So your definition of justice doesn’t allow society to extract compensation or deter future acts? All that you require for justice is that the person is kept locked up?
How is that just?
How did you ascertain this? A person who has never had so much as a speeding ticket before, how did you ascertain that “obviously something is not right”? As with all these idealistic schemes, there’s a massive problem with the little detail of who decides these things. What are your grounds for saying that this man poses any risk at all to society?
So you are seriously arguing that if stores could not prosecute people for shoplifting, the rate of shoplifting wouldn’t increase at all? That if anyone could grab any item off the shelf of any store and openly walk out of the store without paying for it with no penalty whatsoever, then the rate of shoplifting would remain exactly as it is now? You are also arguing that if it weren’t illegal to drive an unsafe vehicle, or drive drunk or any other act at all, then the rates of such crimes would not increase?
If you honestly believe this then you are so far detached from reality that I doubt that anybody here will have much to discuss with you when it comes to justice. This idea that there is no deterrence doesn’t work is real Peter Pan stuff.
Once again, how can you believe this? If someone steals my car, and as a result I lose my $80, 000 a year job and spend a year looking for another, you don’t see how I can be helped by taking $80, 000 and the cost of a replacement car off the perpetrator?
If you really don’t see how that is really going to help then once again, I doubt that anybody here will have much to discuss with you when it comes to justice.
No, you spoke to one small aspect of it. Or don’t you believe that an ability to deter crime and an ability to compensate victims of crime protect society?
That is somewhat scary
It’s surprising that someone over the age of 25 needs to see this, but anyway.
So you seriously believe that when anybody at all can walk into any store in the country and walk out with whatever they like with no punishment at all, there would be no increase in theft?
While I have heard such views expressed by young people before, it astounds me that someone could cling to such beliefs after the age of 25. It is just so obviously incorrect in addition to contradicting all the research and all the examples in world history. The very idea that you could remove all punishments for criminal activities and see no increase in criminal activity borders on lunacy.
No, I don’t misunderstand you. You said they would be locked up until they posed no threat. That is serving time. You may not like that, but that is the fact, and serving time is the correct descriptor.
And you still didn’t answer the question. Since both men had the exact same motivations and will be rehabilitated at exactly the same time, why would one be locked up for longer?
Your belief that without any punishments at all for any crimes crime rates would not rise belies that claim.
Your belief that victims of crime would gain nothing from being compensated for the losses caused by crime belies that claim.
Your belief that punishing people for committing crimes does not reduce the arte of commission of crimes belies that.
All those beliefs are just bizarre and they certainly don’t speak of even an intuitive understanding of the justice system.