"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"....?

Cyracuz wrote:

But it is the way of the coward: Fight the man who scares you instead of dealing with your fear. So we run to the battlefields. An easier war than the one in our hearts.

So if I were to kill a person who wronged me would you be alright with that?

0 Replies

Not if I was him. But I would not wrong you in such a way that you would want to kill me.

Why do you ask me if i'm all right with that? If your pride needs it, then kill him, but don't claim sainthood over it. Don't think yourself better in any way than the person you killed.

That is a core issue in this discussion. By ignorance we become what we set out to defeat. If you can live with that, fine by me, but don't claim that it is justice. Its not.

I am willing to chance this. If I am killed by some maniac on the street, then so be it. I refuse to let animals deprive me of my humanity.

0 Replies

What the heck are you talking about?

Sainthood? Better than the person I killed? Where are you reading this crap?

This is really starting to sound like some sob story of past injustices that you think were done to you for actions that YOU YOURSELF committed. If you don't want to be judged don't commit a crime. There is nothing high and mighty about it. You committed a crime and now you have to live with the consequences.

0 Replies

Quote:

Sainthood? Better than the person I killed? Where are you reading this crap?

Nowhere. I wrote it. You're reading it, and it seems to me that you are sounding like an old woman because you see that I have a point.

If you think about it for more than the twelwe minutes it took you to respond, you might realize that what you call justice is an illution. It is not a preventive sanction. It is merely a executioners hood.

Quote:

This is really starting to sound like some sob story of past injustices that you think were done to you for actions that YOU YOURSELF committed. If you don't want to be judged don't commit a crime. There is nothing high and mighty about it. You committed a crime and now you have to live with the consequences.

For your information, I was never called to "justice" for my crimes. That is why I don't do them anymore. Friends of mine that were caught still do it today, because they can't get legal work anywhere. They want to stop, but they want to eat as well... (the crime I'm talking about is selling pot)

The cold reality is that if I commit a crime against you, then it is YOU who has to live with it. I think that is what confuses you. You have been taught to believe in a system that cannot deliver what it promises.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Sainthood? Better than the person I killed? Where are you reading this crap?

Nowhere. I wrote it. You're reading it, and it seems to me that you are sounding like an old woman because you see that I have a point.

You have a point???

Cyracuz wrote:

If you think about it for more than the twelwe minutes it took you to respond, you might realize that what you call justice is an illution. It is not a preventive sanction. It is merely a executioners hood.

You say that like it is a bad thing.

Cyracuz wrote:

For your information, I was never called to "justice" for my crimes. That is why I don't do them anymore. Friends of mine that were caught still do it today, because they can't get legal work anywhere. They want to stop, but they want to eat as well... (the crime I'm talking about is selling pot)

They don't want to stop. They make a conscience decision to continue their actions. They could choose to get up and actually make a contribution to society instead they choose not to. Justify it however you want, but they are commiting a crime and I hope they are brought to justice.

Cyracuz wrote:

The cold reality is that if I commit a crime against you, then it is YOU who has to live with it. I think that is what confuses you. You have been taught to believe in a system that cannot deliver what it promises.

Damn, right I have to live with it... I'm not confused about that at all. What you are confused about is that your cosmic justice utopia is a figment of your imagination and will never be a reality. So, if that means locking you up for the rest of your life so that you can not commit a crime against anybody else... I'm cool with that. It's either that or we all become vigilantes in which case, my guess is that , your punishment will be much more severe.

0 Replies

My cosmic justice utopia? I am the one saying that justice is an illution. Who's utopia? I am trying to come to terms with the world as it is. A fact of life is that you can do whatever you want. If I shoot you in the head you will die, but I will not neccesarily get caught for doing it. I have said it before, and I'll say it again. There is only one law, and that is nature's own law. But what do humans know about nature?

0 Replies

This is getting more and more idiotic as we go along.

Yes, technically you are able to do whatever you want. Nobody is stopping you from shooting me in the head. No you will not automatically get caught for doing it. Does that make it acceptable?

Since you have problems answering my questions, I will answer it for you. No, it does not make it acceptable. Saying there is only one law (natures) does not make it so. There are actually many many laws. You may not find the need to follow them but if you do get caught for shooting me in the head you have to live with those consequences. Those consequences I think are not severe enough. Maybe they won't keep you from commiting the crime in the first place, but they will keep you from commiting any more crimes.

