Our closest ally stabs us in the back

[Aristes]

um, 4. justice.

 

taks

If this really is a matter of a public official acting in accordance to his role in office, then the law should definitely account for folks who kills hundreds of people. This isn't some guy who killed someone else in a fit of rage. it's not even someone who murdered his family before being caught and convicted. This is a someone who killed many families worth of people. The sheer number of people killed in the attack puts it on a different level than ordinary crime. I think terrorist acts should be handled differently by the system. Of course, I'm not from Scotland and I'm not related to any of the victims, so I don't have a stake in the fight other than to observe that it is not, as taks said, justice.

 

Justice works the same regardless of what category the crime falls in, anything else would be deeply hypocritical. I agree that to prevent terrorist attacks, you must act differently than when you work to prevent the other types of crime you mentioned.

This is where you lost me. I could follow your arguments elsewhere in your post, but clearly justice demands different punishments for different crimes and for different categories of crimes. I contend that terrorism is fundamentally different from murder in the same way that armed robbery is fundamentally different from murder. It is outright silly to suggest that all categories of crime should be treated exactly the same. That is not justice. I simply have no idea what to call it.

[taks]

Justice is defined by the previous three points.

nonsense. justice has nothing to do with the three points you made. justice is justice. it is paying a debt you owe to society for violating a law that the society has agreed to abide by. justice has nothing to do with rehabilitation, nor making an example out of someone, nor preventing someone from committing further crime. these three things, while potentially accomplished in the act of serving justice, do not in any way define justice.

 

so I don't have a stake in the fight other than to observe that it is not, as taks said, justice.

i said nothing of the sort. i replied that justice is a 4th reason to punish someone - that has nothing to do with the situation at hand.

 

get your facts straight and please quit misattributing my statements. clearly you did not understand what i said nor do you understand the concept of justice.

 

taks

Edited September 5, 2009 by taks

[alanschu]

This is where you lost me. I could follow your arguments elsewhere in your post, but clearly justice demands different punishments for different crimes and for different categories of crimes. I contend that terrorism is fundamentally different from murder in the same way that armed robbery is fundamentally different from murder. It is outright silly to suggest that all categories of crime should be treated exactly the same. That is not justice. I simply have no idea what to call it.

 

 

The concept of equivalent justice doesn't mean the same punishment regardless of the crime. Look at the line that you quoted directly, and Rostere clearly states that he feels different crimes should be acted differently upon.

 

 

If you take it at a higher level though, I can agree with Rostere's statements. One aspect of how justice should be the same is simply the idea you have, of how the punishment should fit the crime. Retribution should be perceived as exceed the potential gain from breaking a law, and that it should come swiftly and decisively.

[taks]

oh, and for the record, the only legal and legitimate reason to punish someone is justice. quite frankly, the three reasons rostere pointed out are all nonsense to begin with.

 

rehabilitation is the result of some liberal fantasy that people committing crimes can be "cured" of such behavior in the future. even on the off assumption that maybe a small percentage of people convicted of crimes do rehabilitate in some fashion, that's not why they were put there in the first place, it is simply something people hoped would happen while the criminals were being punished.

 

making an example out of someone is barbaric and draconian. it is purely revenge, and has no place in justice. we gave that up when we stopped putting people in stocks.

 

preventing them from committing future crimes is, well, silly. the only way this can work in the first place is if they are put away for life or put to death. the only time such a point is even considered is when the original crime is so heinous people are actually afraid to put the criminal back on the streets, which sort of brings us back to the whole justice angle: if the crime was that heinous, the debt owed is large enough that life or death sentences are likely mandated anyway.

 

taks

[alanschu]

Justice is a social construct, and depending on how a society deems justice, could very easily incorporate each of the three things that Rostere pointed out.

[taks]

Justice is a social construct, and depending on how a society deems justice, could very easily incorporate each of the three things that Rostere pointed out.

look up the definition of justice. it does not intentionally incorporate any of the three things rostere pointed out. there is a reason words have definitions: it is so people can communicate ideas using common language.

 

besides, i already noted that some of those things are byproducts of justice.

 

taks

[taks]

and, for the record, rostere did not say justice incorporated those three points, he said it was defined by those three points.

 

taks

[213374U]

look up the definition of justice.

Whose dictionary's/which edition?

[alanschu]

and, for the record, rostere did not say justice incorporated those three points, he said it was defined by those three points.

 

taks

 

 

No, but you did say that his points were nonsense.

