NationStates Jolt Archive

The punishment should fit the crime. In order to bring justice, a person who is found guilty of a crime shall have the same crime done back to them. (Preferably by the victim of their crime.)

If however multiple crimes have been committed that cannot be replicated, such as serial killings etc., then the victim associated with the most heinous crime shall perform the act.

The theory for this proposal dates back to the first mom saying "Treat others as you want to be treated." This is the golden rule for how we treat others socially.

Government money should not be wasted imprisoning and feeding these individuals...the experience of being a victim will serve as a strong enough lesson, and as a deterrent.


---I am not sure what category to put this under...it got thrown out of SOCIAL JUSTICE.... any help on the appropriate section would be appreciated.

Committing crime against criminals makes you a criminal which leads to someone committing a crime against you which makes them a criminal…

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

You are treated unjustly by having this crime committed on you...so recreating the crime on the offender is justified. This serves to deter people from committing the crime in the first place because they know that the same thing will be done back to them, and makes them think twice about it. They stop treating others badly, because it is not how they want to be treated.

Also, the victim of the crime is justified in committing the crime because they did nothing to deserve to be a victim in the first place. How could the crime itself not be the most just punishment that could be handed down. The criminal gets to feel the pain of being the victim in the same circumstances that they put them under.


After the courts find the person guilty, it is a punishment, not a crime....just like the death penalty...the people who kill for that aren't held responsible, because they are just following through with the deserved punishment.

What category should it go under....because it got rejected out of SOCIAL JUSTICE

Sorry but I'm having some trouble understanding what you are writing. The structure is a bit confusing.

After the courts find the person guilty, it is a punishment, not a crime....just like the death penalty...the people who kill for that aren't held responsible, because they are just following through with the deserved punishment.

We believe that courts who commit crimes, even as punishments, are not worthy of judging in the first place. I doubt you will get our support.

Category-wise I'm thinking International Security fits best but I'd get a second opinion.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

I think you should examine your conception of what consitutes 'justice'.

The government of New Tyrollia considers criminal acts to be criminal because who hold them as morally reprehensible. You would insist that we perform actions against someone that disgust us simply because they performed those actions themselves? What about rape? What about crimes that can't necessarily be 'recipocated' such as copyright infringement?

And haven't you heard that old saying 'If you take an eye for an eye, the world will end up blind*?'


*or at least full of people with poor depth perception

Also I was told as a kid that the idea of "an eye for an eye" is the most you can take, not what you are required to take. It is meant to limit how people are punished, not enforce how they are punished.

(Not that this has any relevence - I just thought I would mention it. Plus it might just be in TilEnca that that meaning exists)

And haven't you heard that old saying 'If you take an eye for an eye, the world will end up blind*?'


*or at least full of people with poor depth perception

Actually, I believe the correct term is "An eye for an eye, and everyone's blind."

Or, at least, that's the one I like using...

I guess I will rewrite it so that it only applies to petty crimes like theft. I had thought about that rape issue also...

As a deterrent of petty crime, maybe it will help to keep people from going down the wrong path to start with.

Thanks for the input.

In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.

And also a pirate! YARRRRRRRR!

Ahem, sorry.

I'm going to guess Political Stability or Moral Decency. Of course, arguing that "eye for an eye" is 'moral' might be a hard sell. This is one of those that doesn't much fit any category.

The Federation of Aligned Planets does not support Lex Talionis justice.

Literally "law as retaliation" in the Latin language, lex talionis is the belief that the purpose of the law is to provide retaliation for an offended party. This early belief is reflected in the code of Hammurabi and in the laws of the Old Testament. The most common expression of lex talionis is "an eye for an eye". Legal codes following the principle of lex talionis have one thing in common-proscribed counterpunishment for an offense. In the famous legal code written by Hammurabi, the principle of exact reciprocity is very clear. For example, if a person caused the death of another person's child, that person's child would be put to death.

Various ideas regarding the origins of lex talionis exist, but a common and accepted one is that lex talionis developed as early civilizations had an increased population and a less well-established system for retribution of wrongs, feuds and vendettas, threatened social fabric.

If we argue for lex talion justice we must be prepared to rape rapists, beat sadists, and burn down the houses of arsonists...

I can't support the idea of "Frenzied fools." I don't see why the public should kill them? Or let them judge the punishment. They would choose a punishment they don't deserve. And just say someone raped a person. That person "By That Law" Would have to rape them? Do you think they want too. No, That is taking away there rights of doing so. The person who rapes should just be put to death or to suffer in jail.

If someone attempts genocide, their race is then executed?

