The two buttons

[oldbadger]

I don't understand this rationale. Do you also apply it to other situations? For example, do you refuse to help others because that wouldn't make a diffetence in the large scale of things too?

Help others?
You want to sentence the bad guy, not change him before the events.
I'm just focusing on your rationale.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I would like to ask this question of @Koldo, who started this thread.

How would you provide "justice" to Termaine Hicks, just released after being exonnerated of rape, having served 19 years since his conviction? That is close to half of his life. Black man released after 19 years in jail amid series of exonerations in Philadelphia

I'd ask further, what "justice" can you bring to the other 18 people, also exonnerated of crimes they were wrongly convicted of, in this same jurisdiction in Philadelphia in the last 3 years?

And speaking of "justice," what "justice" would you recommend for those who made what now appear to be very egregious errors in securing all those false convictions in the first place?

I ask these questions because this, too, is part of my thinking. We are human -- we don't always get it right. Thus, I think we must be careful in exacting punishments that cannot, in any possible sense at all, be recompensed if those punishments were not deserved.

 

[Koldo]

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.

Sure but I was talking about physical limits, in a way. There is a limit on how far you can swing your arm before you hit someone. And if you end up hitting someone that is strong enough to get back at you, you would expect there to be a consequence and you are not the one that gets to pick what is the consequence. This happens even in the animal world.

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.

Doesn't this mean that choosing the triangle button would be the better alternative?

 

[Koldo]

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.

Sure, but I wouldn't call this person evil for doing this. Would you? Should people who do evil not be held responsible for their choices even if they were done of their volition?

 

[Koldo]

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.

Ok. Do you disagree with my view because you think of justice as secondary or because you think justice is better served in some other way?

 

[Koldo]

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.

1) In my specific scenario this is not a problem, since both choices result in the criminal no longer committing any crime.

2) Briging about justice might have very inconvenient outcomes but it is still justice nonetheless. Justice is not a mean to an end, it is an end in itself.

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.

This is exactly why restorative justice is so awesome. Justice is served and everyone can end up better off. It can be used in most cases and it should be. The problem happens when restorative justice can not used.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ok. Do you disagree with my view because you think of justice as secondary or because you think justice is better served in some other way?

I think that "justice" -- entirely on its own -- far too often overlooks whether there may be either a greater evil committed or a greater good overlooked in administering it.

For myself, I am not convinced that I would feel better when someone who stole from me is locked up, and his family thereby suffers. No, that would not make me feel better, nor would it restore what was stolen. I would not be interested in that sort of "justice."

 

[Koldo]

Most people don't consider proportional justice 'do the thing you think is wrong to the person who did it.'

Hence most people aren't just.

Hence eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Only if half of the world is THAT evil. Luckily we don't live in such a world.

We don't hit children to show hitting is wrong.
We shouldn't kill to show killing is wrong either.

Justice has nothing to do with showing something is wrong.

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.

Justice is not a mean to achieve an end, such as keeping people safe. It is rather an end in itself.

 

[Koldo]

Help others?
You want to sentence the bad guy, not change him before the events.
I'm just focusing on your rationale.

But you have said that if something makes minimal difference you wouldn't bother. I am asking you if you only apply this rationale to this scenario or to other scenarios too, such as when you could help someone.

 

[Koldo]

I would like to ask this question of @Koldo, who started this thread.

How would you provide "justice" to Termaine Hicks, just released after being exonnerated of rape, having served 19 years since his conviction? That is close to half of his life. Black man released after 19 years in jail amid series of exonerations in Philadelphia

I'd ask further, what "justice" can you bring to the other 18 people, also exonnerated of crimes they were wrongly convicted of, in this same jurisdiction in Philadelphia in the last 3 years?

And speaking of "justice," what "justice" would you recommend for those who made what now appear to be very egregious errors in securing all those false convictions in the first place?

I ask these questions because this, too, is part of my thinking. We are human -- we don't always get it right. Thus, I think we must be careful in exacting punishments that cannot, in any possible sense at all, be recompensed if those punishments were not deserved.

It is always tricky to pass judgment. This is why I am a big defender of the presumption of innocence.

This is how I think those cases should be handled in general lines:

1) Calculate the loss of income that this convinction generated and pay for it. The longer the sentence the harder it is to calculate, but an estimate will make do. The government foots the bill and can pursue the money back from those responsible.

2) The ones responsible for the conviction will spend the same time in prison that they have made the innocent person undergo.

 

[Koldo]

I think that "justice" -- entirely on its own -- far too often overlooks whether there may be either a greater evil committed or a greater good overlooked in administering it.

