NationStates Jolt Archive

What is the purpose of the law? Why do we punish people who violate it?

Do we do it because it's just? Because they deserve it? What good would that do? If we punish people simply because they deserve it, then our decision to do that harms them and benefits no one. I would describe that as evil behaviour - harming others to no one's benefit.

I think we punish people to make the threat of punishment more credible, because that threat of punishment deters crime.

But that's only going to work if that threat remains credible. If we enforce the law inconsistently, perhaps by punishing people selectively based on other criteria (like whether its just), that undermines the core function of the law, which is to deter crime.

What do you think the law is for? If you thik we punish people for some other reason than to deter crime, what good do you think that does?

to protect the interests and property of those who make it

Yeah but also so that we don't have anarcy (sp). If we had lawlessness we'd just end up with gangs fighting for dominance and possibly some kind of dictatorship. Kinda like Iraq has been. Anyway, who wants rapists and murderers on the streets.

to protect the interests and property of those who make it

Dear God!! That means the polititians - and they hate us! I'll go get my gun...:sniper:

to protect rights? is this a trick question? where are my socks? why is my soda flat?..........

To protect the people who are governed by it - plain and simple.

And if the law is not governed by what is just, it protects no one, and is thus useless.

Meanwhile, by your logic, every offense should be a death penalty offense (or whatever the top punishment is). After all, if we go by a just punishment that actually fits the crime, the law is obviously no longer credible. :rolleyes:

Never mind that the only thing that keeps the law credible is to be justly and properly applied in protecting the citizens it governs. Law for the sake of law is not credible in any way and should be done away with if it occurs.

Well, the practical aims are of preventing the convicted criminal from committing more crime (and deterring them after they are released) and of deterring others from committing crimes.

there are 2 purposes to the law, justice and order.

if you are wronged in a way that cannot possibly be rectified, someone in your family is killed, for example, you look for JUSTICE. your loved one cannot be returned to you but you still want the perpetrator to be punished. if "the punishment fits the crime" you feel satisfied even though you are still mourning the loss. the punishment naturally varies from culture to culture.

the law also provides ORDER. it gives you guidance as to what you can and cant do without aggrieving your neighbor and lets you know when you have a just claim for a grievance. for example, if your wife was killed because she was crushed by a tree being cut down by your neighbor, you may have no case for him being punished, depending on the exact circumstances.

in a less devastating example good neighbors make good fences but where are you allowed to put that fence, what can it be made out of and how high is it allowed to be? those laws put everyone on the same page and on equal footing. if my neighbors fence doesnt break the law, i have no case. if it does break the law, it doesnt matter that he just spent $50k on a 20ft high brick wall that is exactly on the property line, he has to take it down.

Ideally to treat everyone justly and to protect everyone.

What is the purpose of the law? Why do we punish people who violate it?

Do we do it because it's just? Because they deserve it? What good would that do? If we punish people simply because they deserve it, then our decision to do that harms them and benefits no one. I would describe that as evil behaviour - harming others to no one's benefit.

I think we punish people to make the threat of punishment more credible, because that threat of punishment deters crime.

But that's only going to work if that threat remains credible. If we enforce the law inconsistently, perhaps by punishing people selectively based on other criteria (like whether its just), that undermines the core function of the law, which is to deter crime.

What do you think the law is for? If you thik we punish people for some other reason than to deter crime, what good do you think that does?


The law is based on the subjective morality of the masses.

It's function is to make sure that, that which is considered immoral by the 'moral majority' does not occour and to punish it when it does.

To protect the people who are governed by it - plain and simple.

And if the law is not governed by what is just, it protects no one, and is thus useless.

Meanwhile, by your logic, every offense should be a death penalty offense (or whatever the top punishment is). After all, if we go by a just punishment that actually fits the crime, the law is obviously no longer credible. :rolleyes:

Never mind that the only thing that keeps the law credible is to be justly and properly applied in protecting the citizens it governs. Law for the sake of law is not credible in any way and should be done away with if it occurs.

ok, that might be the main goal of laws, but what about laws that prohibit cannabis use? or even abortion or euthanasia? and why can't i distil my own alcohol if i don't sell it?

The law as a deterent does not work on potential criminals as no one intentionally commits a crime thinking they will be caught.

I think the best way the law could work is a three strikes system for minor offences. In that apart from normal sentencing - on the third offence (for a minor crime) a finger is removed. For every minor crime commited thereafter another finger is removed. When you have to get someone else to open the ketchup you may think about giving up crime.

(that doesn't include minor criminal offences that I don't agree with - like smoking weed or going 5mph over the speed limit - just the ones chavs and gippos commit) - damn just fucked up my whole arguement then!!

What is the purpose of the law? Why do we punish people who violate it?

Do we do it because it's just? Because they deserve it? What good would that do? If we punish people simply because they deserve it, then our decision to do that harms them and benefits no one. I would describe that as evil behaviour - harming others to no one's benefit.

I think we punish people to make the threat of punishment more credible, because that threat of punishment deters crime.

But that's only going to work if that threat remains credible. If we enforce the law inconsistently, perhaps by punishing people selectively based on other criteria (like whether its just), that undermines the core function of the law, which is to deter crime.

What do you think the law is for? If you thik we punish people for some other reason than to deter crime, what good do you think that does?

I think that the punishment aspect of law enforcement has a variety of functions, depending on the society, because law at its core is simply the expression of a society's moral values that gets codified and enforced. Sometimes a society uses the punishment primarily for revenge, other times primarily for deterrence, and other considerations may be increasing government revenue through use of fines, gaining a relatively cheap captive labor force through imprisonment, or using it as a means of silencing political dissent. Societies often try to legitimize their forceful imposition of a moral code on the people in the society by calling it justice or something else that doesn't have any negative connotations.

Personally, I would prefer that law be primarily used to provide general guidelines for ethical behavior.

Yes! Finally...you are not blending the theoretical with the actual and calling them by the same name. Thank you!

The purpose of the law is to enforce morals on immoral people. Those who would take rights from others for their own ego empowerment need to be held in check.


Same reason for religion.

ok, that might be the main goal of laws, but what about laws that prohibit cannabis use? or even abortion or euthanasia? and why can't i distil my own alcohol if i don't sell it?
Because governments are power hungry.

That said... governments need power to maintain law. Without unjust, stupid and oppressive laws... we wouldn't be able to fund support the system that protects us from real crimes that infringe on our freedoms.

