5 ms·

> Law doesn't seek to punish Then who is tasked with delivering justice to the victims?

n4r9 1y ago
Must justice include punishment? If someone hits me, I'd much rather they take responsibility, apologise, and work on themselves to become a better person, than simply get locked up for a while.
- philipallstar 1y ago
  Those are not the only two options that they can choose from. And being hit is a very minimal example. Would you say the same for rape? No punishment required; just apologise and work on yourself?
  - thih9 1y ago
    You skipped the “take responsibility”. In case of a more serious crime a simple apology is indeed not enough. But it should still be possible to proceed with something more productive for everyone than putting the perpetrator behind bars. As you say, there are many options.
    - philipallstar 1y ago
      Take responsibility is just a euphemism, though. For some people that is someone going behind bars. What do you actually mean?
      - lostlogin 1y ago
        Apply the same thought process to ‘punishment’. Those who spend a lot of time in prison seem to come out worse and reoffend. How is that helpful?
        rat9988 1y ago
        I don't know, if somebody kills my child, I don't know why you'd expect me to be helpful to him.
        n4r9 1y ago
        Even to prevent them continuing to kill someone else's child later?
        lukan 1y ago
        A death sentence would certainly prevent this person from killing another child. (Whether a death sentence is good for society in general is a different question)
        esafak 1y ago
        It would not be good for a deceased either, especially if they are wrongly convicted.
        lukan 1y ago
        Indeed, but it would also be not good to be wrongly sentenced to life in prison. Once inside, chances to get out with a retrial are pretty slim. Fatal misstakes are bad in any situation.
        philipallstar 1y ago
        This sort of thinking always misses that part of the reason for punishment is deterrent of others.
        n4r9 1y ago
        I think most people who commit a crime either do it in the heat of the moment, or believe that they're very unlikely to get caught. The distant prospect of punishment doesn't apply in either case. I guess there are some edge cases. Drug smugglers for example are probably aware of the rough probability of detection and weigh it up against the length of jail time. But I reckon Sarkozy thought he'd just get away with it and didn't even consider what the potential punishment would be.
      - n4r9 1y ago
        It's not a hard and fast definition, but generally involves: * An honest acknowledgement of ones behaviour and its impact on others. * Accepting the consequences of your behaviour, whether legal (such as going to jail), financial, or personal. * Taking the initiative to make amends where possible. * Taking steps to improve oneself and/or prevent the same behaviour in future.
- SirMaster 1y ago
  If the only repercussion for assault is they need to apologize and "work on themselves", then what's stopping more people from committing assault? There needs to be punishment.
  - n4r9 1y ago
    I don't think that people are stopped from committing assault by an abstract risk-benefit calculation that considers the likelihood of jailtime. It's not what stops me, at least. Mostly I just don't want to. And even if I do want to hit someone, I know that that fleeting temptation doesn't accord with my fundamental values; I'll feel bad afterwards. I'm intimately aware that they might retaliate, or that I might accidentally kill them (or vice versa). It just doesn't feel worth it because I've been socialised to weigh up those odds. But the distant prospect of jail time feels abstract and harder to socialise into people in the heat of the moment.
    - amiga386 1y ago