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

Speaking of a deterrent, would one approve to live in a country where every place is monitored by a perfect programmed artificial intelligence? Yeah, there's the fear of power abuse and the breach of privacy, but say that the problems don't exist.

Depends upon the objectives and programming of the AI. Were it built to enforce christian morality then hell no. Yet if it were a benevolent entity whose only desire was to help humanity, protect people and ensure everyone is taken care of then yeah I would vote for it in an election over a human any day.

I trust machines more than people. Unfortunately machines are programmed by people... The irony gods have a fine sense of humour.

0 Replies

Quote:

Yes, technically you are able to do whatever you want.

Thank you. That wasn't so hard, was it?

Quote:

Nobody is stopping you from shooting me in the head. No you will not automatically get caught for doing it. Does that make it acceptable?

Acceptable? I am saying how it is, not how I would have it. I am not a monster who wants to shoot anyone. But if I was, no written law could ever stop me.

Quote:

There are actually many many laws.

Yes there are, and some of these laws are in themselves acts of crime.

Quote:

Those consequences I think are not severe enough. Maybe they won't keep you from commiting the crime in the first place, but they will keep you from commiting any more crimes.

Will they? I am not so sure. Why will they do that?

0 Replies

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

This is getting more and more idiotic as we go along.

Yes, technically you are able to do whatever you want. Nobody is stopping you from shooting me in the head. No you will not automatically get caught for doing it. Does that make it acceptable?

Let's make this example more interesting.

Imagine you're not nice sweet JP from Milwaukee but you're actually a pedophile, let's say you were an anglican priest who has just gotten out of jail for numerous counts of child abuse. I shoot you in the head.

Now let's say I'm one of the grown up children who you abused and I shot you in the head. Or maybe my brother was abused. Whatever...

Assuming that I'm completely sane, all those things wouldn't make a difference. But don't you think it would alter the opinion of the jury? The judge? Public opinion?

Legally what I did (shoot you in the head) was wrong. Yet, morally? That's a trickier question. That's when you begin to see the legal system waver as the reality intrudes that people and circumstances are complicated.

As Cyracuz said (and I've been known to say myself from time to time), justice is an illusion. That isn't to say it's a bad illusion, simply that the universe never makes things simple.

Quote:

Maybe they won't keep you from commiting the crime in the first place, but they will keep you from commiting any more crimes.

In that case why not simply make all punishments capital? That would prevent repeat offence in almost all cases (baring zombies, who would create an interesting legal precedent). Or if dissuasion is not the objective then why not make jails luxury hotels?

You can make justice as harsh as you wish it, it won't stop all crime. Nor will the vengeance do much productive. If you wish to put your faith in society to rescue and protect you, then that's your perogative.

Me, I don't believe much in the illusions of society so I'd rather get some actual defence. Again, this is my perogative.

0 Replies

Quote:

Me, I don't believe much in the illusions of society so I'd rather get some actual defence

My point exactly. The legal sysem is for vengeance, not anything else. Maybe that is not the intention of the system, but that is how it is in effect, because it cannot undo what is done.

0 Replies

theantibuddha wrote:

Let's make this example more interesting.

Imagine you're not nice sweet JP from Milwaukee but you're actually a pedophile, let's say you were an anglican priest who has just gotten out of jail for numerous counts of child abuse. I shoot you in the head.

Now let's say I'm one of the grown up children who you abused and I shot you in the head. Or maybe my brother was abused. Whatever...

Assuming that I'm completely sane, all those things wouldn't make a difference. But don't you think it would alter the opinion of the jury? The judge? Public opinion?

Legally what I did (shoot you in the head) was wrong. Yet, morally? That's a trickier question. That's when you begin to see the legal system waver as the reality intrudes that people and circumstances are complicated.

As Cyracuz said (and I've been known to say myself from time to time), justice is an illusion. That isn't to say it's a bad illusion, simply that the universe never makes things simple.

Keeping the pedophile locked away would keep this senario from ever happening.

theantibuddha wrote:

You can make justice as harsh as you wish it, it won't stop all crime. Nor will the vengeance do much productive.

Nothing will stop all crime, but that is a moot point. If any thing, harsher sentences will keep poeple locked up where they can not commit more crimes.

What is your reasonong for saying: Nor will the vengeance do much productive.

theantibuddha wrote:

Me, I don't believe much in the illusions of society so I'd rather get some actual defence.

What is this "Actual Defence?"

