The two buttons

[Koldo]

Well some crimes cannot be erased, in the sense that one killed cannot be brought back, but as the article seemingly showed, some seem to do more good after all the bad they might have done. Not sure there is an equation to show such though.

Do you think it is fair game to do evil as long as you do some form of good later on to make up for it?

For instance, let's say Joe killed 3 people out of evil intent. If he happens to save the lives of any given number of people later on, is it alright to let him off the hook?

And the revenge aspect is often used to justify punishments - they deserve (whatever) - and seemingly bringing some peace to the victims and/or relatives. But although superficially it might do so, it often just is a nagging thorn in many, knowing that nothing truly can make things right for them. Many however do manage to remove the anger and hatred often felt towards any perpetrator, and which tends to fuel thoughts of 'punishment', and thereby often is a gain for both parties.

Sure. But imagine someone truly gained comfort, not merely superficially. Would you say that the revenge was justified?

Personally, I think comfort is not a factor in justice nor revenge.

 

[Koldo]

Now, let me put a different colour on that for you, and see if you still feel the same.

And while I'm at it, let me refer to @danieldemol in this thread who has tried to show that people are not always (possibly not even the majority of the time) totally responsible for their actions.

Now suppose you have two teenage children, and in a fight, one of them actually blinds the other in one eye. Do you, as a seeker after justice, accordingly blind one eye of the first?

Thanks for the question. First of all, I want justice to be achieved by law. It is very hard to be just when you are involved, in some way. I take it most countries wouldn't allow judges to judge their own children for this very reason.

Or do you make the assumption that as teenagers, things got out of their control -- since we know that learning self-control is something that comes with maturity?

There are multiple considerations to be made here. Such as whether it was an accident. But I will interpret your question as if you meant there was evil intent. In which case yes, I would want that teenager to be blinded in one eye, even if it was my own son. It is the just consequence.

Consider, as well, that sometimes those with aberrant mental processes (which can lead to criminal activity) can also sometimes see the world in ways that others cannot. What if, for example, the person for whom I pushed the square button, and can thus do no evil, turns his peculiar brain patters to other areas, and finds the ultimate cure for all cancers? What would have been the cost to millions of future lives had you been in control, and pushed the triangle button?

It does sometimes seem to me that those who choose final solutions presume themselves able to see all ends. I can't.

A great question since it allows me to further elaborate my point of view. Let me put it this way: I would rather live in a just society than in a society where cancer doesn't exist.

 

[Koldo]

1. Not all justice systems are retributive/punitive (and those that are don't necessarily make a society healthier Why Punishment Doesn't Reduce Crime )
and
2. Punishment doesn't necessitate death for any crime.

I am aware not all justice systems are retributive, however sometimes there is no other system that can bring about justice, such as in cases where murder happened. How do you suggest justice can be achieved without pubishment? And on this case, how is death not proportional?

 

[Quintessence]

Isn't that because there is a limit as to how far you can swing your arm before you hit someone else?

If a robber didn't care about his victim's agency, to what extent should we care about his own agency?

The "limits" are not actual, but socially imposed constructs based on how humans think other humans "should" behave (aka, based on how humans what to control other humans do). Property ownership too is a concept that only exists because of a social contract or expectations. Ultimately, the only real "shoulds" in the world are based on ability and nature, with socially imposed limits being an artifice that inevitably ends up wonky in one way or another. Most of the universe doesn't bother with this sort of thing, as far as we can tell. The bird does not care about the agency of the seed when it consumes it - it does what it does in accord with its nature. IMO, humans are exactly the same, but make things superficially complicated with all their words and talkings.

In a way, this ties back into me preferring to ask the "evil criminal" what they want. Being an "evil criminal" is their nature, and I respect things for who and what they are regardless of what I happen to think. Destroying the nature of something because I want it to be something else is a power play, about control, and... not a fan. Most persons are unrepentantly and unapologetically what they are - unpretentious, uncomplicated. I respect that, even if it happens to clash with me. It's human persons who seem to like making it unnecessarily complicated. And if the (presumably) human person "evil criminal" is who they are and wants to go down as who they are instead of being so utterly transformed that they are no longer at all who they are (option 1)? I respect that. Hell, I'd rather die than have some jerk with power play and justice fantasies destroy who I am and shape me into their preferred image. At that point, I'm not me. I'm a slave to someone else's ideas of what I ought to be. That's gross. And it definitely isn't justice.

 

[danieldemol]

But even if there are factors outside of his control, isn't it still their choice nonetheless?

It may be not much of a choice if they were going to die anyway if they didn't commit a crime, for example if they were going to starve they may be tempted to rob someone - even if the penalty is death.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Thanks for the question. First of all, I want justice to be achieved by law. It is very hard to be just when you are involved, in some way. I take it most countries wouldn't allow judges to judge their own children for this very reason.

There are multiple considerations to be made here. Such as whether it was an accident. But I will interpret your question as if you meant there was evil intent. In which case yes, I would want that teenager to be blinded in one eye, even if it was my own son. It is the just consequence.

A great question since it allows me to further elaborate my point of view. Let me put it this way: I would rather live in a just society than in a society where cancer doesn't exist.

Well then, while Lex Talionis was an improvement over the savagery of "death for everything," I still think, however, that in the few thousand years since Lex Talionis first appeared, we've had the opportunity to grow and learn about human nature a bit. Frankly, I prefer the notions of North American indigenous "Healing Centres" to your view of justice.

Thus, I truly think that we can do better, and that is the world in which I'd like to live, so I disagree with your particular view.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Do you think it is fair game to do evil as long as you do some form of good later on to make up for it?

For instance, let's say Joe killed 3 people out of evil intent. If he happens to save the lives of any given number of people later on, is it alright to let him off the hook?