It's a fine balancing act. Lesser of two evils thing.

Because governments are power hungry.

That said... governments need power to maintain law. Without unjust, stupid and oppressive laws... we wouldn't be able to fund support the system that protects us from real crimes that infringe on our freedoms.

It's a fine balancing act. Lesser of two evils thing.

I don't belive that for a second.

Yeah I'll not deny the corruption in goverment, but it is power that does it. I don't know of any MP that did not enter into it to make the world(or at least their little part of it) a better place.

Politcs is a fookin hard thing to balance out and do right. Whatever desicion a goverment makes there will be some that lose out, and so some that blame them and kick up stink.

To enforce the exclusive interests of the ruling classes.

To enforce the exclusive interests of the ruling classes.

I know that's why we have a law against killing poor people, because it definitely is in the exclusive interest of the ruling class that poor people's lives and property are protected by the law.

:rolleyes:

based on other criteria (like whether its just)

What's the point of deterring just actions?

Ideally, its to protech the weak from the strong.

Hellos,
OOC

good question little one. ;)

There are two kinds of law under western Law Court system. systems may vary.

Mala In Se, and Mala Prohibita. Both are Latin.

Mala in se, means "bad in and of its self"; these are laws based on almost total universal understanding of being bad. murder. rape. child molestation. etc. Possibly based on the morals and ethics of the culture.
-
Mala Prohibita, means "bad because it is forbidden". we say it is bad, and we have the power to enforce our will (fine/jail) against you if you do the "bad" thing.
OR
yes, honestly, we need to have this in place for health/safety/other reasons, but its not bad for moral/ethic reasons.
-
Welcome to politics. Figure out which law is which "mala" :rolleyes: then you can figure out which ones you have a chance of fighting and over turning, and not getting stressed over the ones you have little chance.

the hard part im assuming is learning legalspeak.

not so hard ehh? hell, i got it from a non-legal book.
(ISBN:1-893-626-13-x)

-Rafe

ok, that might be the main goal of laws, but what about laws that prohibit cannabis use?

Except where they protect one person from another, those laws should not be there. For instance, a law prohibiting driving while under the influence of cannabis would be a good law, as it would protect others from the irresponsible actions of those who might smoke it and drive. But those prohibiting it completely are, in essence, unjust laws.

or even abortion or euthanasia?

Neither should be completely illegal, although regulation is necessary to prevent abuse.

and why can't i distil my own alcohol if i don't sell it?

Good question. You absolutely should be able to distill your own alcohol, and even consume it, as long as you are not endangering others.

The government enforces the law in order to reduce the need that certain people feel for vigilante action. People would still get punished for being assholes if there was no legal system, but with a lot more innocent people killed because of false accusations and blood feuds.

to protect the interests and property of those who make it
Yeah but also so that we don't have anarcy (sp). If we had lawlessness we'd just end up with gangs fighting for dominance and possibly some kind of dictatorship. Kinda like Iraq has been. Anyway, who wants rapists and murderers on the streets.
Well, the practical aims are of preventing the convicted criminal from committing more crime (and deterring them after they are released) and of deterring others from committing crimes.
The law is based on the subjective morality of the masses.

It's function is to make sure that, that which is considered immoral by the 'moral majority' does not occour and to punish it when it does.
Ideally, its to protech the weak from the strong.
It would appear that these remarks all agree with me, that the point of the law is to promote certain typoes of behaviour while discouraging others.

Yes! Finally...you are not blending the theoretical with the actual and calling them by the same name. Thank you!
I actually started this in response to some comments from Dempublicents, but I can understand why you'd be happy to see it.

To protect the superstructure that is society. A greater purpose for which each invididual must serve for the betterment of humanity.

What's the point of deterring just actions?
I think justice is irrelevant to the function of the law.

To enforce the exclusive interests of the ruling classes.
That's not really an answer I was expecting. I suppose I was concerned more with how the law does that.
The government enforces the law in order to reduce the need that certain people feel for vigilante action. People would still get punished for being assholes if there was no legal system, but with a lot more innocent people killed because of false accusations and blood feuds.
Similarly, your response addresses both sides of the issue. Regardless of whether the point of the law is to punish wrongdoers for the sake of punishing them, or to deter wrongdoing overall, you point out that the law exists so people won't take it upon themselves to pursue either of those goals.

Ideally to treat everyone justly and to protect everyone.
That's terribly vague. Protect everyone from what? Each other? Themselves? Plus, justice is as yet an undefined term here. Basing your legal system on it seems hopelesly interpretive.

there are 2 purposes to the law, justice and order.
This one warrants a more in-depth response.
if you are wronged in a way that cannot possibly be rectified, someone in your family is killed, for example, you look for JUSTICE. your loved one cannot be returned to you but you still want the perpetrator to be punished. if "the punishment fits the crime" you feel satisfied even though you are still mourning the loss. the punishment naturally varies from culture to culture.
But why? Punishing someone to no one's benefit strikes me as evil. Your loved-one is dead, and you recognise you can't change that, so just because you're angry you're going to vindictively hunt someone down and make him suffer?

You might be demonstrably more evil than Darth Vader.
the law also provides ORDER. it gives you guidance as to what you can and cant do without aggrieving your neighbor and lets you know when you have a just claim for a grievance. for example, if your wife was killed because she was crushed by a tree being cut down by your neighbor, you may have no case for him being punished, depending on the exact circumstances.

in a less devastating example good neighbors make good fences but where are you allowed to put that fence, what can it be made out of and how high is it allowed to be? those laws put everyone on the same page and on equal footing. if my neighbors fence doesnt break the law, i have no case. if it does break the law, it doesnt matter that he just spent $50k on a 20ft high brick wall that is exactly on the property line, he has to take it down.
And now you're just creating a predictable framework under which you are permitted to exact revenge.

I don't see how vengeance should ever been the core feature of a legal system. In fact, I don't see how vengeance is ever a valid goal? What good does punishing bad people do if you're only doing it because they deserve it?

The law as a deterent does not work on potential criminals as no one intentionally commits a crime thinking they will be caught.
This gets hauled out a lot, but of course the law didn't deter someone who just commited a crime. The question is, has it ever successfully convinced someone not to commit a crime?

To detemine that, you'd need a study that measured the whole of society, not just past offenders.