All I am hearing from the "justice is an illusion" crowd is philisophical waxing of a world that doesn't exist. You fill your posts with buzzwords like "vengence" and "fear." You make up statements like "There is only one law: Nature" and "Nor will the vengeance do much productive," without offering any evidence what so ever to back up your statements as being true.

I have asked time and time again for an alternative to our current justice system and NOBODY has offered anything.

So I will ask again: What is the alternative to the system we already have?

0 Replies

Actual defence:
Courage, honor and respect.

Three things that are absent from the system you so percistently preach in favor of.

I have an alternative: Lock you up. If you have problems dealing with the harshness of the world, then you shoud be behind bars. Not whatever scares you.

Quote:

You make up statements like "There is only one law: Nature" and "Nor will the vengeance do much productive," without offering any evidence what so ever to back up your statements as being true.

Are you serious? Man, look around you.

"Thou shalt not kill" would be a true law if you could get everyone to go by it, but you can't, so it's not a law. It's only an ideal, and I heartily agree that we should go by it. But I cannot chose for anyone but myself.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Actual defence:
Courage, honor and respect.

Nonsense... would you call the police if some one harmed you or would you use "Courage, honor and respect" to bring justice to those who wronged you? Rolling Eyes

This is just more nonsense.

Cyracuz wrote:

Three things that are absent from the system you so percistently preach in favor of.

Cyracuz wrote:

I have an alternative: Lock you up. If you have problems dealing with the harshness of the world, then you shoud be behind bars. Not whatever scares you.

Why do you keep saying that I am scared? There are a lot of people that cannot fend for themselves. We should be protecting these people... not the criminals.

Cyracuz wrote:

Are you serious? Man, look around you.

What is this supposed to prove? Rolling Eyes

Cyracuz wrote:

Abosolutely nothing of any substance whatsoever

0 Replies

No, because I have courage, honor and respect I am able to fend for myself. That's all. What justice is it the police can give?

Quote:

Why do you keep saying that I am scared? There are a lot of people that cannot fend for themselves. We should be protecting these people... not the criminals.

The whole legal system seems to operate on the basis that the world is divided between those who cannot fend for themselves and criminals.

If you question this statement, then look at the examples above.

A few more examples from the real world: A stringy little beurocrat got a torpedo on his door because he had borrowed money from some crimelord. He was so scared that he put seven bullets into the torpedo. The little man was not convicted because "he was so scared of the torpedo" that he couldn't be held acountable for seven bullets. This is true!

Another example: A man was walking thorugh a park when he saw a man in the process of raping a woman. He ran over, tore the guy off her and gave him two punches in the face. The man who saved the woman got jail for assault. Why? Because he hit the rapist two times instead of one. This is true!

Exactly where is justice here?

0 Replies

Now we're getting somewhere.

Senario One: I am not familar with the phrase "torpedo" but I took it to mean "hired muscle" to collect the debt. This is really sort of tricky. I would say that justice was not served.... he should be in jail for murder. Of course, you could argue that he was acting in self defense. You could argue that he had the "courage" to enact his own justice. Isn't this what you are advocating?

Senario Two: Where did this happen? In the US we have Good Samaritan laws that protect people who come to the aid of victims. In the example you stated there was no justice served.

I actually think there needs to be a blending of ideas here. I don't think that the system is flawless, but it needs to be in place. While I do think that stricter sentencing will deter some crime, you are correct when you say it will not stop all crime. So what can we do?

Courage I think is a good place to start. We need to have the courage, and awareness, to report crimes as they are happening. We need to be the man walking through the park who saw a crime and did something to stop it. We need to let criminals know that that kind of activity will not be tolerated in our neighborhoods.

Yet, there still needs to be a system put into place that gives a person ample opportunity to defend themselves. Correct me if I am wrong, but the kind of justice you are advocating is vigilante justice. Things aren't as clear cut as this. There needs to be a third party that can look at the situation and make a (at least less biased) decision. If the person is found innocent then we are saved from wronging them. If they are found guilty they should be locked up and kept there so that they are not allowed to commit more crime.

0 Replies

Yes, torpedo is hired muscle. The word is the same in norwegian, so I assumed that the phrase would be also. My bad.

Anyway, the torpedo did not come to kill him. This he could be certain of. How then would he collect money? I think he was not convicted because he had friends in the right places.

The examples I stated happened in Norway.

We have "good samaritan" laws here as well. This goes to show that the lawyers have a great deal of say here.