 

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justice

 

 

Not sure what looking up the definition does though, nor how it disputes that what a society deems as just is not a social construct that can easily incorporate Rostere's points.

Edited September 5, 2009 by alanschu

[taks]

No, but you did say that his points were nonsense.

they are. they are not intentionally part of any legal reason for punishing criminals, at least not in any developed country, nor are they part of any definition of justice, period.

 

Not sure what looking up the definition does though, nor how it disputes that what a society deems as just is not a social construct that can easily incorporate Rostere's points.

because the freaking word has a real-world definition, and none of rostere's points fit into that definition. that you choose to call it some social construct is immaterial, and rather silly. you can't redefine words simply because you don't like the way they work.

 

taks

Edited September 5, 2009 by taks

[alanschu]

EDIT: Hold on a second.

 

 

This seems to be a semantic argument about Rostere's use of the term "defined by."

 

 

I'll concede that the term justice isn't explicitly defined by Rostere's points. However, the definition of justice doesn't exactly make it clear cut as to what it means. What exactly does justice mean?

Edited September 5, 2009 by alanschu

[Aristes]

so I don't have a stake in the fight other than to observe that it is not, as taks said, justice.

i said nothing of the sort. i replied that justice is a 4th reason to punish someone - that has nothing to do with the situation at hand.

 

get your facts straight and please quit misattributing my statements. clearly you did not understand what i said nor do you understand the concept of justice.

 

taks

Wow, bro, why the harsh?

 

I'll try to make sure I don't mistake your comments again, although the fact is that your own comments defining the situation say that it is not justice. At least that's how I'm reading them. Feel free to make angry posts about how I got it wrong, but if justice is simply justice and none of rostere's points apply, then the alleged reasoning behind sending the guy home is not justice either.

 

I genuinely apologize for putting words in your mouth at any rate. *shrug*

 

The concept of equivalent justice doesn't mean the same punishment regardless of the crime. Look at the line that you quoted directly, and Rostere clearly states that he feels different crimes should be acted differently upon.

 

If you take it at a higher level though, I can agree with Rostere's statements. One aspect of how justice should be the same is simply the idea you have, of how the punishment should fit the crime. Retribution should be perceived as exceed the potential gain from breaking a law, and that it should come swiftly and decisively.

But I would say that terrorism is a different category altogether. At any rate, even within murder, there are a variety of punishments. Even if we counted this as a mass murder, one would expect life without parole, which is what Megrahi received at any rate. I simply think the special clemency should not be an option for the worst categories of crime.

 

I guess we could ask taks. He's the expert. Although, even armed with an online dictionary as he is, I would have to say that the concept of justice and how it works is complex. Having known many lawyers, including my aunt, I would have to say that they sometimes give different answers and those answers might depend on the question and how it is framed. Anyone who claims perfect knowledge is undoubtedly wrong. Of course, taks didn't claim perfect knowledge (so as not to put words in his mouth) but he sure speaks with some authority. Perhaps one of the lawyers who frequent this forum could comment.

 

Once again, I don't have much of a stake in Megrahi or his punishment. In a 'brotherhood of man' sort of way, I think any injustice (we can check with taks as to exactly how to define that) is bad. But We've got enough problems in our own neighborhood for me to worry about what's going on over in Scotland.

 

Seriously, though, while I do think taks is a little overboard on the issue, I don't want to misattribute meaning to folk's statements. It's always a bit difficult when we quote one another simply because it is easy to misread a statement. At any rate, I don't need taks backing me up in the original post. Feel free to excise the sentence refering to what "taks said."

Edited September 5, 2009 by Aristes

[taks]

I'll try to make sure I don't mistake your comments again

sorry, i thought i was quoting rostere. the quote blocks got muddied.

 

although the fact is that your own comments defining the situation say that it is not justice. At least that's how I'm reading them. Feel free to make angry posts about how I got it wrong, but if justice is simply justice and none of rostere's points apply, then the alleged reasoning behind sending the guy home is not justice either.

i wasn't commenting on sending him home. that's what i don't seem to understand... how could that one word reply that i made have such deeper meaning other than "we punish people for justice."

 

rostere said there are three reasons we punish people, and i simply said "4. justice." it had nothing to do with sending this guy home. my personal view is that he should have stayed in the interest of justice, but that's immaterial. i wasn't commenting on that, i was simiply pointing out that justice is why we (civilized nations) punish criminals. that's not a very difficult concept.