I know that punishment deters me. I try not to cheat on my taxes because I don't want to pay the penalites for having done so. I used to speed a lot when I drove, but when the minimum fine was raised to $575 I stopped speeding.

Any rational person will weigh the pros and cons of his actions before doing them, and if the cons involve significant negative consequences then he won't perform them.

To protect the people who are governed by it - plain and simple.
Again I ask, protect from what?
And if the law is not governed by what is just, it protects no one, and is thus useless.
So you're protecting them from injustice? Well, I suppose that guarantees that a successful system must then be based on justice, but I still don't know what justice is.
Meanwhile, by your logic, every offense should be a death penalty offense (or whatever the top punishment is).
That's a complete non sequitur. First of all, you're assuming that all else is equal, and it isn't. Punishments have costs, and some punishments are too expensive to use that often. So, you select a punishment that achieves the optimal balance of deterred crme and cost of enactment.

Second, you're assuming that deterrence is proportional to severity, or even that a rank order of severity is possible. There have been some good studies to show that we've sanitised the death penalty so much that it's no longer a deterrent. Or perhaps it never was. But clearly some punishment is an effective deterrent because people don't commit crimes willy-nilly. As I've said, I know I'm deterred by the threat of punishment.
After all, if we go by a just punishment that actually fits the crime, the law is obviously no longer credible. :rolleyes:
That the punishment fit the crime wasn't relevant. My concern was that the punishment was unpredictable.
Never mind that the only thing that keeps the law credible is to be justly and properly applied in protecting the citizens it governs.
Consistency matters, not justice. I still don't even know how to tell whether something is just. I'm hoping you'll explain that one.

The purpose of law can be many things, but I do need to remind some people here especially the OP that the law has two sides, the public one and the civil side.

It seems that alot of responders here seem to remember only the public side while most courtroom cases are useally civil ones concerning the misplaced hedge of misses Smith.

The purpose of law can be many things, but I do need to remind some people here especially the OP that the law has two sides, the public one and the civil side.

It seems that alot of responders here seem to remember only the public side while most courtroom cases are useally civil ones concerning the misplaced hedge of misses Smith.
The civil side is relevant, too. I've often wondered why punitive damages are ever paid to the claimant (or plaintiff, or whatever it's called in your country). If punitive damages are warranted, why isn't this is a criminal trial, and shouldn't it just juts go to the government like a fine?

Compensatory damages make perfect sense to me, but punitive damages seem both vindicitive and to contain perverse incentives to be legally wronged.

To protect the people who are governed by it - plain and simple.

And if the law is not governed by what is just, it protects no one, and is thus useless.

Meanwhile, by your logic, every offense should be a death penalty offense (or whatever the top punishment is). After all, if we go by a just punishment that actually fits the crime, the law is obviously no longer credible. :rolleyes:

Never mind that the only thing that keeps the law credible is to be justly and properly applied in protecting the citizens it governs. Law for the sake of law is not credible in any way and should be done away with if it occurs.

Well said. QFT.

The civil side is relevant, too. I've often wondered why punitive damages are ever paid to the claimant (or plaintiff, or whatever it's called in your country). If punitive damages are warranted, why isn't this is a criminal trial, and shouldn't it just juts go to the government like a fine?

Compensatory damages make perfect sense to me, but punitive damages seem both vindicitive and to contain perverse incentives to be legally wronged.

*sigh*

Have you ever studied punitive damages?

They make perfect sense. They are an additional penalty to punish defendants for egregious behavior -- such as when the defendant caused damage intentionally, willfully, wantonly, or maliciously. They are both just and a deterrent.

That behavior may deserve punitive damages does not necessarily mean a crime was committed and the damages are a windfall to the plaintiff that has gone to the trouble of bringing and winning the case for such damages.

The civil side is relevant, too. I've often wondered why punitive damages are ever paid to the claimant (or plaintiff, or whatever it's called in your country). If punitive damages are warranted, why isn't this is a criminal trial, and shouldn't it just juts go to the government like a fine?

Compensatory damages make perfect sense to me, but punitive damages seem both vindicitive and to contain perverse incentives to be legally wronged.

Depends on what you are talking about when refering to punitive damages since there are many kinds. Perhaps you can provide an example seeing as the law is rarely uniform around the world...

Just going off my basic understanding of the development of the Common Law in England in the Middle Ages... (and this builds in to the purpose of kingship as well).

Basically people will have disputes at one point or another. Sometimes they are resolved amicably, sometimes they aren't. What do they do? Fight it out until someone gives in?
A more likely action is to refer the case to a higher (and hopefully just) authority to decide it for you. And then you get the development of precedents and laws about conduct in certain cases, governing behaviour and the consequences.
Much of the early Common Law as developed under Henry II grew primarily out of disputes over land and rightful ownership of that land - people had just been through the Anarchy of Stephen, where higher authority had pretty much collapsed and left the barons to pretty much fight it out between themselves. The resulting disputes over who stole what and who deserved what back had to be sorted out somehow - and in a sense, the development of the Common Law was one response to that.

To protect the people who are governed by it - plain and simple.

And if the law is not governed by what is just, it protects no one, and is thus useless.

Meanwhile, by your logic, every offense should be a death penalty offense (or whatever the top punishment is). After all, if we go by a just punishment that actually fits the crime, the law is obviously no longer credible. :rolleyes:

Never mind that the only thing that keeps the law credible is to be justly and properly applied in protecting the citizens it governs. Law for the sake of law is not credible in any way and should be done away with if it occurs.

Note that this is your opinion on how law -should- be.
Is a nation governed by unjust laws a nation that is either lawless or in chaos? And then what are just laws? Are we to ignore unjust laws on a personal basis and if so doesn't the law lose its universal nature?

Note that I agree with you that law -should- be based on justice but just the fact that sometimes laws aren't doesn't mean that it means that they are non-existant.

Also law for the sake of law is quite possible though in a limited sense. Consider the choice for driving direction. It matters not if we are on the left or right but it does matter if we all at least choose one direction.

The purpose of law is to maximize justice.
Since justice is a subjective idea, it isn't possible to give an objective definition of it.

The purpose of law is to maximize justice.
Since justice is a subjective idea, it isn't possible to give an objective definition of it.

That rather defeats the purpose of having a uniform law appliable to all then seeing as we can't even define it universally?

No law is to uphold order and to some nations and ways of thinking justice is an important part of being able to impose this order. At least that is my opinion and I can assure you that there is no unifying anwser to this debate.

