Justice or Not?

[kaylasdad99]

I think you meant to say “Sick o’ justice.”

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@kaylasdad99

Oh, and by the way…Please grow up.

No hurry, just – before you ever pick up a weapon.

Ah my memory fails me because the mention of the Miranda Trial in the book I read didn’t mention his retrial.

@gonzomax

Curtis must think someone who kills is necessarily a serial killer. Most people kill in anger and generally kill a friend or relative . They do not follow up by wiping our more people. So they are not a threat to the rest of society. But Curtis running around blowing people away would be. He wants to be a serial killer.

They might not be a threat but I believe that if released they will not have the fear of the law and justice instilled and thus more likely to commit a crime.

@Guinastasia

That “legal triviality” or “crap reason Miranda” is what protects us ALL, including YOU, Curtis, from being wrongfully convicted. It’s called the “Constitution”. You know, that “trivial legal crap?”

Yeah it was a mistake but Miranda shouldn’t have been released and retried. It was quite obvious he was the criminal and the retrial was a waste of time and money.

Besides, when you get caught, will you willingly go to prison?

Not willingly but I would be willing to risk prison for dispensing justice. Also I’d like to note I will only kill a murderer if I saw him commit the murder.

@villa

You know from seeing it happen that it was not self defense? That the perpetrator meets the mental standards to be capable of committing murder?

All you know from seeing the killing happen (if indeed you know this) is that one person killed another. To assume it is murder usurps the legal system.

That sort of thing will probably be revealed in the trial. For instance if the killer really killed for self-defense than he’d say that and not lie that he didn’t kill at all.

@Revenant_Threshold

Aren’t you a Christian? Surely God will provide the appropriate punishment for the fellow after death; too, he is likely to be more accurate, both in determining exact guilt and in providing the most appropriate punishment. On what basis would you put your opinion above God’s?

Than I assume all legal systems are irrelevant. God is God and will do as He sees fit but in this life men must the arbitors of justice.

Too, by taking upon yourself the authority to dispense justice, you put your opinion above society’s as a whole. Even if in this situation every single person in the country believes that the acquitted person is guilty, it is by their approval that the loophole or legal necessity which serves to not convict them is there in the first place. You may well find many people who consider that a person deserves death - but not necessarily as many willing to forgo the rule of law in order to dispense it. By circumventing that, you aren’t fulfilling society’s wishes, you work against them. On what basis would you put your opinion above society’s?

The principles of justice and punishment which like principles of freedom or liberty are not dependent on laws or the opinions of the people.

@whole_bean

First, the word you’re looking for is “then” not “than.” Second, if your only criteria for a “righteous kill” is that you saw the murder happen, then by that same criteria, someone who witnesses you killing the murderer could then kill you for the very same reason - they saw you unlawfully kill someone. I think there is room for a hypo where most would agree that they either would or would consider taking the murderer’s life, but such a scenario has many more qualifiers on it than you are offering.

I will only kill if the murderer does not get a real punishment (ie death or life without parole) after the trial.

[Guinastasia]

@Curtis LeMay

Yeah it was a mistake but Miranda shouldn’t have been released and retried. It was quite obvious he was the criminal and the retrial was a waste of time and money.

So basically, it’s okay to deprive someone of their Constitutional rights if “quite obvious” they’re guilty, eh?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Guinastasia

So basically, it’s okay to deprive someone of their Constitutional rights if “quite obvious” they’re guilty, eh?

If you got a guaranteed pardon? Absotively!

[kaylasdad99]

I’m trying to think back forty years and remember if I was so sure of my own righteousness and unerring ability to discern the demands of true Justice when I was an eighth grader. In all candor, I probably was.

I suppose if I could grow out of it, little Judge Dredd here can.

Curtis LeMay, I note that you only responded to my post #81 (and with contemptuous dismissiveness, at that). Could I trouble you to give me your thoughts on posts 79 and 80, please?

Thanks loads.

[Kobal2]

@Curtis LeMay

The principles of justice and punishment which like principles of freedom or liberty are not dependent on laws or the opinions of the people.