Hello, i'm new to the UN and i couldn't help but notice the issue of crime prevention. The argument of crimes being punishable depending on the severity of the action is a very generalised view. No one crime carries with it a standard punishment and no one crime is unpunishable. My views on this matter however are that if a crime is committed, a punishment must be exacted, however you cannot determine how one crime can carry a certain penalty, the circumstances of the crime may be different to the next and do not permit such vengence. The judgement handed out cannot be determined by one person nor can it be evaluated by many. The views on a single crime are just too diverse. However a solution can be found, only by opening up one's mind to the many possiblities.

I will never support such an act as our society has grown to be too complex for such primal things. :mp5:

If someone attempts genocide, their race is then executed?

Interesting idea :}

(OOC)
"I'm a kind of eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth kind of guy."
"Then you believe in a world that is blind and toothless?"

Babylon 5

The theory for this proposal dates back to the first mom saying "Treat others as you want to be treated." This is the golden rule for how we treat others socially.


I think the idea of that phrase is to treat others nicely, not to justify being brutal to criminals.

The whole thing makes as much sense as having the death penalty for trying to commit suicide. :headbang: :sniper:

Our country has learned from its old nomadic ways, and how dare anyone from the UN suggest that we return to them?

We are proud that we are rid of our nomadic superstitions, and inadequate prejudices. The United Socialist States of Snoogit are opposing this proposal before the council vehemently.

I think the idea of that phrase is to treat others nicely, not to justify being brutal to criminals.

Exactly. Note how the phrase was 'Treat others as you would have them treat you', not 'treat others as they have treated you'. Big difference.

In case any of you missed it...I said

I guess I will rewrite it so that it only applies to petty crimes like theft. I had thought about that rape issue also...

As a deterrent of petty crime, maybe it will help to keep people from going down the wrong path to start with.

Thanks for the input.

I guess I will rewrite it.
When you do, would you please restrict yourself to the standard font? There is a reason web pages default to Verdana - readability.

In case any of you missed it...I said

I guess I will rewrite it so that it only applies to petty crimes like theft. I had thought about that rape issue also...

As a deterrent of petty crime, maybe it will help to keep people from going down the wrong path to start with.


I think you'll notice that no one so far has responded to this with 'I like the idea, but maybe not so severe.' That's because the very moral principle behind this proposal is abhorrent to most civilized nations. Even if you reduce it to 'petty crimes like theft', you still can't logistically make it work. (Thank God.) What about those who steal out of poverty? What do you intend to take from them?
Perhaps instead of frightening and punishing your people, you should work on eliminating the causes of crime in your nation.

Its still primitive, and hard to implement.

thanks for the input...If no one agrees then it won't get passed...I was just getting a feel for everyone's ideas out there. It is already proposed, so if it fails to get enough votes then so be it =)

I hate to say this, but in response to your comments about it being only for petty theft, where do you draw the line? There is no limit to what you can say as 'petty theft'. To you maybe, stealing some lifesavers from a convienience store may seem unworthy as a capital offense and a waste of time, but in some countries people have their hands removed or even at worst stoned to death. You cannot define a distinct oppinion regarding the matter and no one is going to vote on such an issue unless you have a unified theory of 'petty crime'.

If someone attempts genocide, their race is then executed?
No, if they only attempt genocide then part of their race is executed, if their successful on the other hand... ;)

If they only attempt genocide? What kind of thinking is that? The basis of your argument is absurd. If someone attempts to commit a crime then how can that justify any severe punishment like killing a "small part of the population"???

How can any civilised person decree that if something must be done then the course of action is to nip away at the whole. What if it is attempted not once but multiple times, what then. Full scale masacre of the ones responisible, what then, all out war against everyone who thinks the same? Where do you draw the line, that's what i've been saying, you cannot determine a universal theory on the subject such as this, you can't. Even to a lesser extent, religion can't even define a unified theory on this subject.

This idea about the form of punishment given depending on crime has already been established by individual nations, to created a global law regarding the issue is impossible. This theory cannot appear in reality and will never be established in the present.

If they only attempt genocide? What kind of thinking is that? The basis of your argument is absurd. If someone attempts to commit a crime then how can that justify any severe punishment like killing a "small part of the population"???

How can any civilised person decree that if something must be done then the course of action is to nip away at the whole. What if it is attempted not once but multiple times, what then. Full scale masacre of the ones responisible, what then, all out war against everyone who thinks the same? Where do you draw the line, that's what i've been saying, you cannot determine a universal theory on the subject such as this, you can't. Even to a lesser extent, religion can't even define a unified theory on this subject.

This idea about the form of punishment given depending on crime has already been established by individual nations, to created a global law regarding the issue is impossible. This theory cannot appear in reality and will never be established in the present.
I was making a JOKE.