Even less so is separating the criminal justice system from society. It's inextricably linked.

No they aren't. If I commit a crime against an individual I commit a crime against society. That doesn't mean that I've commited a crime against the state. Society is seperable into individuals the state is not. If I commit a crime against an individual or individuals I'm only responsible to society in the sense that I'm responsible to those individuals. I can't be held responsible to those individuals whom I haven't harmed so I can't be held responsible to society in general.

Justice serves one overarching purpose: To protect society against those who would do it harm.

No. The overall purpose is to make things fair. Fairness is cental to justice.

That it gives victims "solace" that their harmers will be punished is a part of that package, but it's not the real goal. If a punishment that would give solace to a victim is egregiously cruel and unusual, then it would actually harm society and therefore be anathema to true justice.

That's the problem with basing punishment on what the victims feel. Human beings are wildly different in their emotional responses, and cannot be relied upon to each be fair in his behavior towards someone who has wronged him. The only way to proceed is to make justice uniform and dispassionate to what the victim wants done. It is what society wants done that matters to the mission of the justice system.

I'm not proposing that the victims get to choose the punishment, only that the criminals are punished. If the victims were allowed to choose the punishment that would be an injustice because punishment would be distributed unfairly.

[Ramo]

The only thing that gives you the right to harm a person is that they have harmed you.

Why does being harmed give me the right to harm that person?

What else is there?

Protecting the freedom of society. Previous behavior is the best predictor we have for future crime, so that's why we can justify locking up criminals. In addition, in some cases, locking criminals up can deter other criminals.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo

The only thing that gives you the right to harm a person is that they have harmed you.

Why does being harmed give me the right to harm that person?

The person who harmed you obviously did so for some benefit. Therefore they owe you just as if they had used your work. If you will feel better that they are punished for there actions that that is payment.

What else is there?

Protecting the freedom of society. Previous behavior is the best predictor we have for future crime, so that's why we can justify locking up criminals. In addition, in some cases, locking criminals up can deter other criminals.

Predicting future crimes is no justification for punishment. You might say that reckless people are more prone to break the law, and by that reason I should be thrown in jail because I'm a rock climber. You have no justification to do that because I haven't harmed you in any way.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kidicious
No they aren't. If I commit a crime against an individual I commit a crime against society. That doesn't mean that I've commited a crime against the state.

The state is the mechanism by which society is defended. It's a part of society. So when you commit a crime against society, it is the state's role to step in. You can't separate them.

Society is seperable into individuals the state is not. If I commit a crime against an individual or individuals I'm only responsible to society in the sense that I'm responsible to those individuals. I can't be held responsible to those individuals whom I haven't harmed so I can't be held responsible to society in general.

This is based on the erroneous assumption that the purpose of justice is to make victims feel better. It isn't. It's to protect society from people who we know cause harm to others. Justice is about preventing crime from happening. It's method of doing this is to punish and restrain offenders so that they can't hurt people again and so others are deterred from committing crimes. That's it.

No. The overall purpose is to make things fair. Fairness is cental to justice.

Fair treatment under the law is central to justice. All that means is that people are treated equally once they are in the justice system.

Justice has no interest in enforcing fairness outside the bounds of the law. Otherwise you would have courts punishing people who dumped their exes because their actions "harmed" them.

I'm not proposing that the victims get to choose the punishment, only that the criminals are punished. If the victims were allowed to choose the punishment that would be an injustice because punishment would be distributed unfairly.

Right, but what you are proposing is that our system is based on punishment because it's "doing right" by the victim. That's what we're arguing--I say it's no such thing. The system is based on protecting society from those who would cause it harm, not delivering retribution on behalf of aggreived parties.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The state is the mechanism by which society is defended. It's a part of society. So when you commit a crime against society, it is the state's role to step in. You can't separate them.

The reason why the state punishes is because society is more orderly that way, not because the state or society has been harmed. We'll just have to agree to disagree about that.

This is based on the erroneous assumption that the purpose of justice is to make victims feel better. It isn't.
It's to protect society from people who we know cause harm to others. Justice is about preventing crime from happening. It's method of doing this is to punish and restrain offenders so that they can't hurt people again and so others are deterred from committing crimes. That's it.

Why not just throw everyone in jail then? Because you have no justification to do so. The victims pain, created by the criminal, is the only thing that gives the state justificaton to punish the criminal and it is only justified in doing so to benefit the victim. Of course, they benefit society in doing so because everyone enjoys a just, safe, and orderly society.

Fair treatment under the law is central to justice. All that means is that people are treated equally once they are in the justice system.

Justice has no interest in enforcing fairness outside the bounds of the law. Otherwise you would have courts punishing people who dumped their exes because their actions "harmed" them.

Breaking up with people is not a crime. If they are hurt it's their own fault for being in the relationship in the first place.

Right, but what you are proposing is that our system is based on punishment because it's "doing right" by the victim. That's what we're arguing--I say it's no such thing. The system is based on protecting society from those who would cause it harm, not delivering retribution on behalf of aggreived parties.

Of course it's based on doing right by the victim. Without victims you can't justifiably punish people. That's called injustice.

[Ramo]

Predicting future crimes is no justification for punishment. You might say that reckless people are more prone to break the law, and by that reason I should be thrown in jail because I'm a rock climber. You have no justification to do that because I haven't harmed you in any way.

Being a rock climber in no way makes you a probable danger to society.

and I don't agree with your idea of justice.

The person who harmed you obviously did so for some benefit. Therefore they owe you just as if they had used your work. If you will feel better that they are punished for there actions that that is payment.

So if someone steals my savings, if he returns it, he shouldn't be punished? And what if reventge doesn't make me feel any better?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo

Predicting future crimes is no justification for punishment. You might say that reckless people are more prone to break the law, and by that reason I should be thrown in jail because I'm a rock climber. You have no justification to do that because I haven't harmed you in any way.

Being a rock climber in no way makes you a probable danger to society.

But if risk takers were proven to generally be a danger to society you think that would justify imprisoning them? Why not just round up every young black male in the getto and throw them in prison. Is that justified? You and I know that many of them are going to commit crimes so they are a danger to society.

The person who harmed you obviously did so for some benefit. Therefore they owe you just as if they had used your work. If you will feel better that they are punished for there actions that that is payment.

So if someone steals my savings, if he returns it, he shouldn't be punished? And what if reventge doesn't make me feel any better?

Punishment is still justified because justice requires that everyone be treated equally. Therefore everyone who breaks the law is subject to the same punishment.