Subject:
|
Re: Criminal Justice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:38:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
309 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Well, you've tempted me out of my shell again...
Good!
> I just came up with some ideas which may explain our issues with
> justice, especially in these most difficult cases. While I didn't read
> the specific case at hand, from a quick visit to the website, I can
> guess at what the case is about.
>
> Clearly one reason we feel the need to lock someone up and throw away
> the key, or even take their life, is the desire for a safe world where
> no one gets hurt. We feel that if somehow we could remove every "broken"
> person from the world, we would have paradise.
It seems like that's part of it but there is a deeper desire for revenge that
doesn't have a rational basis. I worry that we use the rational need for
safety to mask our desire for retribution.
> So, we come back to the question of what to do with people who don't do
> the right thing. I feel that justice would be best served by
> determining the following things:
It's interesting that you mixed these questions without regard to who is asking
these questions. Sometimes it's a witness, sometimes a cop, sometimes a judge
or juror, and sometimes a legislator. And rarely if ever would one person or
body be asking all those questions. I think I've maintained the spirit of your
questions, but I've reorded and reworded them thus:
1. How must we immediately prevent additional harm?
2. Who was harmed?
3. What actions are the cause of the harm?
4. What is the value of the harm?
5. How can the victim(s) be compensated by the perpetrator(s)?
6. Will a perpetrator repeat this kind of harm?
7. Can a perpetrator be educated to avoid future victimization?
>
> I think that's a complete set of questions which if answered, will show
> the path to justice.
OK, so I'll answer them for the example to which I linked...
1) None needed.
2) The two young children. (Unless you accept that children are chattle.)
3) Administering lethal doses of legal drugs.
4) Immeasurable or complete.
5) They can not be.
6) Probably not.
7) Maybe. Probably the best way is for her to avoid parenting.
So what's the "path to justice?" It seems like she just doesn't need to be
handled at all. Does society have enough stake in her future to require that
she submit to psychiatric care?
> Thinking about these questions does tell me that while I strongly oppose
> the death penalty, I can still conceive of a set of answers which says
> that the death penalty is the best solution.
Like what? The only scenarios that I can generate that are even close to that
leave death as a voluntary option for the perpetrator. But not something that
makes sense to have society impose.
> On the other hand, I don't
> think that I would find very many people who fit in that category. I
> just added question one because I realized that in some situations, that
> is the first question which must be answered. It's the question which
> produces answers which justify deadly force on the spot without trial.
I agree. But those who administer said deadly force (wether private citizens
or police officers) should be held to fairly high standards about the
appropriateness of such actions.
> Note that I do not have "Why was the wrong action taken?" as a question.
> If you are asking this, I don't think you've fully answered the
> questions yet (especially #2 but also #5 will shed some light on
> "why?"). Why may be helpful in healing, but when all the questions are
> answered, I think as much of "why?" will come out as is possible.
I think understanding why is a necessary step in answering whether there will
be a repeat.
> Of course not all wrong actions are worth a deep analysis. Quick answers
> to questions 2-4 will put some cases into a "deal with them quickly and
> move on" bucket (such as simple traffic violations
I'm not sure I buy that traffic violations are even crimes. The questions
(certainly as I've rephrased them, but also as I understood you to mean) apply
only when there is a victim. At best, the road owner is the "victim" during a
speeding incident.
- in such cases, the
> answer to #5 is researched in depth for a wide population by insurance
> companies, the whole experience, even if all that happens is that the
> person is momentarily delayed by a traffic stop, may be enough to
> satisfy #6, and since there is no direct damage associated with the
> incident, #7 is satisfied by the person's insurance rates going up -
This makes it sound like the cops are working for the insurance companies. I
find that idea revolting. (At least until the insurance companies are paying
for them.)
> The answer to #2 may also tell you that you have the wrong person (for
> example the woman who kills her abusive husband), or at least don't have
> all the players (the woman who kills her abusive husband still has taken
> a wrong action, but so did her husband, and probably a bunch of other
> people).
I guess this begs wondering when some degree of shared culpability constitutes
a crime.
> So, what do we do with these baby killers? I really don't think prison
> is the right place for them (at least not the high profile cases of the
> recent past). I don't think sterilization would be appropriate either (a
> reference to current news in Oregon).
I don't see any good coming from imprisoning them. Mandatory sterilization is
a little bit creepy, but far less so than imprisonment. Why do you oppose it?
> As I was going through this analysis, I was also thinking of the
> Palestinians. At least some (probably most) of them are stuck in the
> same "There's no way out." dilemma which we can imagine the mother being
> in.
That's been my stance!
> On the other hand, I do strongly feel that there are people, in
> positions of power, who are cultivating these fears, for their own
> personal gain. Interestingly, I think the same can be said of the
> Israelis. It can also be said about our own law enforcement situation.
> If we truly want to see justice in the world, we should be looking for
> these people in power, and exposing them.
Debunking those who are abusing the masses for personal gain is important, but
at the same time, so it personal responsibility. It's a fine line to draw.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Criminal Justice
|
| (...) The need for revenge is definitely a problem. I think we really need to change our justice system so that one of the purposes of the system is to ask the question: "Are we doing this primarily for the purpose of revenge?" (...) I think more (...) (22 years ago, 20-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Criminal Justice
|
| (...) Well, you've tempted me out of my shell again... I just came up with some ideas which may explain our issues with justice, especially in these most difficult cases. While I didn't read the specific case at hand, from a quick visit to the (...) (22 years ago, 19-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