Well, if someone takes something from me I want a way to either get it back or to prevent them from doing it again. It pretty much boils down to protecting myself, my property, and others' selves and property.

That rather defeats the purpose of having a uniform law appliable to all then seeing as we can't even define it universally?Laws aren't applicable to all, they are only applicable to those governed by them.

No law is to uphold order and to some nations and ways of thinking justice is an important part of being able to impose this order. At least that is my opinion and I can assure you that there is no unifying anwser to this debate.You're welcome to your opinion, I simply disagree.

I think justice is irrelevant to the function of the law.

So what is the law supposed to deter?

How do we determine what should be a crime and what shouldn't be?

Laws aren't applicable to all, they are only applicable to those governed by them.

You're welcome to your opinion, I simply disagree.

Doesn't all equals universally at least for that particular group of people that we are speaking of? In any case you still have the problem of subjective views on justice whenever you are with more than one person let alone a nation state.

In any case im glad you simply disagree yet I would have hoped that this forum would provide more than just an acknowledgement of that. Perhaps your reasoning as to why Justice stands above order?

In any case im glad you simply disagree yet I would have hoped that this forum would provide more than just an acknowledgement of that. Perhaps your reasoning as to why Justice stands above order?

Order can't survive with out justice. If people think that their laws are unjust, they will find ways to circumvent them or rebel against them until they collapse; it might take a long time, but it always happens. That's why repressive regimes need to spend so much on controlling their people; the people don't accept their unjust order, and will try to rebel against it wherever possible.

Order without justice is nothing more than tyranny, and tyrants are always destroyed.

So what is the law supposed to deter?

How do we determine what should be a crime and what shouldn't be?

All that threatens the stability of the society that the laws are to proctect. One cannot kill another for if all should do such then society will crumble, same goes for stealing, same goes for counterfitting etc etc.

Justice need not have a place in it.

Also what is justice? Is this not merely a cultural phenomena? Is it not merely a way of "dressing" up the main reason of laws as to uphold the society of men that are in it? Whether we do it to safeguard our citizens or to protect our prized morals is irrelavent. It is still a way to maintain the society that we are in.

All that threatens the stability of the society that the laws are to proctect. One cannot kill another for if all should do such then society will crumble, same goes for stealing, same goes for counterfitting etc etc.

Well, here's a problem: What happens when the government decides that freedom of speech, or democracy, or any other thing we commonly see as desirable are threatening to social stability? Anything can be interpreted to be a threat to social stability, which leaves it as open to abuse and repression.

Hell, a corrupt government might decide that an independent judiciary or supreme laws are threatening to social stability...it would totally destroy order in the name of "preserving" it.

Doesn't all equals universally at least for that particular group of people that we are speaking of? In any case you still have the problem of subjective views on justice whenever you are with more than one person let alone a nation state.A good law will encompass all subjective views of justice.

In any case im glad you simply disagree yet I would have hoped that this forum would provide more than just an acknowledgement of that. Perhaps your reasoning as to why Justice stands above order?I can't see any value to order if it's not just. Order isn't valuable in and of itself. I would argue that justice is valuable in and of itself. (As much as subjective value can be, anyway.)

The purpose of law is to maximize justice.
Since justice is a subjective idea, it isn't possible to give an objective definition of it.
But then you can never tell if it's working.

Also what is justice? Is this not merely a cultural phenomena? Is it not merely a way of "dressing" up the main reason of laws as to uphold the society of men that are in it? Whether we do it to safeguard our citizens or to protect our prized morals is irrelavent. It is still a way to maintain the society that we are in.

Order is a cultural phenomenon. If we were all isolated from one another, there would be no need for it.

So what is the law supposed to deter?
Why does it matter?
How do we determine what should be a crime and what shouldn't be?
That's determined more by politics than law - that's the job of an entirely different arm of the government.

But then you can never tell if it's working.

You can get a pretty good idea by comparing places that don't have it; we're doing a hell of a lot better than Somalia or the Sudan as far as I know.

But then you can never tell if it's working.Sure you can. If it increases the amount of justice in the subjective views of the people governed by the law, then it's working. If not, then it isn't.

Sure you can. If it increases the amount of justice in the subjective views of the people governed by the law, then it's working. If not, then it isn't.
1) How do you know the subjective views of those people?

2) What if the people disagree?

This one warrants a more in-depth response.

But why? Punishing someone to no one's benefit strikes me as evil. Your loved-one is dead, and you recognise you can't change that, so just because you're angry you're going to vindictively hunt someone down and make him suffer?

You might be demonstrably more evil than Darth Vader.

And now you're just creating a predictable framework under which you are permitted to exact revenge.

I don't see how vengeance should ever been the core feature of a legal system. In fact, I don't see how vengeance is ever a valid goal? What good does punishing bad people do if you're only doing it because they deserve it?

The whole point of desert is that its deserved. The notions of costs and benefits are irrevelevant. If someone deserves to die it doesn't matter if there are no benefits. We're talking about deontology where things are right or wrong based on rights and duties of persons. You seem to believe in some kind of utilitarianism/consequentialism. Thats ok, but your argument should consist of something along the lines of the fact that the murderer or whatever does't deserve death.

Your own morality could be used to justify killing criminals on the grounds of deterence, fewer criminals, and prevention, the criminal can no longer committ criminal acts. That is if the benefits of the above outweigh the costs of implementing it.

A good law will encompass all subjective views of justice.

I can't see any value to order if it's not just. Order isn't valuable in and of itself. I would argue that justice is valuable in and of itself. (As much as subjective value can be, anyway.)

Encompassing all subjective views is impossible. Either you have the death penalty or you don't. Either homosexuals can marry or they can't. Either euthenasia is legal or it isn't. Either abortion is legal or it isn't.. etc etc etc.

In the end the state has to make a choice and the choice it makes means one viewpoint of justice will be comprimised. Is this justice? Is the other side simply wrong? Will they be wrong after 100 years? In the end the state has to make a choice as to which laws they want and don't want because if they don't then they will be lawless.

In the dark ages the burning of heratics was seen as divine justice. Today we can hardly feel the same way. What does this say about justice? That it is a thing bound to the spirit of time? Its all a matter of relativity? Does this mean that the spanish inquisition is also merely a product of its time and therefor it makes it justice?

To have laws is sometimes about making choices especially the important ones for the sake of at least having a direction as a society and not fall into a lawless state. If justice can tip the balance for one choice or the other than so be it...but it is not it's driving force...

