eye for an eye

[GePap]

There is a reason Justice is symbolized by someone blindfolded with a sword and a scale:

The person is blindfolded in order to make the decision dispassionately- ie. not to be swawed emotionally by the accused, or by the accuser. It has a scale to find the balance of the crime and to judge fairly what appropriate punishment is-and the sword is a bit obvious.

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.

Saying that Justice is about the maintenance of the social order has **** to do with your notion of collective punishment. The question is how each individual criminal should be treated for thier offense against the social order. That being said, which is why your statement is wrong, your sentiment is partly right- the institutional racism in the US is why black criminals have historically fared so much worse than white criminals, because blacks were seen as a greater threat to society, and thus treated more harshly. If anything, the fact blakcs are treated worse should show you how Justice is about social order and NOT about making victims feel better. The "vioctim must feel better' notion would have nothing to do with the worse treatment of minorities.

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

Yes, correct- but victims might feel very different about the crime against them- lets take the Pope-he personally went to forgive the guy who shot him- if "justice" were about making the victim feel nice, should that man have then been released, cause golly, the victim is fine? NO. Punishment is codified by society, regardless of how the victim feels. MOre proof it is the social order that matters.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kidicious
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.

Yeah, we will, but I find your thesis lacking. The purpose of laws is to protect society first and foremost. Criminal penalties aren't determined on the basis of "gee, what would compensate the victim best?" They're based on what would most protect society from the perpetrator doing it again.

Why not just throw everyone in jail then? Because you have no justification to do so.

Why? Because they haven't committed a crime, duh. As has been said before, it's resonable to assume that a person who commits a crime without punishment will go on to commit more crimes unchecked. Also, punishing people who commit crimes deters others. Punishing everyone wouldn't be much of a deterrant, now would it?

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.

Nonsense. You have it the other way around. Punishing criminals is for the benefit of society, with the added bonus that it might "benefit" the victim.

What if the victim doesn't want the criminal punished? There have been cases where the victims have forgiven those who have wronged them and wanted clemency. Do they get to determine the punishment? Nope, it's still the jurisdiction of the law and courts. So how is that victim "benefitted?"

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.

So if a slutty woman puts herself in a position to be raped, the hurt she receives from the rape is her own fault, eh? Nice to see you'd agree with some of our more neandertal judges.

If the purpose of criminal justice is to give "payback" to people who harm others, then people who do things like unjustly dump their S.O.'s or lie to their friends or steal cabs or whatever should be punished as well, by your logic. You don't seem to have much grasp on why laws are made in the first place. They are made to protect society, not compensate victims.

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

Oh? So speeding tickets are unjust? Tell, me who is the "victim" when you get pulled over for doing 95 mph in a school zone?

You seem to have forgotten that our society is replete with "victimless" crimes. Seatbelt laws, helmet laws, traffic laws, drug laws, etc. I find these more than adequate proof that your notion of the purpose of the criminal justice system is fatally flawed.

[Kidlicious]

...

[Mrs. Tuberski]

You know I said that you do to me you get done back. This was only an emotional feeling that i would not act on. Though I think the criiminal deserves to feel the same pain, its unacceptable to think that society would even inflict it. As for the suggestion the sluuty woman no woman or man deserves to be raped i dont care if they are butt naked running down the street.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
What an absurd notion.

Not so. Fairly means everybody is applied the same standards, procedures, processes, protocols, etc. It means that, if you murder someone and GWB murders someone, the same rules are applied to both of you.