04-04-2005 13:29									#61
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Agreed with your earlier post, that people liking what you do often has little to do with your morals, however, I think you fail to recall the point about the abortion poster thread.

I support the use of graphic images, even though they are gruesome, because they are the truth. If we can't look at the truth, then perhaps, we ought not to approve of what we are doing.

The only question about doing what you believe to be right regardless of the consequences, is whether you choices impose burdens on other people. It may be right for me to stand up for myself, and get arrested, but if the same ends will be accomplished through other means, then it makes no sense to get arrested.

Now, if there is no alternative other than to break the law to accomplish the goal, than one should be willing to accept the consequences according to the law for doing the right thing.

	04-04-2005 13:53									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

"I think you fail to recall the point about the abortion poster thread. "

?
Wasn't talking about the point of that thread.

	04-04-2005 14:53									#63
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Pekka And Gandhi was a *****, like we've covered it a long time ago. Not a bad person, but definitely not a hero.

Of course Gandhi was no hero . But he was a fantastic leader . He is the first man to have catalysed laziness into a weapon . What was his biggest message - to do nothing ( non-cooperation ) .

Of course this does not work with bullies ( or in personal situations ) . But it does work in making the cost of maintaining a colony like India not worth the benifits - from a British perspective , it was better to leave than to stay . This is where his success lies - getting his way by doing absolutely nothing .

Gandhi himeslf admitted that this would not have worked , say , if the Jews tried it with Hitler . He'd have tried to kill them anyway .

	04-04-2005 22:34									#64
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by DaShi Judged by who?

Outdated in Jewish law, which at least by 200 CE had accepted the notion of monetary compensation for bodily injury. IE it interpretated an eye for an eye as the WORTH of an eye, for an eye.

	04-04-2005 23:07									#65
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Verres Fine, you want me to get graphic? It was rape. Not violent as some of you no doubt see it, but violent to me - ok?

Don't paint everyone the same.

To me, all rape is violent. Period . . . it makes no difference why the victiim submitted . . . . it remains despicable violence.

	04-04-2005 23:15									#66
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Justice has little is anything to do with the "victim". That is why all criminal cases are between the defendant and THE STATE. The criminal jsutice system exists not to make the victim feel nice, nor give them retribution, nor to have any sort of proportionality to punishment- it is in fact designed to maintain the social order- punishment then is based on what is assumed to maintain the social order.

I know people like to talk about how violent criminals get off easy- what about the vast mayority of criminals thought? How is several years in prison for the theft of property at all "an eye for an eye"? If I stole $3000, shouldn;t my wages be garnished for a few months in order to repay the theft? Why is that not the restitution as opposed to spending time in jail while the victim might never see their property ever again?

Or what about putting people in jail for using something on themselves? The notion of eye for an eye does not evenb make sense there, and yet such laws exist.

NO,I do not support eye for an eye-the entire point of the criminal justice system is to end such a practice. More importantly, retribution never actually makes the victim fell safe or whole again. NO external even could ever really do that.

	04-04-2005 23:16									#67
	Remove this text

quote: Gandhi himeslf admitted that this would not have worked , say , if the Jews tried it with Hitler . He'd have tried to kill them anyway .

Actually, he advocated nonviolent resistance for them.

Speaking of which, Orwell had some interesting things to say about Gandhi.

	04-04-2005 23:16									#68
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc Veres - hope you end up OK. I would have been married to a different lady than my current wife except 20 years ago she was raped on campus. She wouldn't even report it because she said if her dad or I found out who did it, we would kill the S*B. What was sad I knew jack about the effects on women - I just knew something was very wrong, because we were just on the edge of being intimate, it had gotten very hot a few times, and suddenly she was like a zombie. I wish now I knew what I didn't then, with counseling and the like we might have made it. I succumbed to her withdrawal and finally gave up. :sad: I hope you are getting counseling and have good support.

I also have dated a victim of rape ( I believe the rapist only got 5 years but thats another topic). It was years after the crime and she had dated and been intimate with others in the intervening years but it was still really big. She couldn't bear to feel trapped or be pinned down and had a pair of pistols under her bed.

I think its one of those things that no one can truly comprehend unless they experience it.

	04-04-2005 23:22									#69
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by aneeshm He is the first man to have catalysed laziness into a weapon . What was his biggest message - to do nothing

That's a pretty ignorant thing to say.