All that threatens the stability of the society that the laws are to proctect.

What's the point of stability?

One cannot kill another for if all should do such then society will crumble, same goes for stealing, same goes for counterfitting etc etc.

Everything from a totalitarian state to a liberal democracy can be "stable." Which set of laws should we adopt?

Justice need not have a place in it.

"Need" not, no. The traditional role of law is to secure the rule of the property-owners and the political elite. But certainly justice should have a place.

Also what is justice? Is this not merely a cultural phenomena? Is it not merely a way of "dressing" up the main reason of laws as to uphold the society of men that are in it?

No.

Whether we do it to safeguard our citizens or to protect our prized morals is irrelavent. It is still a way to maintain the society that we are in.

No, it isn't. A set of just laws would destroy the society we are in - for the better.

Why does it matter?

Obviously because if the law is meant to deter unjust action, then a just action should not receive punishment.

In the dark ages the burning of heratics was seen as divine justice. Today we can hardly feel the same way. What does this say about justice?

That sometimes people get it right... and other times people get it wrong.

That it is a thing bound to the spirit of time?

No, though the prevailing conceptions of justice probably do change over time.

Its all a matter of relativity? Does this mean that the spanish inquisition is also merely a product of its time and therefor it makes it justice?

Perhaps from the perspective of the Spanish inquisitors. So? We are not them.

To have laws is sometimes about making choices especially the important ones for the sake of at least having a direction as a society and not fall into a lawless state.

And how is that any less a subjective viewpoint?

Perhaps I like lawlessness.

True yet the whole purpose of being human and alive is to interact with other humans.

Speaking of "subjective"...

Order is a cultural phenomenon. If we were all isolated from one another, there would be no need for it.

True yet the whole purpose of being human and alive is to interact with other humans. When humans meet they have different desires and therefor it must be curved with laws to make sure they don't collide.

Also, is it really a cultural phenomenon? The animal kingdom also knows order. There is a strict hierarchy amongst Chimpansees which is based on might makes right. The same goes for many animals for that matter. Is there any justice between them? No, yet if there wasn't any order amongst them then the group would fall apart and many of these animals survive on the sole fact a larger group safe guards the individual. Same goes for humans...

1) How do you know the subjective views of those people?By asking them.

2) What if the people disagree?Then hopefully they wouldn't be covered by the same laws.

(In case you were wondering, I believe in the social contract theory of law.)

Encompassing all subjective views is impossible. Either you have the death penalty or you don't. Either homosexuals can marry or they can't. Either euthenasia is legal or it isn't. Either abortion is legal or it isn't.. etc etc etc.

In the end the state has to make a choice and the choice it makes means one viewpoint of justice will be comprimised. Is this justice? Is the other side simply wrong? Will they be wrong after 100 years? In the end the state has to make a choice as to which laws they want and don't want because if they don't then they will be lawless.I suppose if they decide for whatever reason that those two viewpoints must agree as opposed to dividing into separate states.
I would say that the latter is better.

In the dark ages the burning of heratics was seen as divine justice. Today we can hardly feel the same way. What does this say about justice? That it is a thing bound to the spirit of time? Its all a matter of relativity? Does this mean that the spanish inquisition is also merely a product of its time and therefor it makes it justice?Yes and no. In my subjective opinion, no, what is just is just throughout eternity.
Objectively, however, yes, what they did was just if it maximized justice (in their view).

To have laws is sometimes about making choices especially the important ones for the sake of at least having a direction as a society and not fall into a lawless state. If justice can tip the balance for one choice or the other than so be it...but it is not it's driving force...Certainly, and sometimes the choice made will be wrong. This doesn't mean that the society is lawless, simply that it has laws that oppose the purpose of what law is.

That sometimes people get it right... and other times people get it wrong.

No, though the prevailing conceptions of justice probably do change over time.

Perhaps from the perspective of the Spanish inquisitors. So? We are not them.


Then what is justice? And indeed weren't the inquisitors...yet im certain a dictator in a totalirian system could say the same thing about your values. They are not you.

To clarify...I completly agree with you that the law should be guided by justice and all that is right yet what I say is that this is not the way how things are -are-. Perhaps that is where our conversation strands.

Also sometimes pms are better when we start posting 4 times in a row ;)

Then what is justice?

That question can't be answered in a few sentences.

It has to do with treating sentient beings as morally worthy entities with legitimate interests and desires.

And indeed weren't the inquisitors...yet im certain a dictator in a totalirian system could say the same thing about your values. They are not you.

Yes, they can. So?

If you really believe that justice is subjective, why should this stop me? Other people might not like apples, but I like them... should I stop because they don't like them?

To clarify...I completly agree with you that the law should be guided by justice and all that is right yet what I say is that this is not the way how things are -are-.

I agree with that.

Obviously because if the law is meant to deter unjust action, then a just action should not receive punishment.
You're ignoring the possibility that failing to punish certain just actions (whatever those are) could weaken the deterrent force related to unjust actions (whatever those are).

By asking them.
That's not quite the same as knowledge.
Then hopefully they wouldn't be covered by the same laws.

(In case you were wondering, I believe in the social contract theory of law.)
So one can only be subject to laws voluntarily? That solves a lot of problems. I make no claims as to whether it creates new ones.

You're ignoring the possibility that failing to punish certain just actions (whatever those are) could weaken the deterrent force related to unjust actions (whatever those are).

And actually punishing them would deter just actions, restrict liberty, and punish the innocent.

In ordinary circumstances, putting the distinction there makes sense.

The whole point of desert is that its deserved. The notions of costs and benefits are irrevelevant. If someone deserves to die it doesn't matter if there are no benefits. We're talking about deontology where things are right or wrong based on rights and duties of persons. You seem to believe in some kind of utilitarianism/consequentialism. Thats ok, but your argument should consist of something along the lines of the fact that the murderer or whatever does't deserve death.
I would only need to demonstrate that if you had some sort of basis to believe the opposite. And you don't.

Desert isn't knowable to you. If it is, then it should (assuming we're relevantly similar) be knowable to me, but I have no idea how I would know that.

Your deontology fails as soon as you recognise that you don't know whether persons have rights or duties.

You're ignoring the possibility that failing to punish certain just actions (whatever those are) could weaken the deterrent force related to unjust actions (whatever those are).

Punishing just actions could easily erode the sense of legitimacy and thus utility of a deterrent force.

