Subject:
|
Re: Criminal Justice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Aug 2002 02:58:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
336 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
> > 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.
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?"
> > 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:
I think more people should be asking these questions.
> 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.)
The two children are clearly the primary victims, but there are numerous
secondary victims (other family members, the children's friends and
teachers, etc.
> 3) Administering lethal doses of legal drugs.
> 4) Immeasurable or complete.
> 5) They can not be.
Well, the secondary victims could be compensated.
> 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?
I think there does need to be some action taken, but I agree that I have
a lot of sympathy towards just letting people in this type of case move
on with life, so the action taken need not be very intrusive. I think an
injunction against parenting, or possibly even any close involvement
with children would be in order until a psychiatrist certifies that she
has met certain conditions (and if she's willing to accept the
limitations on interactions with children, and chooses not to get
psychiatric care, then fine). After that, I'm willing to see the
incident be on permanent record, and let future employers and fathers
decide for themselves if the risk is acceptable.
> > 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.
What about a prisoner who repeatedly attempts escape, especially killing
a few people on the way? What about a prisoner who inspires others to
try and break him out? I think there are a very few people who
demonstrate so much disdain for life that I am willing to consider the
death penalty.
> > 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.
Absolutely. Any death should be investigated to the point that we assure
ourselves that justice is served. I'm even inclined to think that most
self defense killings should result in a trial (though perhaps a civil
trial on the part of the deceased's family).
> > 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.
Oh, I think why comes out in several questions. I'm just not sure it
should be a primary question, but maybe it should be.
> > 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.
Most traffic violations certainly are victimless, but I don't think I
want a world where the speed limits are purely suggestions, and you need
only be concerned when you cause damage. Wrong actions should be
addressed before they cause harm. Of course in Libertopia, obeying
traffic rules becomes a contractual obligation with the road owner and
the insurance company, and their violation will generally only result
civil legal action.
> - 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.)
Well, in Libertopia, the correct people would be paying for the traffic
rule enforcement... In today's world, the acting road owner is paying
for the enforcement, which doesn't seem unreasonable (though the
insurance companies should probably also be paying, but then perhaps
they do since the state regulates their rates).
> > 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.
Hmm, as I think about this, I wonder if Libertopia has any criminal law
at all? Could everything be handled by civil law?
In today's less perfect world, the system generally seems to say that
only those who take direct action are criminally liable. But then, why
do people get charged as accessories after the fact (or before the fact)
just for giving the criminal a ride or shelter? What about the guy in
the current news in Oregon who is being charged (with manslaughter?)
because he picked up his drunk friend from the police station and
dropped him off at his car, where the drunk then went off and killed
someone (and himself?) in an accident?
> > 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?
Well, in Oregon's case, it wasn't done with informed consent. In Oregon
it was often a condition of being released from a mental hospital (and
there was little burden of proof that the person even really belonged in
the hospital in the first place). As an informed choice, one of several,
I think I could agree with it.
I think my biggest problem with it is that it isn't reliably reversible
if one decides later that one was wrong about the reasons for imposing
it.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Criminal Justice
|
| (...) Good! (...) 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. (...) It's interesting that you mixed (...) (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
|
|
|
|