	04-04-2005 23:23									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by GePap Justice has little is anything to do with the "victim". That is why all criminal cases are between the defendant and THE STATE. The criminal jsutice system exists not to make the victim feel nice, nor give them retribution, nor to have any sort of proportionality to punishment- it is in fact designed to maintain the social order- punishment then is based on what is assumed to maintain the social order.

I would have assumed that common knowledge but others arguing here seem to have a different thought process.

A quick question to the crowd, is it not true, that an eye for an eye derives from Hammurabi's code?

	04-04-2005 23:28									#71
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by GePap Justice has little is anything to do with the "victim". That is why all criminal cases are between the defendant and THE STATE. The criminal jsutice system exists not to make the victim feel nice, nor give them retribution, nor to have any sort of proportionality to punishment- it is in fact designed to maintain the social order- punishment then is based on what is assumed to maintain the social order.

Im not sure these are seperate - IIUC the full development of criminal law in England (a small part of the globe, but like many here my orientation toward the common law and its origins is strong) state punishment of criminals, beyond those who directly threatened royal interests, was largely an attempt to provide a substitute for traditional blood feud - ergo the punishment had to be heavy enough that the state could offer it as a true alternative, and ease the repression of blood feuds. Which themselves DID endanger the social order - in other words, while the states goal WAS to maintain social order for its own purpose, that maintenance required the suppression of private blood feud, and given the real limits on state power at the time, this required making victims (or rather their families in the case of murders, where blood feud was more of an issue) satisfied with the punishment, at least to some degree.

Clearly punishment has since evolved, as have attitudes to blood feud, the real power of the state, citizen attitudes toward the state (and their role in it) etc. However I think there is still a degree to which "underpunishment" can endanger the legitimacy of the criminal justice system and encourage remnants of the private blood feud, in terms of vigilante justice. Whether this is consistent or not, reflects an accurate view of the criminal justice system or not, and how it varies across cultures is a complex question.

	04-04-2005 23:32									#72
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by aneeshm Gandhi himeslf admitted that this would not have worked , say , if the Jews tried it with Hitler . He'd have tried to kill them anyway .

Actually he said he'd die with dignity.

	04-04-2005 23:35									#73
	Get a bigger avatar today!

As for the question, revenge is wrong. Period.

	04-04-2005 23:37									#74
	Increase the size of your Attachments

LotM, interesting. So severe sentencing was not so much a preventative measure against potential criminal behavior but moreso a means to curtail vigilantism.

	04-04-2005 23:44									#75
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Clearly punishment has since evolved, as have attitudes to blood feud, the real power of the state, citizen attitudes toward the state (and their role in it) etc. However I think there is still a degree to which "underpunishment" can endanger the legitimacy of the criminal justice system and encourage remnants of the private blood feud, in terms of vigilante justice. Whether this is consistent or not, reflects an accurate view of the criminal justice system or not, and how it varies across cultures is a complex question.

What about Overpunishment?

As for the remnants of private fueds, no system of law can change human beings: people seek revenge in my opinion because what they seek is to rectify as violantion of their power- the criminal in his act humiliated and debased one, made subordinate and weak the victim, and the victim seeks re-enpowerment throught doing the same to the criminal "rehumbling them". The failure of this is of course that in a system of more than two people, you can never really undo the feelings brought forth by the crime itself.

There is also the simple problem of being unable to quantify the payback ofr any crime- for example, given the crme that has been mentioned: what is the correct retribution for rape? Raping the rapist? Killing the rapist? Castrating the rapist? Each of those "solutions" might make sense, though not one of them is at all conclusive, and one may question with all of them the proportionality, which is correct, because in fact it is impossible to ever bring proportionality to such a heinous act- how can the criminal ever really feel the full extent of the pain they caused? And would punishment differ depending on the subsequent feelings of the victim?

	04-04-2005 23:47									#76
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Im not sure these are seperate - IIUC the full development of criminal law in England (a small part of the globe, but like many here my orientation toward the common law and its origins is strong) state punishment of criminals, beyond those who directly threatened royal interests, was largely an attempt to provide a substitute for traditional blood feud - ergo the punishment had to be heavy enough that the state could offer it as a true alternative, and ease the repression of blood feuds. Which themselves DID endanger the social order - in other words, while the states goal WAS to maintain social order for its own purpose, that maintenance required the suppression of private blood feud, and given the real limits on state power at the time, this required making victims (or rather their families in the case of murders, where blood feud was more of an issue) satisfied with the punishment, at least to some degree.

Of course, NIetzsche's take on it was simply that as you pointed out, the state was weak, and the weaker one is, the more seevre the punishments they will meek out.