And actually punishing them would deter just actions, restrict liberty, and punish the innocent.

In ordinary circumstances, putting the distinction there makes sense.
You're assuming both that the just actors are being punished for acting justly, and that the people believe that applies to all just actions.

Both baseless assumptions.

That question can't be answered in a few sentences.

It has to do with treating sentient beings as morally worthy entities with legitimate interests and desires.

Allright to clarify once more: Yes they should be I agree with all my enlightenment filled heart however justice in some societies can also be that humans are not to be treated such. That the state is all and the ultimate afront is individuality á la 1984. That can also be a justice.
Who is to say which is right or wrong?


If you really believe that justice is subjective, why should this stop me? Other people might not like apples, but I like them... should I stop because they don't like them?



Your example isn't up to the point. I believe for one can act within the boundaries of the law as long as one doesn't step over that line. Your example changes when you are in a nation where eating apples are considered an afront to its values. You can do whatever you want (at least in the modern democratic nationstate) as long as you don't break the law. Law cannot be subjective.

So, considering we both agree that justice -should- be its guiding force then what can we do about its subjective nature?H
ow do we make it an ultimate goal of law when law is absolute when treating it's recipients?

I would only need to demonstrate that if you had some sort of basis to believe the opposite. And you don't.

Desert isn't knowable to you. If it is, then it should (assuming we're relevantly similar) be knowable to me, but I have no idea how I would know that.

Your deontology fails as soon as you recognise that you don't know whether persons have rights or duties.

Of course, but then again your notion of costs and benefits fails as well because why should I even care about them, how do you even judge such subjective states, and why should you ascribe morality to them(you called killing a murderer for no gain evil).

Punishing just actions could easily erode the sense of legitimacy and thus utility of a deterrent force.
Punishment need not be just to deter - just unpleasant. Legitimacy is not as important as consistency.

That's not quite the same as knowledge.Do you mean because people might not know what it is that they believe is just? If that's the case, when they do figure it out, the law can be changed if it's more just to do so.

So one can only be subject to laws voluntarily? That solves a lot of problems. I make no claims as to whether it creates new ones.No, you can only be subject to just, purposeful laws voluntarily. It's entirely possible to be subjected by an unjust law, but such a law would not fulfill the purpose of what law is.

Punishment need not be just to deter - just unpleasant. Legitimacy is not as important as consistency.

Unpleasantness is a deterent. Legitimacy is partly formed by consistancy.

No, you can only be subject to just, purposeful laws voluntarily. It's entirely possible to be subjected by an unjust law, but such a law would not fulfill the purpose of what law is.

But what to do when one issue divides the nation in half? Sometimes laws cannot find the middleground in order to appease all parties involved. Is the party that is denied to fullfillment of his law also denied of justice? How does law fullfill its purpose then when it clearly cannot always do such?

Do you mean because people might not know what it is that they believe is just? If that's the case, when they do figure it out, the law can be changed if it's more just to do so.
Also, they might lie to you out of fear of being different.

Most people like to fit in, so if they have idiosyncratic opinions they will hide them.

But what to do when one issue divides the nation in half? Sometimes laws cannot find the middleground in order to appease all parties involved. Is the party that is denied to fullfillment of his law also denied of justice? How does law fullfill its purpose then when it clearly cannot always do such?
Then it shouldn't apply to all of them. They need to form two groups governed by different laws.

Then it shouldn't apply to all of them. They need to form two groups governed by different laws.

Im certain you mean well but that won't and probably didn't work useally. In a democratic nationstate people are considered equals and should be treated as such unless something warrents a different treatment.

This can lead to segragation which is a result of not treating people equally and also having different laws for different people doesnt always work.

Consider the case of abortion. Making abortion legal for people who want an abortion and illegal for those who oppose it is pretty much the same as having no anti-abortion laws at all.

True yet the whole purpose of being human and alive is to interact with other humans. When humans meet they have different desires and therefor it must be curved with laws to make sure they don't collide.

Well, of course. Humans need cultural contact, and one aspect of that contact is justice. A society can't function properly without justice.

Also, is it really a cultural phenomenon? The animal kingdom also knows order. There is a strict hierarchy amongst Chimpansees which is based on might makes right. The same goes for many animals for that matter. Is there any justice between them? No, yet if there wasn't any order amongst them then the group would fall apart and many of these animals survive on the sole fact a larger group safe guards the individual. Same goes for humans...

But human conceptions of order go far beyond the simple drive of survival that dominates chimpanzee society. We are capable of doing far more because of our intelligence, and our more advanced and complex society requires more advanced notions like justice or ethics so that it can develop the kind of order needed to thrive and grow.

But human conceptions of order go far beyond the simple drive of survival that dominates chimpanzee society. We are capable of doing far more because of our intelligence, and our more advanced and complex society requires more advanced notions like justice or ethics so that it can develop the kind of order needed to thrive and grow.

I fear this is turning into a "chicken or the egg" conversation in regards as to what aspect serves another. In this case either order is a product of justice or justice is a product of order.

I wish to equal order to a presarvation of society. Which is a society that we belong to, feel part of and wish to maintain. Justice, aswell as democracy, equality etc are a part of the societies of most of our members here. It is the result of many years of history, cultural interaction etc and it is something we wish to maintain and uphold. One way to do this is to make laws to ensure our values are in power in our society. It is a way to protect our values in our society.

Is law not a way of maintaining your desired society? Justice exists in all societies, only in different forms. Is it just not part of the identity you wish to maintain?

Perhaps a rephrase is in order: The purpose of law is a way to protect a societies set of rules and morals. Justice is a part of it, but again, laws aren't always filled with justice. Wether they decide green lights means driving or red means stop or the other way around isn't important. As long as you at least have these rules.

But human conceptions of order go far beyond the simple drive of survival that dominates chimpanzee society. We are capable of doing far more because of our intelligence, and our more advanced and complex society requires more advanced notions like justice or ethics so that it can develop the kind of order needed to thrive and grow.

Indeed humans are alot more advanced in many fields yet the basic premise, that primal nature still exists.

Im certain human are one of the most inventive animals when it concerns matters such as having intercourse however it doesn't change what ultimately its purpose is.

What is the purpose of the law? Why do we punish people who violate it?

Do we do it because it's just? Because they deserve it? What good would that do? If we punish people simply because they deserve it, then our decision to do that harms them and benefits no one. I would describe that as evil behaviour - harming others to no one's benefit.