For myself, I am not convinced that I would feel better when someone who stole from me is locked up, and his family thereby suffers. No, that would not make me feel better, nor would it restore what was stolen. I would not be interested in that sort of "justice."

As I see it, there is no greater good than justice.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As I see it, there is no greater good than justice.

The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest. It becomes
The thronèd monarch better than his crown.
His scepter shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings,
But mercy is above this sceptered sway.
It is enthronèd in the hearts of kings.
It is an attribute to God himself.
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice.

 

[oldbadger]

But you have said that if something makes minimal difference you wouldn't bother.

What minimal difference?
Exactly what example did I mention?

]

I am asking you if you only apply this rationale to this scenario or to other scenarios too, such as when you could help someone.

Which scenario? !!
What have you got me looking at now?

If I can help someone I usually would, but you need to tell me what this scenario is !

You seem to want to punish when you could deter crimes. That's really not good. Where I live we do everything we can to deter crimes.

 

[Koldo]

The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest. It becomes
The thronèd monarch better than his crown.
His scepter shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings,
But mercy is above this sceptered sway.
It is enthronèd in the hearts of kings.
It is an attribute to God himself.
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice.

Justice is merciful, by its own nature.

 

[Koldo]

What minimal difference?
Exactly what example did I mention?

]
Which scenario? !!
What have you got me looking at now?

If I can help someone I usually would, but you need to tell me what this scenario is !

You seem to want to punish when you could deter crimes. That's really not good. Where I live we do everything we can to deter crimes.

You have said that you wouldn't press any of the buttons because it wouldn't make any difference in the large scale of things. I am asking if you are consistent with this rationale, such as whether you would help someone considering your help wouldn't make a big difference either way in the large scale of things.

If you say you do help people, you are not being consistent.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Justice is merciful, by its own nature.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. I've done my best to tell you what my views are, and my views, unlike yours, so far as I am able to tell from what you write, do not tend towards retributive "justice."

How I came to feel this way, I can't tell, I can just tell you that I have learned that forgiveness on my part works far, far better for me than any punishment meeted out by men or gods.

In fact, I was a very badly battered child, nearly killed twice by my stepfather before I was 7, and then lived the rest of my childhood in the Children's Aid, too messed up by then ever to be adopted, or even fostered for any length of time. I know people who went through much, much less than that, and yet have needed years of "therapy" to deal with their trauma. I learned that maybe the people who hurt me were possibly victims, in one way or another, themselves. And I have completely forgiven. I do not carry that weight with me, and it has left me mentally healthy and at peace with myself and the world. If I could rain down punishment on that stepfather, I would not do it. I have no need, nor even desire, to do it.

If I have not convinced you, well, that's okay, because neither have you convinced me. As I said, we must agree to disagree.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Hence most people aren't just.



Only if half of the world is THAT evil. Luckily we don't live in such a world.



Justice has nothing to do with showing something is wrong.



Justice is not a mean to achieve an end, such as keeping people safe. It is rather an end in itself.

So your idea of justice just sounds immoral and pointless to me.

 

[oldbadger]

You have said that you wouldn't press any of the buttons because it wouldn't make any difference in the large scale of things.

Yeah? Do you want to quote me, then?

I am asking if you are consistent with this rationale, such as whether you would help someone considering your help wouldn't make a big difference either way in the large scale of things.

If you say you do help people, you are not being consistent.

Please just quote me, that's a bit more accurate, don't you think?

Punishment rather than deterent is really daft imo.
Deterring crime and loss makes such good sense, and where a person can be steered away from crime this is brilliant. But people who don't bother to secure their property and then want offenders punished, this is bad.

As for serious crimes such as murder we fix how convicts are treated by legislation, by law and by judgement. One very good deterrent to shootings is to control guns, for example.

 

[Koldo]

Yeah? Do you want to quote me, then?


Please just quote me, that's a bit more accurate, don't you think?

Punishment rather than deterent is really daft imo.
Deterring crime and loss makes such good sense, and where a person can be steered away from crime this is brilliant. But people who don't bother to secure their property and then want offenders punished, this is bad.

As for serious crimes such as murder we fix how convicts are treated by legislation, by law and by judgement. One very good deterrent to shootings is to control guns, for example.

Sure. Here it is, in the bolded part:

Yeah...... I've got how the buttons work, but what does the blooming joystick do?
There is a third answer.......... you've already told us that we 'can' press one button.
I wouldn't press either........
.......... whatever happens to the 'most evil criminal' there will be so many wicked runners up that the world won't change at all, either way.

In other words, let Nature take it's course.

You have said you wouldn't press either button because it wouldn't make much of a difference in the large scale of things. Have you changed your mind?

 

[Koldo]

So your idea of justice just sounds immoral and pointless to me.

I say the same to you.