4 ms·

You'll notice I said that I mentioned protecting the perpetrator from society... Killing them kind of defeats that. Also, they can't achieve rehabilitation if w

You'll notice I said that I mentioned protecting the perpetrator from society... Killing them kind of defeats that. Also, they can't achieve rehabilitation if we kill them. You focus on the single exception I mentioned to a retribution-based system as though I had not mentioned it as an exception at all. Why is that?

colah 17y ago
Because edge cases and extreme cases often reveal the difference between approaches/strategies/philosophies/ideologies/etc. Our approaches lead us to different conclusions in this case, except for the fact that you look at reality and say that yours shouldn't be applied because in reality mistakes can happen. This is a perfectly valid stance, but it doesn't mean that the point shouldn't be looked at to analyse the differences in our approaches, as this is the most obvious case where they diverge. There's also the fact that capital punishment is where this discussion began.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  it doesn't mean that the point shouldn't be looked at to analyse the differences in our approaches, as this is the most obvious case where they diverge. Wow, I strongly disagree. Our approaches diverge on virtually every case, as far as I can tell. My approach would be to apply the exact damage to the aggressor that they applied to the victim, except where the victim forgives all or part (for monetary "damages" or some other consideration or reason). If a mistake is made, the same procedure can be used to rectify it. This does mean that completely irrevocable damage (that is, death) can't be applied while keeping the property that mistakes can be fixed or paid for. Murder is already an exceptional situation, not like other crimes of violence, due to its finality. As far as I can tell, your approach (along with the vast majority of existing legal systems today) requires sentencing or damages to be decided individually by a third party, rather than by the parties already involved, which seems inelegant. There's also the fact that capital punishment is where this discussion began. Oh. Well, there is something to be said for staying on topic, I suppose. :)
  - colah 17y ago
    >Wow, I strongly disagree. Our approaches diverge on virtually every case, as far as I can tell. That was a poor wording on my part. Make that where they diverge most strongly. >My approach would be to apply the exact damage to the aggressor that they applied to the victim, except where the victim forgives all or part (for monetary "damages" or some other consideration or reason). I'm going to assume your talking about assault. If I'm wrong, sorry. In any case, we can't just let them settle it with a fee to cover damages. The aggressor demonstrated themselves a threat to the Public. Depending on the circumstances, the aggressor will need to spend some time in jail, with a psychologist, doing community service, reporting to a probation officer, et cetra, or most likely a combination of the above, for the protection of society. If there was material damage in addition to that, it is not a criminal matter and can be settled in the way you described. >As far as I can tell, your approach (along with the vast majority of existing legal systems today) requires sentencing or damages to be decided individually by a third party, rather than by the parties already involved, which seems inelegant. As the previous example illustrates, this is only true for criminal matters.
  - nostrademons 17y ago
    Many civilizations have had justice systems that worked exactly like that. "An eye for an eye." In practice, it doesn't seem to work very well. There's a reason why most legal systems today rely on a third party to enforce justice. Civilizations that don't tend to devolve into a cycle of retributive violence, eg. medieval blood feuds in Italy, duels in the Wild West, and lynchings in the Reconstruction South. I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect it's because every action you take not only has its material effects, but it's also taken as a statement of how you want the world to be. So if you steal something, you not only have taken the object, but you've declared that you want to live in a world without property rights. If you rape somebody, you haven't only traumatized her, but you've declare that you want to live in a world where sex can be used as a weapon. If you kill somebody, you haven't only taken their life, but you've declared that you want to live in a world where lives can be taken by conscious action. If someone then does the same thing back at you, they don't just cancel out. Instead, both parties have declared that they want to live in the world where that crime is accepted behavior.

colah 17y ago

Because edge cases and extreme cases often reveal the difference between approaches/strategies/philosophies/ideologies/etc. Our approaches lead us to different conclusions in this case, except for the fact that you look at reality and say that yours shouldn't be applied because in reality mistakes can happen. This is a perfectly valid stance, but it doesn't mean that the point shouldn't be looked at to analyse the differences in our approaches, as this is the most obvious case where they diverge. There's also the fact that capital punishment is where this discussion began.

randallsquared 17y ago
it doesn't mean that the point shouldn't be looked at to analyse the differences in our approaches, as this is the most obvious case where they diverge. Wow, I strongly disagree. Our approaches diverge on virtually every case, as far as I can tell. My approach would be to apply the exact damage to the aggressor that they applied to the victim, except where the victim forgives all or part (for monetary "damages" or some other consideration or reason). If a mistake is made, the same procedure can be used to rectify it. This does mean that completely irrevocable damage (that is, death) can't be applied while keeping the property that mistakes can be fixed or paid for. Murder is already an exceptional situation, not like other crimes of violence, due to its finality. As far as I can tell, your approach (along with the vast majority of existing legal systems today) requires sentencing or damages to be decided individually by a third party, rather than by the parties already involved, which seems inelegant. There's also the fact that capital punishment is where this discussion began. Oh. Well, there is something to be said for staying on topic, I suppose. :)
- colah 17y ago
  >Wow, I strongly disagree. Our approaches diverge on virtually every case, as far as I can tell. That was a poor wording on my part. Make that where they diverge most strongly. >My approach would be to apply the exact damage to the aggressor that they applied to the victim, except where the victim forgives all or part (for monetary "damages" or some other consideration or reason). I'm going to assume your talking about assault. If I'm wrong, sorry. In any case, we can't just let them settle it with a fee to cover damages. The aggressor demonstrated themselves a threat to the Public. Depending on the circumstances, the aggressor will need to spend some time in jail, with a psychologist, doing community service, reporting to a probation officer, et cetra, or most likely a combination of the above, for the protection of society. If there was material damage in addition to that, it is not a criminal matter and can be settled in the way you described. >As far as I can tell, your approach (along with the vast majority of existing legal systems today) requires sentencing or damages to be decided individually by a third party, rather than by the parties already involved, which seems inelegant. As the previous example illustrates, this is only true for criminal matters.
- nostrademons 17y ago
  Many civilizations have had justice systems that worked exactly like that. "An eye for an eye." In practice, it doesn't seem to work very well. There's a reason why most legal systems today rely on a third party to enforce justice. Civilizations that don't tend to devolve into a cycle of retributive violence, eg. medieval blood feuds in Italy, duels in the Wild West, and lynchings in the Reconstruction South. I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect it's because every action you take not only has its material effects, but it's also taken as a statement of how you want the world to be. So if you steal something, you not only have taken the object, but you've declared that you want to live in a world without property rights. If you rape somebody, you haven't only traumatized her, but you've declare that you want to live in a world where sex can be used as a weapon. If you kill somebody, you haven't only taken their life, but you've declared that you want to live in a world where lives can be taken by conscious action. If someone then does the same thing back at you, they don't just cancel out. Instead, both parties have declared that they want to live in the world where that crime is accepted behavior.