 

certainly less civilized, aka, developing, countries punish people for some of the reasons stated. i have no doubt that saddam used punishment to make an example (though i do doubt he ever cared about rehabilitating anyone). i never doubted this nor did i ever state anything contrary. the three reasons rostere posted are ridiculous, and not the point of any civilized legal system. they may be byproducts of justice, e.g., we hope that a criminal gets rehabilitated, which i clearly admitted (yet nobody seems to have read), but they are not the point of justice, nor are they part of the definition of justice.

 

Seriously, though, while I do think taks is a little overboard on the issue

how am i overboard?

 

and, for the record, i don't claim to be an "expert" at "justice," i simply understand the english language and i know what the word means. i do not redefine words simply to suit my point of view or because i want to find an idiotic nit to pick with someone. the word justice has very specific meaning in the context of what i replied to. not one of rostere's three points is part of that definition, period. how anyone can say otherwise is beyond me. words have specific meanings on purpose so that people can communicate intelligently with one another and not have to worry about these moronic diversions over semantics.

 

i should add, if you were upset that i harshed you (for which i have since apologized), don't follow up with subtle insults expecting me to respond kindly. given that i've never treated you like a troll (and vice versa), you could at least give me the benefit of the doubt and wait for a response before taking full offense at my statements. that said, i do tend to respond harshly when someone misattributes what i've said. there are serial perpetrators of this, and i do not consider you one of those. again, sorry.

 

taks

Edited September 5, 2009 by taks

[alanschu]

i was simiply pointing out that justice is why we (civilized nations) punish criminals

 

Is it?

 

 

What exactly does "justice" mean?

[taks]

and, for the record, rostere, since i did direct my "harsh" in your direction in response to a quote that i had muddied, sorry.

 

taks

[Aristes]

No, no, I wasn't baiting you, dude. I've always liked you to be honest. Just giving you a hard time and I expect a little hard time to be honest.

 

Anyhow, carry on, guys. I'm going to read for a while instead.

[taks]

gotcha, thanks.

 

taks

[Rostere]

When I made my statement regarding justice, I thought to deconstruct the idea of punishing someone into it's most fundamental components. I define "punishment" as the active coercion of an individual (or entity, for example a corporation) by the state. But, let me take a second look at that if we're to discuss this more in- depth. I stated that:

1. To prevent them for doing further harm, 2. To make an example out of them [i.e. making sure that crime does not pay. This category may include compensating the victim of the crime] and finally 3. To eventually rehabilitate them.

is the purpose of punishment. taks replied to this first with:

um, 4. justice.

indicating that there exists a fourth reason to punish people, justice, while I maintain that justice is, in practice, defined by my three reasons for punishing someone. Furthermore, you state that:

 

justice has nothing to do with the three points you made. justice is justice. it is paying a debt you owe to society for violating a law that the society has agreed to abide by. justice has nothing to do with rehabilitation, nor making an example out of someone, nor preventing someone from committing further crime. these three things, while potentially accomplished in the act of serving justice, do not in any way define justice.

 

I must therefore conclude our argument with a question.

 

From Webster's Online Dictionary:

Justice

Noun

1. The quality of being just or fair.

 

2. The administration of law; the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments; "justice deferred is justice denied".

 

3. A public official authorized to decide questions bought before a court of justice.

 

4. The federal department responsible for enforcing federal laws (including the enforcement of all civil rights legislation); created in 1870.

 

When I wrote justice, meant 1. If you're talking about the same definition, then it means you wrote that "being just or fair" has nothing to do with rehabilitation of criminals, making sure crime does not pay or preventing someone from committing further crime. Do you really believe that making sure crime does not pay is not a just cause? That would be quite absurd, so I must assume you mean definition 2, 3 or 4. So, according to you, the fourth (and as you write later, the ONLY) reason we punish criminals is:

 

a. Because of the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments (which whould be kind of strange: "The sole reason for punishing someone is because of the act of punishing someone")

b. Because of a public official authorized to decide questions bought before a court of justice

c. Because of the federal government

 

Alternatively, you can of course quote a different encyclopedia. Since I am not a native speaker (with no significant schooling in English), it would perhaps be too much to ask from me to participate in discussions about definitions of English words.

 

[Revenge] has no place in justice.

 

Words of truth! To draw an analogy, all punishments are chosen for society at large to become a better place to live in, not only because of the feelings of the victims. That is why I think it is vain and illogical in respect to justice that the relatives of the Lockerbie victims should have more to say about the punishment of the alleged terrorist than anyone else. They must obviously be biased.

