3 ms·

It's essential not because there is more scrutiny, but because it's wrong to allow it to continue. It's essential for both reasons. As you correctly point out

It's essential not because there is more scrutiny, but because it's wrong to allow it to continue. It's essential for both reasons. As you correctly point out, it's important to end abuses simply by virtue of the fact that they are abusive and illegal; but it is also important to end practices which bring the justice system into disrepute, since the very functioning of the justice system relies upon the trust which society places upon it. This is a case where both the facts and the public perception thereof are important.

nickff 11y ago
So maintaining the 'justice system' is an ends in itself? Why should I care whether or not the government has a particular department? Your argument seems to presume that the 'justice system' is good, or that it needs to be kept around for some other reason.
- cperciva 11y ago
  So maintaining the 'justice system' is an ends in itself? Not an end in itself, but I'd say it's a very important component in maintaining an ordered society. Whether you consider that to be a worthwhile end may depend on your political leanings; I'm a Canadian, and where the US constitution exhorts the "blessings of liberty", ours speaks of "peace, order, and good government".
  - nickff 11y ago
    My political leanings are skeptical; it seems to me that the objectives of the police and prosectors are (respectively) to preserve the police and the prosecutors. When crime increases, the police say they are underfunded and overworked, while prosecutors call for additional funding and powers. When crime goes down, they claim it is thanks to their intelligence and dilligence. Both groups are also known for avoiding being held responsible when they fail at their jobs (such as by shooting unarmed people who happen to also be naked, or convicting the innocent through fraudulent evidence).[1][2] Are the police and prosecutors really focused and achieving the maintenance of an ordered society, or are they just keeping their jobs? [1] http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/us/georgia-officer-fatal-shooting/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/us/georgia-officer-fatal-shoot... [2] too many citations to put here
    - cperciva 11y ago
      I never said that I thought we should protect every individual member of the justice system. Quite to the contrary, I think preserving and enhancing the public trust in the justice system requires that individuals who have acted abusively are not protected.
      - nickff 11y ago
        My point was not that there have been individual failures, but that the 'justice system' is plagued by a lack of accountability, misaligned incentives, and entire organizations who do not feel any obligation to the citizenry.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- tbrownaw 11y ago
  So maintaining the 'justice system' is an ends in itself? Why should I care whether or not the government has a particular department? There needs to be a systematic and reasoned standard way for people to have redress of grievances, which does not take things to excess. Having this be handled by the government seems to be a reasonably good solution. Having people handle things themselves isn't reasoned or systematic or standardized and does tend to excess, and is bad for everyone. As tends to be demonstrated fairly clearly every time it happens. If the current system of having the government handle this collapses or loses people's trust -- assuming this isn't due to some better system being implemented -- it would only leave people to handle things however they feel, and would be rather harmful.
- Frondo 11y ago
  You don't need to care, but if you're going to suggest that a country (or state or city or whatever) doesn't need a justice department, you'd do well to show us a country/state/city without one, and how well they're doing.

nickff 11y ago

So maintaining the 'justice system' is an ends in itself? Why should I care whether or not the government has a particular department? Your argument seems to presume that the 'justice system' is good, or that it needs to be kept around for some other reason.

cperciva 11y ago
So maintaining the 'justice system' is an ends in itself? Not an end in itself, but I'd say it's a very important component in maintaining an ordered society. Whether you consider that to be a worthwhile end may depend on your political leanings; I'm a Canadian, and where the US constitution exhorts the "blessings of liberty", ours speaks of "peace, order, and good government".
- nickff 11y ago
  My political leanings are skeptical; it seems to me that the objectives of the police and prosectors are (respectively) to preserve the police and the prosecutors. When crime increases, the police say they are underfunded and overworked, while prosecutors call for additional funding and powers. When crime goes down, they claim it is thanks to their intelligence and dilligence. Both groups are also known for avoiding being held responsible when they fail at their jobs (such as by shooting unarmed people who happen to also be naked, or convicting the innocent through fraudulent evidence).[1][2] Are the police and prosecutors really focused and achieving the maintenance of an ordered society, or are they just keeping their jobs? [1] http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/us/georgia-officer-fatal-shooting/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/us/georgia-officer-fatal-shoot... [2] too many citations to put here
  - cperciva 11y ago
    I never said that I thought we should protect every individual member of the justice system. Quite to the contrary, I think preserving and enhancing the public trust in the justice system requires that individuals who have acted abusively are not protected.
    - nickff 11y ago
      My point was not that there have been individual failures, but that the 'justice system' is plagued by a lack of accountability, misaligned incentives, and entire organizations who do not feel any obligation to the citizenry.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
tbrownaw 11y ago
So maintaining the 'justice system' is an ends in itself? Why should I care whether or not the government has a particular department? There needs to be a systematic and reasoned standard way for people to have redress of grievances, which does not take things to excess. Having this be handled by the government seems to be a reasonably good solution. Having people handle things themselves isn't reasoned or systematic or standardized and does tend to excess, and is bad for everyone. As tends to be demonstrated fairly clearly every time it happens. If the current system of having the government handle this collapses or loses people's trust -- assuming this isn't due to some better system being implemented -- it would only leave people to handle things however they feel, and would be rather harmful.
Frondo 11y ago
You don't need to care, but if you're going to suggest that a country (or state or city or whatever) doesn't need a justice department, you'd do well to show us a country/state/city without one, and how well they're doing.