Justice

[Ramrod]

Interesting (long) article

for practical purposes, society can be divided into citizens and outlaws. In conflicts between them, the law should favour the citizens.

In the first half of the 20th century Britain had one of the freest societies ever created, and at the same time one with such extraordinarily little crime that the civility of British life was an international clichÃÃâ€*’©. The professionalism of the British police and the fairness of British courts set standards for the world. It was not a perfect system, but perfection is not what complex governmental systems can aspire to.

By any realistic measure, British criminal justice was superb. Its philosophical core was what I have been calling retributive justice, applied consistently and without apology. Isnââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t it time for its return?

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

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Interesting (long) article

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

Padel and her daughter have the moral right and perhaps a spiritual obligation to forgive the muggers. They do not have the moral right to abrogate the communityâ₠¬â„¢s obligation to punish wrong behaviour.

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:

last week I argued that the criminal justice elites in England resist get-tough policies on crime, and that this opposition explains why the practice of criminal justice has changed much less than the flurry of new legislation and policies would lead one to expect.

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.

The reality is that nobody is smart enough to get justice right when attempting to balance the factors that progressive justice tries to balance.

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!)

for practical purposes, society can be divided into citizens and outlaws. In conflicts between them, the law should favour the citizens.

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.

The progressive view of justice vehemently rejects this notion, starting instead from the premise that we are all sinners.

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.)

The state of being an outlaw also implies reduced rights during the judicial process. The principle to be upheld is that the judicial process is not a game but a solemn search for the truth

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.

If we admit prior criminal records in testimony, are we not conflating the defendantâ₠¬â„¢s character with his guilt for the crime in question? In the case of defendants with many prior arrests and convictions, yes †â€� but this is a virtue, not a defect.

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!!)

As the debate stands, citizens are in effect held hostage to threats by the outlaws (â₠¬ÃƒÆ’…“If you put me in prison, Iâ₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢ll just become a worse criminalââ‚à ƒâ€šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�).

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

Retributive justice is not only simple in concept, it is simple to implement.

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.

In the first half of the 20th century Britain had one of the freest societies ever created, and at the same time one with such extraordinarily little crime that the civility of British life was an international clichÃÃâ€*’©.

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.

By any realistic measure, British criminal justice was superb. Its philosophical core was what I have been calling retributive justice, applied consistently and without apology. Isnââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t it time for its return?

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.

[Nikko]

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

Originally Posted by Nikko

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

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

[Steve H]

Originally Posted by Nikko

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

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

[Jerrek]

Which has, at its core, the idea that punishment is more important than rehabilitation.

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.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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.

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?

[Ramrod]

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?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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.

I, of course, agree.

[ntluser]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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.

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.

[paulyoung666]

Originally Posted by ntluser

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.

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

[luftys]

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

[Ramrod]

January 25, 2004 (The Times)

There are times when it becomes clear that the pendulum has swung too far. It happened in Britain in the 1970s, when weak politicians and overpowerful trade unions dragged the country to near disaster. And it has happened again in recent years in the balance between criminals and victims. Tony Blair promised in his most famous soundbite to be tough on crime and tough on the causes. The reality, as everybody knows, is quite different. Detection rates for most crimes in Britain are low and violent crime keeps increasing. Victims of burglary know the futility of trying to get the police to come out, let alone try to catch the criminal. The main function of police officers seems to be to provide the victim with an insurance number. Even when criminals are caught (and they have to be unlucky), punishments handed out by the courts are often lenient.
Why is there this schism between what most people regard as natural justice and what is actually happening? The truth, as Charles Murray, the American social scientist, revealed last week in this newspaper after extensive interviews, is that the legal establishment is irrevocably liberal and does not believe that prison works. He discovered that these views are so entrenched that Mr Blairââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s idea of getting †œtough on crimeââ‚ƚ¬Ã‚ÂÂÂ� was never an option. Today Mr Murray takes his theme further. What is the appropriate response of the criminal justice system to a violent mugger or serial burglar? Is it to understand what drives him to his crime and to find his hidden motives? The criminal justice elite would say yes, preferring to focus on the prime ministerââ‚à ƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s †œcauses of crimeââ‚ƚ¬Ã‚ÂÂÂ�. But some people become criminals, some do not. There is no hard and fast rule, even among siblings. While it is both morally rewarding and financially sensible to head young people away from crime, the state must be prepared to punish those who harm others. The audience for BBC Radio 4â₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢s Today programme shocked the corporationâââ€Å ¡Ã‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s sensibilities by calling for a †œTony Martin lawââ‚Âà ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�, which would give householders the right to use any means necessary to defend their homes. The Today audience was reflecting a growing view of a public that is exasperated by police inaction, feeble sentencing and a system so far tilted in favour of the criminal as to provide no deterrent.


A retribution-based criminal justice system would go a long way towards correcting this imbalance. It does not mean that every criminal would go to prison. The retribution for minor crimes should be relatively mild punishments †� indeed, new evidence suggests that too many motorists guilty of minor offences are being sent to prison. But a graffiti vandal caught spraying paint on a park bench, for example, would be made to clean several park benches. The important thing is that he would not go unpunished. The one certain direction of causation is that minor offences lead to major ones. David Blunkett, the home secretary, is under fire because he wants to increase the prison population by a few thousand. Mr Murray points out that if crimes carried the same degree of prison-based retribution as 50 years ago, the prison population would have to increase by 200,000. Prison works, to coin a phrase familiar to the Tory leader who was vilified when he was home secretary. If that means building more prisons to protect victims, so be it.

There will be many who criticise Mr Murray's proposals. Allowing juries access to a suspect's record might stop repeat offenders going free, but would there be sufficient safeguards to prevent too easy a route to convictions? There will be those who say that increasing the prison population would simply create schools for crime. That provides criminals with an easy way to blackmail society ÃÃâ€*’â€Ë Å“ "If you put me in prison, I'll just become a worse criminal." To which the answer is: "Not while you're inside you won't."

The thing about retribution-based criminal justice, about genuinely getting tough on crime, is that it works. In New York and now Los Angeles, crime has been reduced by zero tolerance policing and tough sentences. People in Britain are crying out for that to happen here. And they are not getting it from our criminal justice system.

[paulyoung666]

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

[Jerrek]

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

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.

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.

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.