I think we punish people to make the threat of punishment more credible, because that threat of punishment deters crime.

But that's only going to work if that threat remains credible. If we enforce the law inconsistently, perhaps by punishing people selectively based on other criteria (like whether its just), that undermines the core function of the law, which is to deter crime.

What do you think the law is for? If you thik we punish people for some other reason than to deter crime, what good do you think that does?

Trying to find the purpose for a legal system is a bit like trying to contemplate the sound of one hand clapping. It poses a nice riddle to help elevate your thinking, but you are never going to get anything rational out of it.

The Law is like alleyways. They aren't really constructed, they just show up as a natural consequence of having a lot of people trying to live next to each other. And they aren't intended to fill up with lots of garbage, they just end up being a convinient place to put it.

You're assuming both that the just actors are being punished for acting justly,

Um, isn't that the circumstance we're talking about?

You questioned whether we should be lenient with people who act justly while breaking the law.

Who is to say which is right or wrong?

Everyone.

So, considering we both agree that justice -should- be its guiding force then what can we do about its subjective nature?H

Why should we care?

Just because law is an objective fact doesn't mean that it needs an objective basis.

True yet the whole purpose of being human and alive is to interact with other humans. When humans meet they have different desires and therefor it must be curved with laws to make sure they don't collide.

Also, is it really a cultural phenomenon? The animal kingdom also knows order. There is a strict hierarchy amongst Chimpansees which is based on might makes right. The same goes for many animals for that matter. Is there any justice between them? No, yet if there wasn't any order amongst them then the group would fall apart and many of these animals survive on the sole fact a larger group safe guards the individual. Same goes for humans...

There isn't really a concept of might makes right in the animal kingdom. Even among the most intelligent of them. Might Makes Sexy, yes. Dominant males get choice breeding rights. But when it comes to making decisions about things like who gets what food, where does the troop move to next, and any other group decision, the decisions get made by the group. If the dominant male really wants to forage for food in a place the rest of the troupe wants to leave, then the dominant male will find himself alone.

Yes a strong chimp may bully a weaker one out of a bananna, but weaker chips just hide their banannas. In some cases they'll actually pull tricks to get their choice of food like making an alarm call when there is no danger and stealing the tastiest food in the panic.

Of course, those humans that live closest to nature have a similar hierarchy. In a tribal village one man's farm will look much the same as the next man's. You would be hard pressed to spot the the house of the local shaman or chief. They will probably have one, but he will have to do all the same jobs as anyone else. He can't just sit around all day telling everyone else what to do. Even if he can broker deals with the spirit world. All it gets him is a slightly bigger meal a few days out of the year.

It isn't until you get people killing eachother for their land that you get laws and professional bosses. But social order tends to break down in animal society when there aren't enough resources to go around either. That's where the cultural phenomena come in. Humans have found ways to handle it. Almost no animals do. Perhaps lions learned to cooperate and evolved from a more solitary ancestor, but for the most part, if there isn't enough food to go around, they just kill each other. Like Polar Bears have started doing.

There isn't really a concept of might makes right in the animal kingdom. Even among the most intelligent of them. Might Makes Sexy, yes. Dominant males get choice breeding rights. But when it comes to making decisions about things like who gets what food, where does the troop move to next, and any other group decision, the decisions get made by the group. If the dominant male really wants to forage for food in a place the rest of the troupe wants to leave, then the dominant male will find himself alone.

Yes a strong chimp may bully a weaker one out of a bananna, but weaker chips just hide their banannas. In some cases they'll actually pull tricks to get their choice of food like making an alarm call when there is no danger and stealing the tastiest food in the panic.

Might doesn't immediatly mean strenght perhaps that is where I didn't clarify myself enough. Might can also mean being cunning and having a well built social network in the case of the chimps. So when a situation arises where desires conflict then the animals will call upon these traits to impose their will on another, whether because their stronger, smarter or that they have more friends, in the end they are means of projecting your power upon another and so might still makes right. Might doesn't make right for example when the chimps decide that all should forage the some amount of food for the same duration and that all should be shared equally. Yet obviously they don't.

Of course, those humans that live closest to nature have a similar hierarchy. In a tribal village one man's farm will look much the same as the next man's. You would be hard pressed to spot the the house of the local shaman or chief. They will probably have one, but he will have to do all the same jobs as anyone else. He can't just sit around all day telling everyone else what to do. Even if he can broker deals with the spirit world. All it gets him is a slightly bigger meal a few days out of the year.

A tribal society such as that most definatly has laws. Laws do not need to be codified. Such tribal villages must have rules as to what happens when two members want the same property such as a elephants tusk or a straw basket. Do they decide that the eldest should have it or that the tribe as a whole should benifit? As for the shaman, even he has unwritten rules as how to engage these spirit passed on by his predecessor. Are they not laws aswell?


It isn't until you get people killing eachother for their land that you get laws and professional bosses. But social order tends to break down in animal society when there aren't enough resources to go around either. That's where the cultural phenomena come in. Humans have found ways to handle it. Almost no animals do. Perhaps lions learned to cooperate and evolved from a more solitary ancestor, but for the most part, if there isn't enough food to go around, they just kill each other. Like Polar Bears have started doing.

Do laws exist when people kill each for land? I cannot agree. I find that laws come into existance when a group of people must try to coordinate thier group for the benifit of all members. In exchange for the benfits the group provides the individual has to follow the rules of that group.

A tribal society such as that most definatly has laws. Laws do not need to be codified. Such tribal villages must have rules as to what happens when two members want the same property such as a elephants tusk or a straw basket. Do they decide that the eldest should have it or that the tribe as a whole should benifit? As for the shaman, even he has unwritten rules as how to engage these spirit passed on by his predecessor. Are they not laws aswell?

No, not laws as we understand them in a modern society. They have traditions, but they are much more malliable. We have law, so a few weeks ago a woman was sentenced to life in prison for adultery, even though almost no one thinks that such a thing is right. A few months ago a man was sent to jail for buying cough medicine for his child because there is a law that limits the amount of pseudoephedrine a person can buy per month and he was already at his limit because of chronic seasonal allergies.

Tribal societies do not have such blanket policies unless they just happen to have a large proportion of particularly intractable grumps. They have traditions which get handed down over the course of generations changing to meet the needs of each new generation, but so subtley that no one knows they changed at all, to the point that there is a tribe which believes that the universe was created when their god had sex with a Coke bottle, and believes that their ancient ancestors believed this too.

