4 ms·

Imo there is no political ideology that has a properly self-consistent philosophy for justice. I’ve always considered a part of the issue to be that revenge is

Imo there is no political ideology that has a properly self-consistent philosophy for justice. I’ve always considered a part of the issue to be that revenge is clearly a very important element of the existing system (whether it should be or not), and nobody wants to talk about the importance of revenge, so it just gets thrown on the pile of issues with the justice system that never get talked about.

XorNot 4y ago
I disagree. Victims of assault aren't after "revenge" - they're after safety. The goal of prosecution and jailtime specifically is to ensure that the perpetrator doesn't do it too them again, and to society to ensure the perpetrator doesn't keep doing it. Most victims would prefer absolute assurance the perpetrator cannot come near them again - i.e I suspect if offered "give them jail time" or "force them to stay out of your half of the country, with GPS tracking to ensure compliance" then almost all would choose the latter.
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  You can’t make generalisations about “victims” like that. I’m sure there are victims of crime who don’t care whether their perpetrators are punished or not, but ensuring that a criminal is sufficiently punished for their crimes is a very important element of the justice system. This is plainly obvious, and whether perpetrators are being sufficiently punished is routinely the subject of public controversies. This component of the justice system is entirely about revenge. For every “I just want to move on with my life” victim you can find, there’ll be a dozen court rooms cheering an excessively long sentence, or “I hope you rot in jail” victim impact statements.
  - XorNot 4y ago
    You're simply making a generalization in the opposite direction, and since neither of us is presenting hard statistics you have no special claim here. Perpetrators being insufficiently punished is the subject of controversy because of the nature of the crime: it is not unreasonable to think that someone who murders a person should never be let back out into the community (because they have shown they're a clear and present danger to anyone). The same basic problem exists with rapists: victims fear that the rapist will be released, but more importantly fear that they will either return and re-offend, or re-offend anyway - again, public safety. In both these situations, the actual goal being expressed is "this person makes me feel unsafe, if they are somewhere they literally cannot ever get near to me, then I would feel safe - and so that period of time should be as long as possible". A rapist in jail for 15 years is 15 years they cannot possibly commit another crime against the victim or the community (ignoring the grotesque situation prisons have in that regard as a separate but very valid issue). Controversies over jail time exist due to deficiencies and lack of control over actual safety concerns, and where they do not they exist as absurdities: i.e. murder - permanent deprivation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - somehow being less seriously punished then drug possession - literally no possible impact to anyone except the possessor, and maybe some handwavy indirects surrounding the drug trade.
    - AmericanChopper 4y ago
      I’m not making generalizations at all. You are claiming to have knowledge of the motives of all victims of crime. I am claiming that some victims of crime, as well as some other 3rd party members of society, have a particular motive some of the time, as evidenced by all of the occasions when it becomes a matter of public controversy. I could go and find examples of this, but that would just be a waste of my time, because if you are not prepared to accept that such perfectly obvious events take place every day, then you’re clearly not actually trying to discuss the topic.
- stevenjgarner 4y ago
  I could not agree with you more.
- stevenjgarner 4y ago
  It is not uncommon in my experience for victims to keep on getting victimized by the very prosecution and judicial process that is supposed to be working for them. As an example, during a home invasion the perpetrator came into our home wielding a knife looking to kill a family member (or more). Fortunately the perpetrator was overcome after much physical altercation by multiple family members. In his prosecution the perpetrator was not charged with attempted murder even though that's what he was doing (and yelling). The prosecutor charged him with burglary on the basis that it had the same maximum (25 year) sentence as attempted murder but a much lower burden of proof. So he was more likely to get a prosecution (and career advancement). We did not care if the prosecution was successful. We wanted him charged for what he did, whether it failed in the courts or not. We came away from the experience more feeling like victims from the entire judicial process than from the attempted murder (which we actually did something to thwart). The same type of story gets told over and over again by victims. Punishment is doing nothing for the victims who I know.
  - saghm 4y ago
    > The prosecutor charged him with burglary on the basis that it had the same maximum (25 year) sentence as attempted murder but a much lower burden of proof. Not doubting your story, but this seems like a very weird reason to me; there's no reason they couldn't be charged with both, and it's extremely common for juries to return different verdicts for each charge when a defendant is charged with multiple. I'd be interested to see statistics about whether charging someone with murder along with burglary results in fewer convictions for the burglary charge, because it doesn't seem super obvious that it would be the case; I would think that the idea that the jury could "split" the verdict by convicting on the lesser charge if they were having trouble coming to an agreement and the fact that alleging someone is an attempted murderer is a stronger reprimand than just calling them a burglar would at least somewhat act as a counterbalance to the chance that the jury would decide to render a not guilty verdict on the burglary charge because they doubted the story due to the murder charge.
    - stevenjgarner 4y ago
      No jury. Again it is not up to the victims. Like most prosecutions, it was plea bargained down to a lesser charge (first offense etc). Small district court in a rural US county with population under 20,000, where "everyone" knows "everyone".