      You're not a remorseless psychopath, though. Some people are. For a nuanced discussion, the Illustrated Guide to the Law is an excellent introduction. Here's the section on Punishment: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=41 https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=41 It ends with the summary "The State punishes those who commit crimes partly in the hope of preventing future offenses (via rehabilitation, deterrence, and removal)... partly to restore a sense of balance and fairness (via retribution)... and partly because fuck you, that’s why (retaliation)"
      - n4r9 1y ago
        But... the section on deterrance pretty much aligns with what I just said above: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=114 https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=114 Namely that it is unlikely to factor into people's decision-making process - and when it does, the extent of the punishment makes little difference. Slightly disappointed to wade through slides of challenging handwriting to find that it wasn't saying much more :/
  - 9dev 1y ago
- triceratops 1y ago
  Depending on how hard they hit you, the extent of your injuries, and the circumstances surrounding the assault (premeditated or not, provoked or unprovoked), why not both lock them up and have them work on themselves?
nevon 1y ago
What you are referring to is vengeance, not justice. Some people see the two as inseparable and others do not.
- rat9988 1y ago
  Sure, then who is reponsible for vengeance if not law? And why vengeance is not part of justice, this is not clear here.
  - 9dev 1y ago
    Because vengeance has never done anyone any good. You never feel better after getting vengeance, just hollow. Thus, a good legal system should strive to provide justice, not vengeance.
    - I-M-S 1y ago
      Have you ever distributed vengeance so you can personally speak how you felt? Or are you mindlessly repeating strings of words that are supposed to go together like an LLM?
      - 9dev 1y ago
        I don't have to justify to you, random internet stranger. I have made my share of experience, and read a fair bit about that of others, in history and literature; and I'm confidently standing behind my opinion.
    - lukan 1y ago
      What is "justice"? To use the example from a sibling comment, if a person kills a child and the father kills this guy out of vengeance .. it will do those children good, who can now live in safety afterwards from that person. But if in reality the murderer also had family who did not believe he murdered anyone in the first place now set out to seek justice/vengeance, then yes, it becomes a war .. which is why we have courts and police nowdays, but what justice is, is still rather arbitarily defined. Concretely it means enforcing the law. And laws are written by people.
carefulfungi 1y ago
The core point of organized justice is to prevent blood feuds and long-running inter-personal or tribal conflict. Essentially, to interrupt or prevent a cycle of violence. Justice is reaching consensus on a set of facts and then ascertaining an appropriate compensation. That compensation can include a loss of freedom, a monetary payment, mandated service hours, or historically - torture and death. But what matters is a process that is broadly seen as a fair assessment and compensation sufficient to prevent revenge by the impacted parties. Justice as prevention is secondary - and arguably ineffective - or we'd have no crime, no recidivism, no addicts, nobody acting with obviously negative personal outcomes.
- mothballed 1y ago
  Systems that seek to reduce conflict and compensate victims did not historically make much use of imprisonment. For a modern look at this, look at the xeer system of Somalia, where victims will almost always prefer payment/compensation over punishment. Imprisonment is largely an invention of the state, as they push victims and inter-personal conflict aside, and rather use their tools to subordinate the citizen to the order of the state and then charge the victim taxpayers the cost of imprisonment and funnel the money into their buddies running and working the prisons.