We on the other hand have no ancient tradition of not using pseudoephedrine. We have a law. And if we cared to take the time we could find the name of the guy who made that law up.

No one person writes a law in a tribal society. Not even any one group of people. But even the most popular law in America will have several particular named people who wrote it and made it a law.

Do laws exist when people kill each for land? I cannot agree. I find that laws come into existance when a group of people must try to coordinate thier group for the benifit of all members. In exchange for the benfits the group provides the individual has to follow the rules of that group.

You misunderstand my statement. Law develops as a response to the condition of people killing each other.

As long as there is more land, if people fight over the land, the losers will just move to some other land. Once there isn't anywhere to run, you will have one of two conditions. Genocide, or conquering.

In those cases where you get conquering, you get two societies with conflicting traditions trying to live in the same land, albeit in very unequal circumstances. Traditions are suddenly completly insufficient for helping people make decisions. So people must invent new traditions that are completly artificial. We call those artificial traditions "Law."

But what to do when one issue divides the nation in half? Sometimes laws cannot find the middleground in order to appease all parties involved. Is the party that is denied to fullfillment of his law also denied of justice? How does law fullfill its purpose then when it clearly cannot always do such?As Llewdor said, literally divide the nation in half, unless doing such is not just.

Also, they might lie to you out of fear of being different.

Most people like to fit in, so if they have idiosyncratic opinions they will hide them.Could it be that they believe that fitting in is more just than telling the truth?

Again I ask, protect from what?

From that which would harm them and can be regulated by law - generally, other people.

That's a complete non sequitur.

No, it isn't. The law should be consistent and is just to deter crime, you said. The best way to deter crime is to lop off someone's head every time they commit one. I can guarantee you'd see less speeding if it were a death penalty offense (and it didn't cause a revolt).

That the punishment fit the crime wasn't relevant.

The fact that you say this tells me that you aren't worth talking to. If you think that we should mistreat people just so you can have some strange, inflated "law" to worship, that's fine. Most of us would prefer otherwise.

My concern was that the punishment was unpredictable.

No more so than it is without retroactive application. The punishment has been changed. If "unpredictable" is wrong, then no punishment should ever be changed, no matter how wrong we may all think it is. No act that has ever been criminalize can ever be decriminalized, even if it never should have been illegal in the first place. After all, that's unpredictable.

Consistency matters, not justice.

If consistency is all that matters, then law has no place in anyone's life. It should be abolished. Law for the sake of law does nothing for anyone. Thus, we should all refuse to give it any authority.

I still don't even know how to tell whether something is just. I'm hoping you'll explain that one.

If you don't understand the concept by now, you are horribly developmentally disabled, and I'm afraid there's nothing I can do for you. Most children begin to understand these concepts at a fairly early age. It has a lot to do with empathy, actually.

The punishment is much more important than the rehabilitation of criminals. The law is there as a set of rules for all to abide by. Those who do not abide by the set rules and regulations need to be punished and made an example out of, to discourage future infractions from others.

Nothing says obey me (Me being the Law) like a bloody head on a stick.

Note that this is your opinion on how law -should- be.

Yes. And any law that does not meet that criteria should be actively fought against and, if necessary, actively disobeyed.

Is a nation governed by unjust laws a nation that is either lawless or in chaos?

It is a nation that is wrongly governed, and its people should rise up against the government.

And then what are just laws? Are we to ignore unjust laws on a personal basis and if so doesn't the law lose its universal nature?

If a law is unjust, it should be ignored if the individual needs to ignore it. For instance, if it were illegal for me to seek medical treatment for an injury, I would seek medical treatment nonetheless - because it would be necessary for me to do so.

Note that I agree with you that law -should- be based on justice but just the fact that sometimes laws aren't doesn't mean that it means that they are non-existant.

No, but it does mean we should be working to do away with them, even if civil disobedience must come into play.

Also law for the sake of law is quite possible though in a limited sense. Consider the choice for driving direction. It matters not if we are on the left or right but it does matter if we all at least choose one direction.

The fact that it does matter if we all choose one direction tells you that the law is not "law for the sake of law." The law is there to protect those who drive - to regulate driving so that we all follow consistent rules and know what to expect in what other drivers will do. Yes, the particular side of the road that is chosen is fairly arbitrary, but the point is that a side is chosen.

That rather defeats the purpose of having a uniform law appliable to all then seeing as we can't even define it universally?

Hence the reason that the law itself should only be used for protection - to keep others from being harmed.

No law is to uphold order and to some nations and ways of thinking justice is an important part of being able to impose this order. At least that is my opinion and I can assure you that there is no unifying anwser to this debate.

And for what reason do you want order? Oh, to protect the people.

No, it isn't. The law should be consistent and is just to deter crime, you said. The best way to deter crime is to lop off someone's head every time they commit one. I can guarantee you'd see less speeding if it were a death penalty offense (and it didn't cause a revolt).
Only if that's an effective deterrent, which you have no reason to believe.
No more so than it is without retroactive application. The punishment has been changed. If "unpredictable" is wrong, then no punishment should ever be changed, no matter how wrong we may all think it is. No act that has ever been criminalize can ever be decriminalized, even if it never should have been illegal in the first place. After all, that's unpredictable.
No it isn't. If I change the law today, such that anyone who acts under my law today is governed by it, he can predict how the law will react to his actions. That's predictability.

Wheterr you can predict what the law will say a year from now only matters if you don't know what law will then govern what you're doing now, but under my system you will always know what law governs what you're doing now because that law (today's law) is immutable when applied to today's actions.
If you don't understand the concept by now, you are horribly developmentally disabled, and I'm afraid there's nothing I can do for you.
If you understood it, you could write it down and explain it to me. That you are unable to do so suggests you also fail to understand it.

Only if that's an effective deterrent, which you have no reason to believe.

Referring to beheading, yes it is a marvelous deterrent. Look at Saudi Arabia, they be-head, be-hand, be-tongue, etc, at the least provocation and they have little or no crime because of it.

Look at a more civilized country like Japan. They have harsh punishments for crime and the streets are fairly safe. Now contrast that to what we do. Let murders out on parole while we incarcerate drug users for life. No wonder our crime rate is high. We don't know what crime really is, or how to deter it.

To maintain free interaction between participants.