Justice
 

Interesting (long) article

Re: Justice
 

Guess who's going to disagree with this...!!

Which has, at its core, the idea that punishment is more important than rehabilitation. Let's look at some of the things it says:

Excuse me? What is this *obligation*? And what gives the author the right(!) to say that someone else does not have a particular "moral right"?

The woman involved says: †œI want them to stop robbing people, thatââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s the bottom line . . . In an ideal world I would like them to be made aware of the impact theyââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ve actually had on my daughter and, ideally, apologise.ââ ¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�

Now is this *that* far removed from the "retributive justice" that Charles Murray proposes? He suggests that, eg graffiti artists should be made to clean walls and benches, well that's fine by me, society benefits from it.

But, as I've mentioned before, some criminals, when faced with their victims (with, of course, the victim's consent) realise that it's not just "a victim", it's a *real person* that they've hurt and someone who, in other circumstances, could be their friend/ sister/ partner whatever.

Being made to do this and apologise (and not just a simple "oh, sorry..." dismissal) can be a very effective way of putting them off committing further crimes.

If Mr Murray wants "just desserts" maybe he should arrange for a mugger to be mugged themselves, or have their cell phone taken away etc

He continues:

Because the "criminal justice elite" in England have heard plenty of these "get tough" noises from governments before, be it "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" or "short, sharp, shock" and they have seen that whilst political slogans are all very well, these policies just *don't* work.

We have *more* people in jail than ever before, yet violent crime is still rising. So *something* isn't working.

However he advocates a system of "just desserts" that seems to rely on someone being "smart enough" to get it right so it is "just" but not excessive! He carries on by saying how Judges have very little time to decide what is a "fair sentence" but then he appears to want a "blanket sentencing policy" that will give someone their "just desserts"! Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it!

(Kant's "thought experiment" he gives is, IMO, nonsensical. *Why* is this island society going to "disband tomorrow"? Spurious logic states that if you start from a fallacious premise you can prove anything you want to. That assumption sounds fallacious to me!)

More nonsense. *Everyone* is a citizen. They are *all* entitled to the same protections otherwise we have a divisive society be it one law for the rich, one for the poor, or how about one law for the whites, another for the blacks?

If we call ourselves civilised we should *act* civilised, even to those who don't act according to our civilisation's tenets, otherwise we are no better than them and, at worse, hypocrites.

Oh dear, he's trying to put words into other people's mouths! By his argument I am in favour of a "progressive view of justice", but I don't think that "we're all sinners" nor do I justify my arguments with this! More spurious logic.

(I note later how he favours the "Tony Martin" system of justice, something I've written much about elsewhere, so I won't do again here.)

Well, first of all he'd have to completely re-write the English legal system, because it is *not* a "search for the truth", but requires that the prosecution *prove* guilt.

He then goes on, however, to suggest that this "solemn search for the truth" should allow previous convictions to be mentioned *before* sentencing which is an open invitation to subjectivity not objectivity! "If he did it before, he's likely to have done it again" thinks the tabloid reading juror.

Do I trust "juror's good sense"? Hell no! I wish everyone could be as objective as I try to be, but the baying mobs outside courthouses when someone is about to be tried for paedophilia, or those who want to hound Maxine Carr when she didn't have anything to do with the murders that Ian Huntley committed, or those who beat up a paediatrician show just how little "good sense" too many people have.

A "virtue"? It matters not whether the defendant *committed* the crime, it matters only that *someone* is punished for it! (Of course it also means that the person who *actually* did it has just got away scot free!!)

Which is, regrettably, very often the case. Unfortunately the system that he advocates will most likely only make things worse, not better.

It is not simple in concept, it is *SIMPLISTIC*. It seems to think that by casting a big enough net you can catch anything you want and, somehow, by that token, it is "fair". The word "naiive" comes to mind.

Really? So why doesn't he quote figures from *before* 1954? Should we just take it as read that he's right? Well I'm not going to.

The fact is that, even up until the middle of the 20th Century, we lived in a society that was very different from the one we live in now. For him to compare that with the start of the 21st century and try to draw conclusions is about as sensible as comparing apples and oranges.

And here we have the classic conclusion: things were better in the "good old days" so, to make things better now we need to turn the clock back.

Well, Mr Murray, to quote Omar Khayaam:

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it

You may wish for the "good old days" back again, but your solutions have to deal with the world *now* and the world has moved on, so either join with the rest of us who are looking for answers for the *future* or be fossilised with the dinosaurs.

Re: Justice
 

*graham* have_you_met_erolz? *you have* a disarmingly *similar* though_different way of *punctuating* your_missives on here

Re: Justice
 

No, as I've explained before it's just a style I've developed over a decade of various discussion groups and forums.

Re: Justice
 

.. and that has what to do with Justice? ;) Keep that to PM please:)

Re: Justice
 

It is. Justice isn't rehab, it is punishment for the guilty. It would be nice if the person in question rehabilitates, but swift and heavy punishment is the most important part.

Re: Justice
 

A very good point Jerrek.

Actually Jerrek, as you're that side of the pond, you may know better than us, but how has NY's zero tollerance policy affected crime in NY?

Re: Justice
 

I thought you might jump in on this one Graham.....an energetic rebuttal there.
Leaving aside the point by point approach for once, do you, or do you not think that criminals should be punished for their crimes?

Re: Justice
 

I, of course, agree.

Re: Justice
 

The punishment should also act as a major deterrent to others who are thinking of committing the same crime.

When people keep committing the same crime it's an indication that they feel a) that the chances of being caught are negligible and b) that if they do get caught the punishment won't be that bad anyway.

Justice depends on ensuring that there are high rates of detection and swift and heavy punishments for the convicted.

Re: Justice
 

agree there , i think a lot of the problem is that the crims see ppl getting off with ludicrously lenient punishment and think if they got off lightly then so will i , bring back public flogging down the high street , now i wonder if the humiliation would deter them :)

Re: Justice
 

Law makes everyone equial,but Justice goes to the highest bidder :eek:

Re: Justice
 

Re: Justice
 

there was a policy of zero tolerance in middlesbrough for a while , all the decent ppl were well happy with it and it was producing the goods so to speak , then they removed the man ' ray mallon' , total and utter stupidity in my book , nip things in the bud when they are young and it will given time filter in and reduce more serious crime :)

Re: Justice
 

Hence my clause, "swift and heavy punishment." If you're going to tap someone on the wrist, it won't work. Sentencing someone to 10 years for rape is wrong. You might as well release him back into society.

Exactly.


So here is justice for me, and if I'm on the jury panel, this is what I'd want:

- death penalty for: 1st degree murder, rape, kidnapping, treason

- no sentence over 15 years. If it exceeds 20 years, sentence to death instead

- prisoner loses the right to vote for the rest of his life

- all prisoners will pay their own room and rent for as long as they have assets to do so, if they can't, they can be put to work

- unlimited self-defense. End-of-discussion. If the thug ends up dead, so much better. No need for lengthy, crappy appeals to protect the criminals.