XorNot 4y ago

I disagree. Victims of assault aren't after "revenge" - they're after safety. The goal of prosecution and jailtime specifically is to ensure that the perpetrator doesn't do it too them again, and to society to ensure the perpetrator doesn't keep doing it. Most victims would prefer absolute assurance the perpetrator cannot come near them again - i.e I suspect if offered "give them jail time" or "force them to stay out of your half of the country, with GPS tracking to ensure compliance" then almost all would choose the latter.

AmericanChopper 4y ago
You can’t make generalisations about “victims” like that. I’m sure there are victims of crime who don’t care whether their perpetrators are punished or not, but ensuring that a criminal is sufficiently punished for their crimes is a very important element of the justice system. This is plainly obvious, and whether perpetrators are being sufficiently punished is routinely the subject of public controversies. This component of the justice system is entirely about revenge. For every “I just want to move on with my life” victim you can find, there’ll be a dozen court rooms cheering an excessively long sentence, or “I hope you rot in jail” victim impact statements.
- XorNot 4y ago
  You're simply making a generalization in the opposite direction, and since neither of us is presenting hard statistics you have no special claim here. Perpetrators being insufficiently punished is the subject of controversy because of the nature of the crime: it is not unreasonable to think that someone who murders a person should never be let back out into the community (because they have shown they're a clear and present danger to anyone). The same basic problem exists with rapists: victims fear that the rapist will be released, but more importantly fear that they will either return and re-offend, or re-offend anyway - again, public safety. In both these situations, the actual goal being expressed is "this person makes me feel unsafe, if they are somewhere they literally cannot ever get near to me, then I would feel safe - and so that period of time should be as long as possible". A rapist in jail for 15 years is 15 years they cannot possibly commit another crime against the victim or the community (ignoring the grotesque situation prisons have in that regard as a separate but very valid issue). Controversies over jail time exist due to deficiencies and lack of control over actual safety concerns, and where they do not they exist as absurdities: i.e. murder - permanent deprivation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - somehow being less seriously punished then drug possession - literally no possible impact to anyone except the possessor, and maybe some handwavy indirects surrounding the drug trade.
  - AmericanChopper 4y ago
    I’m not making generalizations at all. You are claiming to have knowledge of the motives of all victims of crime. I am claiming that some victims of crime, as well as some other 3rd party members of society, have a particular motive some of the time, as evidenced by all of the occasions when it becomes a matter of public controversy. I could go and find examples of this, but that would just be a waste of my time, because if you are not prepared to accept that such perfectly obvious events take place every day, then you’re clearly not actually trying to discuss the topic.
stevenjgarner 4y ago
I could not agree with you more.
stevenjgarner 4y ago
It is not uncommon in my experience for victims to keep on getting victimized by the very prosecution and judicial process that is supposed to be working for them. As an example, during a home invasion the perpetrator came into our home wielding a knife looking to kill a family member (or more). Fortunately the perpetrator was overcome after much physical altercation by multiple family members. In his prosecution the perpetrator was not charged with attempted murder even though that's what he was doing (and yelling). The prosecutor charged him with burglary on the basis that it had the same maximum (25 year) sentence as attempted murder but a much lower burden of proof. So he was more likely to get a prosecution (and career advancement). We did not care if the prosecution was successful. We wanted him charged for what he did, whether it failed in the courts or not. We came away from the experience more feeling like victims from the entire judicial process than from the attempted murder (which we actually did something to thwart). The same type of story gets told over and over again by victims. Punishment is doing nothing for the victims who I know.
- saghm 4y ago
  > The prosecutor charged him with burglary on the basis that it had the same maximum (25 year) sentence as attempted murder but a much lower burden of proof. Not doubting your story, but this seems like a very weird reason to me; there's no reason they couldn't be charged with both, and it's extremely common for juries to return different verdicts for each charge when a defendant is charged with multiple. I'd be interested to see statistics about whether charging someone with murder along with burglary results in fewer convictions for the burglary charge, because it doesn't seem super obvious that it would be the case; I would think that the idea that the jury could "split" the verdict by convicting on the lesser charge if they were having trouble coming to an agreement and the fact that alleging someone is an attempted murderer is a stronger reprimand than just calling them a burglar would at least somewhat act as a counterbalance to the chance that the jury would decide to render a not guilty verdict on the burglary charge because they doubted the story due to the murder charge.
  - stevenjgarner 4y ago
    No jury. Again it is not up to the victims. Like most prosecutions, it was plea bargained down to a lesser charge (first offense etc). Small district court in a rural US county with population under 20,000, where "everyone" knows "everyone".