Justice or Vengence

It doesn’t require they lock him or her up. It requires they try to resolve the issues at hand. Try to help him rehabilitate. Locking someone up does not do that.

I didn’t ascertain this. It is my speculation. It would be an expert in psychology would would ascertain it.

I am not saying that nor am I suggesting that. Obviously without any repercussion it would increase. I guess what I really meant was

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. May I ask what direct experience you have with the legal system?

This currently happens all the time. Litigation is entirely a different matter.

SO you are saying no one will debate me because my opinion differs from their’s? Hmmm.

Not believing in something is still speaking to it and as far as I know compensation is not part of sytem that deals with breaking laws. That would be litigation.

How so?

I have no access and am not going to pay for access for that. All the reports I have looked into have questionable methodology or assumptions, but for this one I can’t tell without access.

Again there are repercussions and I have not seen the evidence.

It is not serving time. Serving time is simply being locked up for a specific time as that is what is proscribed. I am talking about active rehabilitation with no set time.

You are still looking at is as a set time. Current jails and prisons do really no rehabilitate. They lock people up until they have served their time. I am suggesting active rehabilitation until they are rehabilitated.

They simply differ from common opinions and that does not make them wrong.

I see.

I suggest simply doing more harm is not the best approach. I agree it is better that vigilante justice, feuds or killings that often proceeded it.

From a philosophical standpoint fairness is the foundation of any concept of justice. (We may quibble about what is fair or unfair.) If something is unfair, then, by definition, it is not just. From a practical standpoint if the state is going to have a monopoly on criminal justice then it has a responsibility to ensure fairness. If it fails to do so there are several practical problems.
#1: If punishment is overly lenient then people will lose confidence in the justice system and will start taking the law into their own hands. If I know the hypothetical murderer of my wife is likely to receive a sentence of only one or two years in prison then I will have no qualms about serving my own year or two in prison after I murder him. Worse yet, it might be easy to get a bunch of people in the neighborhood together to have a good old fashioned lynching.

Moderators: I am not advocating vigilante justice nor do I advocate any form of extra-legal executions. I am simply illustrating a point.

#2: If the punishment is overly harsh then people will lose confidence in the justice system and might just start ignoring all the laws. During Prohibition and the years leading up to it many juries simply refused to convict violators of the law because the punishment was so harsh for what they viewed as an innocuous activity. If someone was looking at 20 years for stealing bicycle I wouldn’t vote for a conviction no matter how damning the evidence was. I’m not sending someone to prison for that long for a relatively minor infraction.

So in your system of Justice a man who murdered his wife wouldn’t be locked up, he wouldn’t be fined, he wouldn’t be asked to pay compensation.
Again, I am waiting for you to explain in what way this is just to either the victim or her family and friends or society in general.

And how would they do that?

So you do believe that deterent punishment is an important function of the justice system.

So you’ve already pulled back a hell of along way from your initial assertion that punishment isn’t part of an effective justice system.

I didn’t make the statement o ascertain whether I was entitled to an opinion. I made the statement to gauge whether you had any concept of how your ideas would work out in real life. The answer appears to be “No”.

So litigation isn’t a part of your justice system either?

This gets better and better. No fines, no imprisonment, no compensation, no danger of being sued.

Why exactly would people avoid committing crimes under your system?

No, I am saying that it is impossible to debate someone when they won’t even agree on basic premises. You don’t believe that provision of compensation should be part of a justice system, you don’t believe that punishment should be part of it. You don’t believe that a man who murders his wife should be locked up or punished in any way.

At this stage your concept of justice is so divergent from that of anyone else that debate becomes effectively impossible.

So you really don’t believe that litiagtion is part of the justice system?

Because you have the vote.

Not my problem if you can not do the research.

So all the reports disagree with you, and they all have questionable methodology.

Well since you apparently have no evidence and I have it all, I guess that my case carries the debate, no?

I have shown you the evidence. How about you pony up the evidence that supports your position that removing all punishments has no effect on crime rates. I really would pay money to see that.

Are they locked up or not? If they are locked up they are serving time

  1. No I am not looking at it as set time. I specifically said that.

  2. Since both men have the exact same motivation and both will be rehabilitated at the same time, why will they not both be released on the same day?

No, it is the contradiction of the evidence and the inability to support them with logical argument that makes them wrong.

What is missing from the OP are the concepts of making restitution for one’s actions and deterrent. The man who murders his wife may not be a threat to society (unless presumably he gets murdously angry at someone else), however he has permenantly wronged two people by killing them. How does he make restitution for that in any meaningful way?