Not really. But if the punishment ensures that conditions get worse - future life of criminal as well as any punishment - then can one say that justice is served? Being that having been in prison for example usually negatively affects the future life of most, such that punishments are not just a convenient response to crime when it often ensures that many will commit more crime in the future.

Sure. But imagine someone truly gained comfort, not merely superficially. Would you say that the revenge was justified?

Personally, I think comfort is not a factor in justice nor revenge.

I suppose I am more pragmatist than being doctrinarian, and although of course I would want those wronged to feel they are considered and have some say in how crimes are treated, I would rather the overall aim was to reduce crime, and taking the appropriate course to effect such. So I still wouldn't place the victim first over the overall effects that we might want to achieve. And even if many might not see it this way currently, I would propose that most people might want to see a reduction in crime even if it meant treating criminals more humanely - as many countries seem to be doing. But I doubt many do see such as of now, and in many countries, since anger and bitterness, even hatred and revenge figure highly in the attitudes of most (rather than love and compassion) when thinking about crime. Hence why we tend to have so many right-wing governments in power.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I am aware not all justice systems are retributive, however sometimes there is no other system that can bring about justice, such as in cases where murder happened. How do you suggest justice can be achieved without pubishment? And on this case, how is death not proportional?

Most people don't consider proportional justice 'do the thing you think is wrong to the person who did it.' Hence eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. We don't hit children to show hitting is wrong. We shouldn't kill to show killing is wrong either. We can punish children for hitting without hitting, though if punishment is not an effective means of correcting the behavior then why bother with it? If there's better ways to keep people safe than using ineffective corrective methods but we keep using them out of some archaic view of what justice should be, then that's pretty ****ed up imo.

 

[Rival]

Just so you guys know who aren't aware, the law of Lex Talionis is about monetary compensation; not for doing what was done to the other.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Just so you guys know who aren't aware, the law of Lex Talionis is about monetary compensation; not for doing what was done to the other.

https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/pdf/Justin Ilboudo_Research Paper.pdf

 

[Rival]

https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/pdf/Justin Ilboudo_Research Paper.pdf

I'm talking about the Jewish understanding of the expression found in the Torah.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm talking about the Jewish understanding of the expression found in the Torah.

Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind was a reaction to literalist interpretation, ironically in a Canadian parliament debate about capitol punishment long before the quote was misattributed to Ghandi. That's why I mentioned it.

 

[Rival]

Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind was a reaction to literalist interpretation, ironically in a Canadian parliament debate about capitol punishment long before the quote was misattributed to Ghandi. That's why I mentioned it.

That must have been a Christian interpretation, I guess.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

That must have been a Christian interpretation, I guess.

A fair wager given the predominance of literalism in Christianity. Although the grandiose Ghandi version was a response to Hindu v Muslim riots.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm talking about the Jewish understanding of the expression found in the Torah.

That's all well and good, but doesn't represent the majority of the world, as I understand it. In fact, Lex Talionis is a Latin expression for an article of Roman jurisprudence.

 

[Rival]

That's all well and good, but doesn't represent the majority of the world, as I understand it. In fact, Lex Talionis is a Latin expression for an article of Roman jurisprudence.

The phrase is first found in the Hammurabi Code, then the Torah, it's not a solely Roman invention.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The phrase is first found in the Hammurabi Code, then the Torah, it's not a solely Roman invention.

I'm aware. My point was simply that the Jewish undestanding is neither the only one, nor the majority one.

It is clearly not @Koldo's view -- and it's that view that I have been arguing against.

 

[Rival]

I'm aware. My point was simply that the Jewish undestanding is neither the only one, nor the majority one.

It is clearly not @Koldo's view -- and it's that view that I have been arguing against.

I'm pretty sure no Western society today applies that law literally where an equivalent can be found (laws of compensation etc), so I'm not sure how it can be the majority understanding. In a historical context, even Roman law drifted towards understanding it in a non-literal fashion in many ways, so to call the literalist understanding the majority one seems a little off kilter here. What I think is really going on is people see the phrase and assume a literal meaning, not bothering to look up its historical provenance.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm pretty sure no Western society today applies that law literally where an equivalent can be found (laws of compensation etc), so I'm not sure how it can be the majority understanding. In a historical context, even Roman law drifted towards understanding it in a non-literal fashion in many ways, so to call the literalist understanding the majority one seems a little off kilter here. What I think is really going on is people see the phrase and assume a literal meaning, not bothering to look up its historical provenance.

Yes, I get all that, but to stay on the topic brought up in the OP, the question asked was about actually causing the death of (killing) another human being as a means of procuring "justice."

I believe killing to be wrong. Doing what is wrong, however one may try to justify it, can never be a path to my understanding of justice.

If that makes my understanding more akin to that of those studying Torah, well so be it -- I wouldn't consider that to be a bad thing.

 

[Spirit of Light]

For the sake of this topic, you have been granted a joystick with two buttons, the triangle button and the square button. Now here is how it works:

You can press only one button. And not more than once.

If you press the triangle button, the most evil criminal in the world, in your perspective, dies. Right away.

If you press the square button, the most evil criminal in the world, in your perspective, gets a complete change of mind. This person will never again commit any evil action and shall not be further punished for any of the past crimes.

What button would you press and why?

Here is my, most certainly, unpopular opinion: I would quickly press the triangle button. I will take justice over recovery any and every time.

Here is my perspective on justice:

When it is possible to repair the damage caused, justice is better served by doing so.

When it is not possible to repair the damage caused, justice is better served by punishing the perpetrator. Plus, there must be proportionality between the crime and the punishment.

Square button, forgivness is better then be an evil being one self, so no killing from my side.