Hum… yes, yes they are. There doesn’t appear to be a set of universal, absolute principles of any kind. We tend to make them up as we go.
Were justice and punishment absolute, there’d need to be a *lot *of new jails built to house thousands of soldiers-slash-murderers, for instance.

@Guinastasia

So basically, it’s okay to deprive someone of their Constitutional rights if “quite obvious” they’re guilty, eh?

Bear in mind that Curtis’s notion of “quite obvious” is fairly large, possibly even all encompassing. Remember, this is the guy who wished to torture people who bear swastika tattoos. So, you know, people who were quite obviously guilty of… something Evil or other.

He might well be the reincarnation of Arnaud Amalric, had he read lots of Judge Dredd and *Punisher *comics. Kill 'em all, let **Curtis **sort them out.

[gonzomax]

Curtis is a scary kid. He wraps himself in the flag and god while advocating war and killing so blithely.

[Guinastasia]

Well, give him time, he’s still young. Hopefully he’ll realize he’s got a lot of maturing to do.

[Argent_Towers]

“I want justice.”

-Karate Dog

[kopek]

@gonzomax

Curtis is a scary kid. He wraps himself in the flag and god while advocating war and killing so blithely.

I’ve got a bad feeling that if we search our memories all of us guys were doing the same at some point in our youth. (At least those of us over 50 and raised in the shadow of the Good War)

[whole_bean]

@gonzomax

No, What kind of sicko would I have to be to want to do that?

I think plenty of sickos of various stripes would, but I can also envision a set of circumstances under which I would. I do not consider myself a sicko of any kind.

[SteveG1]

@Freudian_Slit

No. I don’t believe in vigilante justice. I don’t believe in the death penalty anyway, and I don’t like the effect that the murder could have on me. Like Nietzsche says–when you look into the abyss the abyss looks back into you. I don’t want to become a monster.

And yet, knowing my own nature, even though I agree with what you say, I wouldn’t want to place a bet on either outcome. The honest asnwer to the OP’s question is,

I have no idea what I would do.

[Kobal2]

@kopek

I’ve got a bad feeling that if we search our memories all of us guys were doing the same at some point in our youth. (At least those of us over 50 and raised in the shadow of the Good War)

Then I can be proud to say I didn’t. My desire to kill all the bad men (and orcs) stemmed not from some borderline psycho “justice” or patriotic fetish, much less a religious one*. Rather, the bad men had *killer *loot.

I still think I have the moral high ground, there

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Curtis LeMay

Than I assume all legal systems are irrelevant. God is God and will do as He sees fit but in this life men must the arbitors of justice.

Why must they be? You’ve talked about sinful behaviour before; it seems a fair guess to me that you believe that there is some behaviour that God will reward or punish after we die. And God is a far superior judge of character than we are. It doesn’t take anything out of him to judge, while it may take time and resources for us. And as noted, God’s a perfect judge. So why must men be the arbiters of justice in this life?

The principles of justice and punishment which like principles of freedom or liberty are not dependent on laws or the opinions of the people.

But they are in practical terms dependent on those things. If justice and punishment were entirely independent of practical concerns, then you would not need to intervene. But you feel you do; ergo, the principle alone cannot simply be defended, but the practical implications of that principle, and specifically your interpretation of those implications.

Besides, you don’t think that society has different ideas of what those things mean? You are saying, by taking the law into your own hands, that society at whole is wrong, and that you are right. That you have a better understanding of, a wiser interpretation of, and a more reasonable solution to, these issues. That you are, basically, a much better person than they - a much better person such that your sole opinion is worth more than the opinions of many millions. You claim to follow the principles of justice and punishment? So do they. Why are you certain enough in your (rather egotistic) opinion to kill? What makes you so certain you are such a better person?

[whole_bean]

@Curtis LeMay

Than I assume all legal systems are irrelevant. God is God and will do as He sees fit but in this life men must the arbitors of justice.

Again, man. “Then.” The word you are looking for is “then,” not “than.”

[Bryan_Ekers]

Typo:deckchair :: Curtis’s statements:Titanic.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@kaylasdad99

I’m trying to think back forty years and remember if I was so sure of my own righteousness and unerring ability to discern the demands of true Justice when I was an eighth grader. In all candor, I probably was.