And how does this system make sense again for property crimes? Theft was punishable by death as well, meaing that stealing a cow and killing a man had the same price on the criminal. Would both crimes lead to the same type of feud?

	04-04-2005 23:56									#77
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by GePap Of course, NIetzsche's take on it was simply that as you pointed out, the state was weak, and the weaker one is, the more seevre the punishments they will meek out. And how does this system make sense again for property crimes? Theft was punishable by death as well, meaing that stealing a cow and killing a man had the same price on the criminal. Would both crimes lead to the same type of feud?

My point was not a direct reaction to weakness, but rather that the state was too weak to stamp out blood feud purely by fiat - the medieval state needed to offer something (to the victims) in return, to get blood feud stamped out. I dont know if that is what FN was thinking of.

I dont know what the punishments for property crimes were in the middle ages, or how that related to blood feud - i suspect though that for a peasant to lose a major piece of livestock may well have been something capable of starting blood feud, as this may have been the difference between life and starvation for many. Increasing use of the death penalty for property crimes in 18th c England had to do with the extreme difficulty of catching a criminal and gaining conviction, and so was a response to a different kind of weakness, that of the criminal justice system vis a vis the alleged perpetrators. A rather different situation than in origin.


Again my point remains, while punishment (in common law countries) has moved far from its medieval roots, and while those roots had everything to do with state interests, it is not quite correct to say that they had nothing do with retribution for victims.

	05-04-2005 00:04									#78
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

quote: What about Overpunishment?

indeed, overpunishment also undermines the legitimacy of the system. I think that is precisely what happened in Georgian England, forex, and some of the applications of the 3 strikes rule in the US today have the same danger.

quote: As for the remnants of private fueds, no system of law can change human beings: people seek revenge in my opinion because what they seek is to rectify as violantion of their power- the criminal in his act humiliated and debased one, made subordinate and weak the victim, and the victim seeks re-enpowerment throught doing the same to the criminal "rehumbling them".

The point (in this case) is not to change the human beings, but to channel their inclinations in a way that is less dangerous to the public order than the private blood feud, vigilante justice, etc. The objection will be returned that this failure to try to change human beings in fact reinforces their undesirable qualities - statecraft IS soulcraft, and with regard to punishment we should (arguably) guide people away from vengeance - does a harsh punishment, esp capital punishment, detract from the tendency to vigilante justice, or does it reinforce blood thirstyness?

quote: There is also the simple problem of being unable to quantify the payback ofr any crime- for example, given the crme that has been mentioned: what is the correct retribution for rape?

We have to decide many difficult issues we cant quantify. We have to do that through democratic dialog and debate.

	05-04-2005 00:09									#79
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Again my point remains, while punishment (in common law countries) has moved far from its medieval roots, and while those roots had everything to do with state interests, it is not quite correct to say that they had nothing do with retribution for victims.

In your own formula, maintaining the social order remains paramount- at most, the victims opinions were sought at a time when the victim's acquiasence to the system was critical given the weakness of the system- ie. in the defense of the social order.

So even by your estimation maintenance of the social order remains paramount, and now that the state need not seek the opinion of a victim directly it has lost meaning.

	05-04-2005 00:13									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ramo As for the question, revenge is wrong. Period.

someone commmits a murder. The situation is unique, he is never going to commit another one again, nor is anyone else in society ever going to copy him. There is no utilitarian reason to hold him in jail for even a day, nor is there reason to fine him. Do we let him go free with no consequence whatsover?

This is a different question from an eye for an eye - an ELEMENT of retribution, saying punishment in some cases must go beyond what pure cost-benefit analysis would indicate (just as in SOME instances it must be LESS - it might work from a CBA POV to execute petty thieves, but it would be unjust because of the disproportion ANYWAY) is NOT the same as saying we must try to EQUATE punishment to victim suffering.

	05-04-2005 00:13									#81
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark indeed, overpunishment also undermines the legitimacy of the system. I think that is precisely what happened in Georgian England, forex, and some of the applications of the 3 strikes rule in the US today have the same danger.

The three strikes laws were placed democratically and remain in power- I see no real popular opposition to them. As for King George- colonists in the Americans suffered less than their counterparts back in the home country- it wasn't your average english peasant who revolted, it was a bunch of middle class merchant types.

quote: The point (in this case) is not to change the human beings, but to channel their inclinations in a way that is less dangerous to the public order than the private blood feud, vigilante justice, etc. The objection will be returned that this failure to try to change human beings in fact reinforces their undesirable qualities - statecraft IS soulcraft, and with regard to punishment we should (arguably) guide people away from vengeance - does a harsh punishment, esp capital punishment, detract from the tendency to vigilante justice, or does it reinforce blood thirstyness?

