6 ms·

What you call "righteous punishment" is just revenge. You want revenge. It is a natural response to being wronged. But that is not justice. And it is no way to

What you call "righteous punishment" is just revenge. You want revenge. It is a natural response to being wronged. But that is not justice. And it is no way to build a society. To be overly cliche, two wrongs do not make a right. The moral use of the penal system is to remove the danger from society, make restitution, and rehabilitate where possible. Those are not always possible. Torturing people held captive is its own crime, and one we are guilty of to a horrifying extent as a nation. To say nothing of the innocent people we subject to these horrors.

next_xibalba 4y ago
> that is not justice. This might be your opinion, but it is definitely not in keeping with any standard or common definition of justice: - https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/1-5-the-purposes-of-punishment/ https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/1-5-the-purpose... - https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/reasons-we-punish https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/reasons-... - https://ua.pressbooks.pub/criminallawalaskaed/chapter/1-5-the-purposes-of-punishment/ https://ua.pressbooks.pub/criminallawalaskaed/chapter/1-5-th...
- hashmap 4y ago
  This is not the argument you think it is - of course the people creating an unjust system will define their own system as just. We know that there are better ways, and appealing to tautology is just sort of burying one's head in the sand. https://www.wbez.org/stories/how-finlands-criminal-justice-system-compares-to-the-us/288505cf-365b-4508-a850-5106f551ce3e https://www.wbez.org/stories/how-finlands-criminal-justice-s...
  - next_xibalba 4y ago
    I am merely pointing out that your personal opinion of "what justice is" does not accord with the principles upon which the U.S. justice system is built (along with many others around the world). Any definition of justice is going to be arbitrary and subjective. I disagree with your definition. I see elsewhere in this thread that you take an absolutist stance with regard to your opinion on how justice should be done, one in which you're unwilling to acknowledge that it is possible to have differing opinions on what justice should be. That's fine. You're just out of sync with the majority opinion. And you will be ineffective in persuading a sufficient number of other people (see also Marjorie Taylor Green, AOC, etc). You also seem to be able to predict the future ("you're on the wrong side of history"). Again, that's fine (I'll take some stock tips if you can make those predictions too). I just disagree. I won't be replying further as your replies suggest to me an inflexibility and intolerance regarding this subject.
    - hashmap 4y ago
      > You also seem to be able to predict the future ("you're on the wrong side of history"). Again, that's fine (I'll take some stock tips if you can make those predictions too). I just disagree. It's not hard, since we see other countries already in the "future" where it's working. You're free to disagree and turn a blind eye. I'm hoping that the people reading will see that this kind of attitude about being resolute that the horrors we inflict on our prisoners both innocent and guilty are good, is itself its own kind of horror. That this attitude will perpetuate the suffering of our fellow Americans. Edit: you dont want my stock tips
Amezarak 4y ago
I disagree. That’s exactly what justice is, providing it is carried about by the state after a fair legal process and not by private feuds. This is also a great way to build a safe and free society, and the fact we’ve gotten away from this is one of the reasons we’re less safe and free - to be “kinder” we’ve installed a surveillance state and horrible bureaucratic systems that provide neither justice nor peace nor freedom, but instead make a mockery of all of them.
- hashmap 4y ago
  You are free to disagree and be in the moral wrong, and on the wrong side of history. There are good examples of much better humanitarian penal systems with far better outcomes in Scandinavian countries that demonstrate this reality well. Returning to the past as you seem to want is just reactionary and does not serve progress.
  - Amezarak 4y ago
    > You are free to disagree and be in the moral wrong, The reason I posted is because you seemed to be unaware other people have different moral value systems. This is the fundamental reason behind a lot of disagreements. Here's the root of it: you think I a morally wrong and I think I am morally right. There is no rational argument to demonstrate that either of us are correct. That's also why you're fundamentally unpersuasive. You're not convincing anyone by making bald assertions of your unsupported moral beliefs. > the wrong side of history. History will go on for a long time, and there is no arc of some sort of moral progress, just shifting social norms changing with historical accidents. This type of argument is particularly unpersuasive and tends to raise people's hackles immediately, because it's a declaration that you are (again, without evidence) so incredibly righteous that history itself will steamroll people who disagree with you. > There are good examples of much better humanitarian penal systems with far better outcomes in Scandinavian countries that demonstrate this reality well. The better outcomes may have nothing to do with the nature of the penal system itself, but wider cultural differences. In fact, this seems much more likely, given the extant differences in US subcultures and demographics. Slicing up the US crime data by economic quintiles and various demographics gives the lie to a lot of arguments. Even excluding the wider cultural comparison, talking about this without evaluating the commonalities between the crimes in questions and aggravating factors between the two countries makes this a really apples-to-oranges comparison.
alex_sf 4y ago
> What you call "righteous punishment" is just revenge. You want revenge. It is a natural response to being wronged. But that is not justice. Says you.