n4r9 1y ago

Must justice include punishment? If someone hits me, I'd much rather they take responsibility, apologise, and work on themselves to become a better person, than simply get locked up for a while.

philipallstar 1y ago
Those are not the only two options that they can choose from. And being hit is a very minimal example. Would you say the same for rape? No punishment required; just apologise and work on yourself?
- thih9 1y ago
  You skipped the “take responsibility”. In case of a more serious crime a simple apology is indeed not enough. But it should still be possible to proceed with something more productive for everyone than putting the perpetrator behind bars. As you say, there are many options.
  - philipallstar 1y ago
    Take responsibility is just a euphemism, though. For some people that is someone going behind bars. What do you actually mean?
    - lostlogin 1y ago
      Apply the same thought process to ‘punishment’. Those who spend a lot of time in prison seem to come out worse and reoffend. How is that helpful?
      - rat9988 1y ago
        I don't know, if somebody kills my child, I don't know why you'd expect me to be helpful to him.
        n4r9 1y ago
        Even to prevent them continuing to kill someone else's child later?
        lukan 1y ago
        A death sentence would certainly prevent this person from killing another child. (Whether a death sentence is good for society in general is a different question)
        esafak 1y ago
        It would not be good for a deceased either, especially if they are wrongly convicted.
        lukan 1y ago
        Indeed, but it would also be not good to be wrongly sentenced to life in prison. Once inside, chances to get out with a retrial are pretty slim. Fatal misstakes are bad in any situation.
      - philipallstar 1y ago
        This sort of thinking always misses that part of the reason for punishment is deterrent of others.
        n4r9 1y ago
        I think most people who commit a crime either do it in the heat of the moment, or believe that they're very unlikely to get caught. The distant prospect of punishment doesn't apply in either case. I guess there are some edge cases. Drug smugglers for example are probably aware of the rough probability of detection and weigh it up against the length of jail time. But I reckon Sarkozy thought he'd just get away with it and didn't even consider what the potential punishment would be.
    - n4r9 1y ago
      It's not a hard and fast definition, but generally involves: * An honest acknowledgement of ones behaviour and its impact on others. * Accepting the consequences of your behaviour, whether legal (such as going to jail), financial, or personal. * Taking the initiative to make amends where possible. * Taking steps to improve oneself and/or prevent the same behaviour in future.
SirMaster 1y ago
If the only repercussion for assault is they need to apologize and "work on themselves", then what's stopping more people from committing assault? There needs to be punishment.
- n4r9 1y ago
  I don't think that people are stopped from committing assault by an abstract risk-benefit calculation that considers the likelihood of jailtime. It's not what stops me, at least. Mostly I just don't want to. And even if I do want to hit someone, I know that that fleeting temptation doesn't accord with my fundamental values; I'll feel bad afterwards. I'm intimately aware that they might retaliate, or that I might accidentally kill them (or vice versa). It just doesn't feel worth it because I've been socialised to weigh up those odds. But the distant prospect of jail time feels abstract and harder to socialise into people in the heat of the moment.
  - amiga386 1y ago
    You're not a remorseless psychopath, though. Some people are. For a nuanced discussion, the Illustrated Guide to the Law is an excellent introduction. Here's the section on Punishment: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=41 https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=41 It ends with the summary "The State punishes those who commit crimes partly in the hope of preventing future offenses (via rehabilitation, deterrence, and removal)... partly to restore a sense of balance and fairness (via retribution)... and partly because fuck you, that’s why (retaliation)"
    - n4r9 1y ago
      But... the section on deterrance pretty much aligns with what I just said above: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=114 https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=114 Namely that it is unlikely to factor into people's decision-making process - and when it does, the extent of the punishment makes little difference. Slightly disappointed to wade through slides of challenging handwriting to find that it wasn't saying much more :/
- 9dev 1y ago
triceratops 1y ago
Depending on how hard they hit you, the extent of your injuries, and the circumstances surrounding the assault (premeditated or not, provoked or unprovoked), why not both lock them up and have them work on themselves?

nevon 1y ago

What you are referring to is vengeance, not justice. Some people see the two as inseparable and others do not.

rat9988 1y ago
Sure, then who is reponsible for vengeance if not law? And why vengeance is not part of justice, this is not clear here.
- 9dev 1y ago
  Because vengeance has never done anyone any good. You never feel better after getting vengeance, just hollow. Thus, a good legal system should strive to provide justice, not vengeance.
  - I-M-S 1y ago
    Have you ever distributed vengeance so you can personally speak how you felt? Or are you mindlessly repeating strings of words that are supposed to go together like an LLM?
    - 9dev 1y ago
      I don't have to justify to you, random internet stranger. I have made my share of experience, and read a fair bit about that of others, in history and literature; and I'm confidently standing behind my opinion.
  - lukan 1y ago
    What is "justice"? To use the example from a sibling comment, if a person kills a child and the father kills this guy out of vengeance .. it will do those children good, who can now live in safety afterwards from that person. But if in reality the murderer also had family who did not believe he murdered anyone in the first place now set out to seek justice/vengeance, then yes, it becomes a war .. which is why we have courts and police nowdays, but what justice is, is still rather arbitarily defined. Concretely it means enforcing the law. And laws are written by people.

carefulfungi 1y ago

The core point of organized justice is to prevent blood feuds and long-running inter-personal or tribal conflict. Essentially, to interrupt or prevent a cycle of violence. Justice is reaching consensus on a set of facts and then ascertaining an appropriate compensation. That compensation can include a loss of freedom, a monetary payment, mandated service hours, or historically - torture and death. But what matters is a process that is broadly seen as a fair assessment and compensation sufficient to prevent revenge by the impacted parties. Justice as prevention is secondary - and arguably ineffective - or we'd have no crime, no recidivism, no addicts, nobody acting with obviously negative personal outcomes.

mothballed 1y ago
Systems that seek to reduce conflict and compensate victims did not historically make much use of imprisonment. For a modern look at this, look at the xeer system of Somalia, where victims will almost always prefer payment/compensation over punishment. Imprisonment is largely an invention of the state, as they push victims and inter-personal conflict aside, and rather use their tools to subordinate the citizen to the order of the state and then charge the victim taxpayers the cost of imprisonment and funnel the money into their buddies running and working the prisons.