NO, i does not-this thought goes against the notion of eye for an eye- after alll, the death of the murderer is supposed to quite people down.

quote: We have to decide many difficult issues we cant quantify. We have to do that through democratic dialog and debate.

How can you "democratically debate" that? Anymore than you can democratically debate the meaings of science, or the consequences of industrialization?

	05-04-2005 00:14									#82
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by GePap In your own formula, maintaining the social order remains paramount- at most, the victims opinions were sought at a time when the victim's acquiasence to the system was critical given the weakness of the system- ie. in the defense of the social order. So even by your estimation maintenance of the social order remains paramount, and now that the state need not seek the opinion of a victim directly it has lost meaning.

I can see where you would see it that way.

	05-04-2005 00:18									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by GePap The three strikes laws were placed democratically and remain in power- I see no real popular opposition to them. As for King George- colonists in the Americans suffered less than their counterparts back in the home country- it wasn't your average english peasant who revolted, it was a bunch of middle class merchant types.

I was not speaking of the American colonists, but of a growing sense of discontent in England with the wide spread use of the death penalty. The english judiciary began to shrink from it, by avoiding conviction for crimes that required death, and through royal pardons. The american colonies played a role as a place where criminals spared death could be transported - with the loss of the colonies, England faced a crisis, which was resolved with the establishment of Australia, and eventually with the development (at the instigation of Jeremy Bentham) of the modern penitentiary.


See "The Fatal Shore" by Robert Hughes.

	05-04-2005 00:20									#84
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

quote: The point (in this case) is not to change the human beings, but to channel their inclinations in a way that is less dangerous to the public order than the private blood feud, vigilante justice, etc. The objection will be returned that this failure to try to change human beings in fact reinforces their undesirable qualities - statecraft IS soulcraft, and with regard to punishment we should (arguably) guide people away from vengeance - does a harsh punishment, esp capital punishment, detract from the tendency to vigilante justice, or does it reinforce blood thirstyness?

quote: NO, i does not-this thought goes against the notion of eye for an eye- after alll, the death of the murderer is supposed to quite people down.

So it goes against eye for an eye - so what? Im trying to reflect on the question thoughtfully, not win points for one side or the other in a debate. Thats my general approach to discussing things - sorry if it violates local custom

	05-04-2005 00:24									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by GePap How can you "democratically debate" that? Anymore than you can democratically debate the meaings of science, or the consequences of industrialization?

you debate them by bringing in sources, including experts where necessary, by speaking and listening, etc. To the extent that something like the consequences of industrialization effects public policy (say in terms of the importance of foreign aid) it is necessary for citizens to debate these things. That relatively few citizens debate SOME subjects hardly invalidates this - citizens will always put their limited resources of time and effort toward those issues of greatest salience.

Theres a quote here from John Dewey, but i cant think of it off the time of my head.

	05-04-2005 00:28									#86
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: you debate them by bringing in sources, including experts where necessary, by speaking and listening, etc. To the extent that something like the consequences of industrialization effects public policy (say in terms of the importance of foreign aid) it is necessary for citizens to debate these things. That relatively few citizens debate SOME subjects hardly invalidates this - citizens will always put their limited resources of time and effort toward those issues of greatest salience.

You would get banned from the Democratic Underground for saying such things! I demand you take it back!

Almost sig material, almost... it's just too short.

	05-04-2005 01:17									#87
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by GePap Justice has little is anything to do with the "victim". That is why all criminal cases are between the defendant and THE STATE. The criminal jsutice system exists not to make the victim feel nice, nor give them retribution, nor to have any sort of proportionality to punishment- it is in fact designed to maintain the social order- punishment then is based on what is assumed to maintain the social order.

I suggest that it not be called justice then. Justice means that everyone is treated fairly and gets what they deserve.

	05-04-2005 07:39									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious I suggest that it not be called justice then. Justice means that everyone is treated fairly and gets what they deserve.

What an absurd notion.

	05-04-2005 07:43									#89
	Suffering from ads?

If person A harms person B what the hell does the state have to do with it except to make sure that justice is done. If you are going to call it a criminal justice system than the victim better damn well have something to do with it otherwise it's a criminal injustice system since person A didn't harm the state.

	05-04-2005 07:46									#90
	Increase Your PM Length

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.