next_xibalba 4y ago

> that is not justice. This might be your opinion, but it is definitely not in keeping with any standard or common definition of justice: - https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/1-5-the-purposes-of-punishment/ https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/1-5-the-purpose... - https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/reasons-we-punish https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/reasons-... - https://ua.pressbooks.pub/criminallawalaskaed/chapter/1-5-the-purposes-of-punishment/ https://ua.pressbooks.pub/criminallawalaskaed/chapter/1-5-th...

hashmap 4y ago
This is not the argument you think it is - of course the people creating an unjust system will define their own system as just. We know that there are better ways, and appealing to tautology is just sort of burying one's head in the sand. https://www.wbez.org/stories/how-finlands-criminal-justice-system-compares-to-the-us/288505cf-365b-4508-a850-5106f551ce3e https://www.wbez.org/stories/how-finlands-criminal-justice-s...
- next_xibalba 4y ago
  I am merely pointing out that your personal opinion of "what justice is" does not accord with the principles upon which the U.S. justice system is built (along with many others around the world). Any definition of justice is going to be arbitrary and subjective. I disagree with your definition. I see elsewhere in this thread that you take an absolutist stance with regard to your opinion on how justice should be done, one in which you're unwilling to acknowledge that it is possible to have differing opinions on what justice should be. That's fine. You're just out of sync with the majority opinion. And you will be ineffective in persuading a sufficient number of other people (see also Marjorie Taylor Green, AOC, etc). You also seem to be able to predict the future ("you're on the wrong side of history"). Again, that's fine (I'll take some stock tips if you can make those predictions too). I just disagree. I won't be replying further as your replies suggest to me an inflexibility and intolerance regarding this subject.
  - hashmap 4y ago
    > You also seem to be able to predict the future ("you're on the wrong side of history"). Again, that's fine (I'll take some stock tips if you can make those predictions too). I just disagree. It's not hard, since we see other countries already in the "future" where it's working. You're free to disagree and turn a blind eye. I'm hoping that the people reading will see that this kind of attitude about being resolute that the horrors we inflict on our prisoners both innocent and guilty are good, is itself its own kind of horror. That this attitude will perpetuate the suffering of our fellow Americans. Edit: you dont want my stock tips

Amezarak 4y ago

I disagree. That’s exactly what justice is, providing it is carried about by the state after a fair legal process and not by private feuds. This is also a great way to build a safe and free society, and the fact we’ve gotten away from this is one of the reasons we’re less safe and free - to be “kinder” we’ve installed a surveillance state and horrible bureaucratic systems that provide neither justice nor peace nor freedom, but instead make a mockery of all of them.

hashmap 4y ago
You are free to disagree and be in the moral wrong, and on the wrong side of history. There are good examples of much better humanitarian penal systems with far better outcomes in Scandinavian countries that demonstrate this reality well. Returning to the past as you seem to want is just reactionary and does not serve progress.
- Amezarak 4y ago
  > You are free to disagree and be in the moral wrong, The reason I posted is because you seemed to be unaware other people have different moral value systems. This is the fundamental reason behind a lot of disagreements. Here's the root of it: you think I a morally wrong and I think I am morally right. There is no rational argument to demonstrate that either of us are correct. That's also why you're fundamentally unpersuasive. You're not convincing anyone by making bald assertions of your unsupported moral beliefs. > the wrong side of history. History will go on for a long time, and there is no arc of some sort of moral progress, just shifting social norms changing with historical accidents. This type of argument is particularly unpersuasive and tends to raise people's hackles immediately, because it's a declaration that you are (again, without evidence) so incredibly righteous that history itself will steamroll people who disagree with you. > There are good examples of much better humanitarian penal systems with far better outcomes in Scandinavian countries that demonstrate this reality well. The better outcomes may have nothing to do with the nature of the penal system itself, but wider cultural differences. In fact, this seems much more likely, given the extant differences in US subcultures and demographics. Slicing up the US crime data by economic quintiles and various demographics gives the lie to a lot of arguments. Even excluding the wider cultural comparison, talking about this without evaluating the commonalities between the crimes in questions and aggravating factors between the two countries makes this a really apples-to-oranges comparison.

alex_sf 4y ago

> What you call "righteous punishment" is just revenge. You want revenge. It is a natural response to being wronged. But that is not justice. Says you.