 

Preventing [criminals] from committing future crimes is, well, silly. The only way this can work in the first place is if they are put away for life or put to death.

 

I hope you do not also promote eugenics and eat little kittens. Let's calm down and think a little, I'm sure you don't actually mean what you're writing. Basically, you're saying that you should either execute or incarcerate all criminals for life (which I must assume is not, according to you, a viable alternative), or not do anything at all (since my idea of preventing crime is only nonsense). Still you maintain justice as a "legal and legitimate" reason for punishing someone. So, you defend a system of punishment for crime which you yourself think has no impact at all on deterring criminals from crime. Or are you saying we should do away with all punishment whatsoever?

 

This is where you lost me. I could follow your arguments elsewhere in your post, but clearly justice demands different punishments for different crimes and for different categories of crimes. I contend that terrorism is fundamentally different from murder in the same way that armed robbery is fundamentally different from murder. It is outright silly to suggest that all categories of crime should be treated exactly the same. That is not justice. I simply have no idea what to call it.

 

Accusations of murder and armed robbery are both tried in the same (type of) courts. I feel strongly that is not outright silly that those crimes are treated the same in that way, which is why I responded to your original statement that:

 

I think terrorist acts should be handled differently by the system.

 

following that line of thought. If you instead meant that terrorism should be punished differently, I'd say that punishment with regards to points 1 and 3 must differ between every unique crime (as they are classified by the legal system), not just terrorism/everything else.

[213374U]

because the freaking word has a real-world definition

Nah. Justice has a foundation in ethics, and those are pretty plastic.

 

"Red" refers to the visible radiation with an associated wavelength between X and Z nm (too lazy to look up the actual numbers). That is a real world definition. "Justice" isn't any more real than "honor" or "piety".

[Walsingham]

Um... guys... er... like... I just gave you proof from a senior Labour cabinet minister that it was done to serve oil interests, not any definition of justice. I'm not making thsi crap up. I used to vote Labour.

[213374U]

You actually sound surprised?

 

edit: um, yeah. Pretty shocking that they admitted to it, though.

Edited September 5, 2009 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

You actually sound surprised?

 

I do, actually. I don't gad about adopting cynical poses to try and look more in the know. So I don't begin by assuming all government is crap. In any case the mere fact that this was so obviously going to be public made me think that a deal of that nature couldn't have been on the cards. However it would seem that yet again I have underestimated the capacity of Gordon Brown's camarilla to foul things up.

 

Viz:

 

1. Gordon Brown goes to Afghnistan and tries to convince the country that our engagement and success there is vital.

2. Working with the US is vital to our effectiveness in AF.

3. We just took a huge steaming poop on our working relationship with the US.

[Gorgon]

You don't get off after killing a plane full of people, I mean what kind of message does that send. However...

 

Does the director of the FBI usually involve himself in political debate, make statements to the press about what he thinks about this and that and justice in general. You would think as a federal employee he would be forbidden to say anything even remotely likely to influence foreign relations.

[taks]

Nah. Justice has a foundation in ethics, and those are pretty plastic.

no, jeesus... it has a definition, look it up. i can't even believe that i have to argue this point.

 

so, by this idiotic logic, when i call you all retards for making me debate this, don't get offended because i really mean "people who wear nice shoes."

 

taks

[taks]

is ANYONE capable of reading?

 

rostere... please read my statements and look at the definition of justice. justice is not "defined by" your three points. justice has its own definition just as rehabilitiation has its own definition.

 

we punish people to serve justice, period. your other three reasons for punishment are byproducts of serving justice. other, less civilized, nations may punish people for the reasons you cite, but that does not change the definition of justice.

 

i have already stated, in multiple places, that rehabilitation is often a goal, but that is not justice in and of itself. did you even bother to read when i said that?

 

i also stated that making an example out of someone often occurs, but it is not part of any civilized legal system. did you read that?

 

i also stated that prevention is rarely a goal simply because it only works for life and death sentences - people get out of prison otherwise. did you read that?

 

none of these is justice. by serving justice and making criminals pay their debt to society, they may get rehabilitated, they may not be able to commit crimes in the future if we execute them, and they may even be made an example of to other would be perpetrators of similar crimes. i said that, too, or are you incapable of gleaning that from my posts?

 

reading comprehension. clearly the most lacking of skills in society and, IMO, part of the reason that people say such stupid things. nobody understands anybody anymore because they make up their own terminology on the fly.

 

taks

Edited September 6, 2009 by taks