I suppose if I could grow out of it, little Judge Dredd here can.

Curtis LeMay, I note that you only responded to my post #81 (and with contemptuous dismissiveness, at that). Could I trouble you to give me your thoughts on posts 79 and 80, please?

Thanks loads.

Your posts were mainly in jest and there isn’t much to comment on.

@Kobal2

Hum… yes, yes they are. There doesn’t appear to be a set of universal, absolute principles of any kind. We tend to make them up as we go.
Were justice and punishment absolute, there’d need to be a *lot *of new jails built to house thousands of soldiers-slash-murderers, for instance.

War is different from unprovoked murder which is what I’m talking about here. Also what is your religion? Because all religions and most philosophies have moral absolutes.

@Revenant_Threshold

Why must they be? You’ve talked about sinful behaviour before; it seems a fair guess to me that you believe that there is some behaviour that God will reward or punish after we die. And God is a far superior judge of character than we are. It doesn’t take anything out of him to judge, while it may take time and resources for us. And as noted, God’s a perfect judge. So why must men be the arbiters of justice in this life? But they are in practical terms dependent on those things. If justice and punishment were entirely independent of practical concerns, then you would not need to intervene. But you feel you do; ergo, the principle alone cannot simply be defended, but the practical implications of that principle, and specifically your interpretation of those implications.

Than perhaps we should abolish all government, not eat food, not wear clothes and kill ourselves since this life is so “irrelevant”. Remember the Bible also says “Render onto Caesar’s, what is Caesar’s.”

Besides, you don’t think that society has different ideas of what those things mean? You are saying, by taking the law into your own hands, that society at whole is wrong, and that you are right. That you have a better understanding of, a wiser interpretation of, and a more reasonable solution to, these issues. That you are, basically, a much better person than they - a much better person such that your sole opinion is worth more than the opinions of many millions. You claim to follow the principles of justice and punishment? So do they. Why are you certain enough in your (rather egotistic) opinion to kill? What makes you so certain you are such a better person?

Because my belief of justice and punishment is merely the logical extension that most other people are afraid to consider. For instance if I saw an unprovoked murder happen than I know what happened and thus if the courts fail to punish I must do so. However others while they believe this in their hearts do not state in openly for the fear of being called a “lynch mob” or “vigilante”.

[gonzomax]

I do not believe this in my heart. You can only speak for yourself. Do not assume everybody else would think they should have the power over life and death. It would take a warp of values that I do not share.

[kaylasdad99]

@Curtis LeMay

Your posts were mainly in jest and there isn’t much to comment on.

Wow. Just – wow.

All-seeing perfect discernment of justice and its antagonists, and Legilimency too! Are you actually The Shadow, with the ability to see what evil lurks in the hearts of men, and the power to cloud men’s minds?

Seriously, what other superpowers have you got hiding under that cape? Psychokinesis? You could stop the bad guys’ hearts with a thought! Pyrokinesis? You could make them spontaneously combust (really cool method, because you’d be able to guarantee that they get some of the physical suffering you’ve determined they deserve). And you wouldn’t even have to worry about whether the secular authorities were okay with it, because they’d never be able to prove it was you!

[SteveG1]

@kaylasdad99

Wow. Just – wow.

All-seeing perfect discernment of justice and its antagonists, and Legilimency too! Are you actually The Shadow, with the ability to see what evil lurks in the hearts of men, and the power to cloud men’s minds?

Seriously, what other superpowers have you got hiding under that cape? Psychokinesis? You could stop the bad guys’ hearts with a thought! Pyrokinesis? You could make them spontaneously combust (really cool method, because you’d be able to guarantee that they get some of the physical suffering you’ve determined they deserve). And you wouldn’t even have to worry about whether the secular authorities were okay with it, because they’d never be able to prove it was you!

Let’s go with this. Let’s start with the assumption that the bad guy is so evil he deserves it, just for argument’s sake.

What happens, with all these cool powers, when you eventually kill the wrong guy???

That’s why Batman, the Punisher, Dexter, etc should stay in the fantasy world where they belong. In that world, they never EVER make a mistake. They can’t, the writer won’t allow it. Real life doesn’t work that way.