Quote:

I actually think there needs to be a blending of ideas here. I don't think that the system is flawless, but it needs to be in place. While I do think that stricter sentencing will deter some crime, you are correct when you say it will not stop all crime. So what can we do?

Well, during the course of this discussion I have realized that it is not the system itself I doubt. It is the integrity if those upholding it (that means all of us). We must have courage, as you say, but also knowledge. If laws are based on prejudice they are wrong. They should be based on fact, not political propaganda and opinions as is so often the case.

I am not advocating vigilante justice. While it might work out fine for me there are others who might not be so lucky. What I am doubting is the term justice. I am inclined to agree that notorious killers should be locked up indefinetly, but I do not agree that doing so is just. It is the only way I see to deal with them, but I understand that it is wrong to do this.

"One evil does not justify another", is my reason. So we lock them up and keep them behind bars. Not rightfully, but we do it, and honestly I am ok with that. But I will never support death penalty.

But these are the easy cases. I'd like to cloud my mind again (and yours hopefully Smile

) with a few more complicated examples. Not now however, since I am a little pressed for time.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

We have "good samaritan" laws here as well. This goes to show that the lawyers have a great deal of say here.

Well, during the course of this discussion I have realized that it is not the system itself I doubt. It is the integrity if those upholding it (that means all of us). We must have courage, as you say, but also knowledge. If laws are based on prejudice they are wrong. They should be based on fact, not political propaganda and opinions as is so often the case.

I agree with you. I'm not sure if it would interest you due to the fact that it is about the American legal system, but the book, "Out of Order: Arrogance, Corruption and Incompetence on the Bench" by Max Boot is a really scary look into the legal system and judges that make decisions based on their own personal beliefs or make bad desicions simply for being incompetent. There needs to be consequences for these judges as well.

Cyracuz wrote:

I am not advocating vigilante justice. While it might work out fine for me there are others who might not be so lucky. What I am doubting is the term justice. I am inclined to agree that notorious killers should be locked up indefinetly, but I do not agree that doing so is just. It is the only way I see to deal with them, but I understand that it is wrong to do this.

"One evil does not justify another", is my reason. So we lock them up and keep them behind bars. Not rightfully, but we do it, and honestly I am ok with that. But I will never support death penalty.

But these are the easy cases. I'd like to cloud my mind again (and yours hopefully ) with a few more complicated examples. Not now however, since I am a little pressed for time.

Why do you feel that it is wrong to lock up a person who has proven that they can and will not contribute to society in a positie manner?

0 Replies

Quote:

Why do you feel that it is wrong to lock up a person who has proven that they can and will not contribute to society in a positie manner?

Because "positive" is not an absolute term. We are in a position where we have to chose what we want as part of our societies. What we don't want is defined as crime. I feel that it is important to sanction the criminal act, not the person committing it. The distinction may be impossible in real life, but I feel it is a distinction. When it is lost, crime prevention suddenly becomes crime provokation, because the stamp "criminal" will be irrevocable. (Not so black/white in life as I write it here).

A couple of years ago two young girls were raped and killed here in norway under extreme circumstances. In the trial afterwards it became apparent that the person who did it was so sick in the head that he has to be locked up indefinetly. It's just not safe to let him walk free. This was the first case of "life in prison" in modern norway.

This person is also a victim of his illness. We have to lock him up, but we don't have to like it. In this case it is easy to see my point I hope. I just hope it is as easily transferred to other cases.

0 Replies

I guess I just look at the same point from a different angle.

Just for the sake of discussion I'll go along with the idea that locking up a person is, at best, a necessary evil. It isn't his fault he is sick, but we need to lock him up to protect others from his sickness. We wrong one person.

On the flip side, he has already ruined many more peoples lives. Two women are dead which not only robs them of their life but also their families of their own flesh and blood. We could not prevent that crime, but we can prevent anymore of them in the future. I have quoted it before and I will quote it again here: Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent - Adam Smith

I am sorry that this person is sick. I am sorry this person can not control his actions. I am sorry he has to be locked up for the rest of his life. I am not sorry that he can no longer commit these sorts of crimes again.

Being a victim of his illness does not excuse his actions. In fact I would argue that this makes him more dangerous. Until there is a proven method of rehabilitation, the only responsible thing to do is lock him up.

I feel that society worries more about the person committing the crimes then the victims of his crimes... I don't understand this.

0 Replies

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"....?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know