NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems to me that there should be only two things to do with convicted criminals:

A: If possible, rehabilitate them.

B: If rehabilitation does not work, find some other method of preventing the criminal from committing the crime in the future.

The state "punishing" persons appears ridiculous to me. What is the popular opinion on NSG?

Justice is not necessarily about punishment at all.

Your two options make no room for crime prevention. Do you think it isn't possible, or simply a waste of resources?

"Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, fairness and equity."

Justice can never really become outdated. The definition of what constitutes it however, can and has.

Your two options make no room for crime prevention. Do you think it isn't possible, or simply a waste of resources?

Do you mean a deterrent?

Justice is not necessarily about punishment at all.

This.


If you rehabilitate a criminal have you not done justice to both the offender and the victim as well as any potential victims? If you segregate the dangerous muderer from the rest of society and prevent him from ever hurting anyone again have you not in fact done justice?

Do you mean a deterrent?

Yes, I suppose so. Either a deterrent to commit a crime in the first place, or a deterrent to commit future crimes after going through the justice system once.

I don't think It's wise to try and fool ourselves about our own basic nature. Without fear of punishment (some) people will do whatever they can get away with. And without the justice system respecting the victims need for revenge people will take it upon themselves to exact revenge themselves.

Yes, I suppose so. Either a deterrent to commit a crime in the first place, or a deterrent to commit future crimes after going through the justice system once.

Those really do not have much effect, as evinced by times and nations which employ death and torture to punish.

New Justice
It's not about what's right, it's about what's fair.

This.

If you rehabilitate a criminal have you not done justice to both the offender and the victim as well as any potential victims? If you segregate the dangerous muderer from the rest of society and prevent him from ever hurting anyone again have you not in fact done justice?

You've not included restitution for harm caused I see. Justice is not served if it does not include that.

You've not included restitution for harm caused I see. Justice is not served if it does not include that.

Restitution is a natural part of the rehabilitation/segregation process.

Excuse me for not writing 4 paragraphs to say what could be said in one.

Restitution is a natural part of the rehabilitation/segregation process.

Excuse me for not writing 4 paragraphs to say what could be said in one.

In the case of murder there is no restitution is possible. The only thing left is punishment.

It seems to me that there should be only two things to do with convicted criminals:

A: If possible, rehabilitate them.

B: If rehabilitation does not work, find some other method of preventing the criminal from committing the crime in the future.

The state "punishing" persons appears ridiculous to me. What is the popular opinion on NSG?

Are you giving me permission to become The Punisher?

http://hpod.com/files/images/punisher-teaser-poster-big.jpg

In the case of murder there is no restitution is possible. The only thing left is punishment.

If its that important people can line up and kick the murderer in the shin or something.

It seems to me that there should be only two things to do with convicted criminals:

A: If possible, rehabilitate them.

B: If rehabilitation does not work, find some other method of preventing the criminal from committing the crime in the future.

The state "punishing" persons appears ridiculous to me. What is the popular opinion on NSG?

I'm inclined to agree with most of this. I think that the Justice System must be about the safety and well-being of the public, and whatever best accomplishes that end.

I do believe that the Justice System should be based off of retribution, nor am I convinced that deterenece is effective.

Restitution is a natural part of the rehabilitation/segregation process.

Excuse me for not writing 4 paragraphs to say what could be said in one.

Perhaps, but when you said it, there did not appear to be any indication of restitution for the wronged parties. Just rehabilitation of the offender.

Are you giving me permission to become The Punisher?

http://hpod.com/files/images/punisher-teaser-poster-big.jpg

Oh, God, do not remind me of that film; the fellow just "blew" off the dock and survived! And think of how many shots his "bullet-proof-vest" took while still holding together.

Perhaps, but when you said it, there did not appear to be any indication of restitution for the wronged parties. Just rehabilitation of the offender.

For the record I meant my comment to be inclusive.

Those really do not have much effect, as evinced by times and nations which employ death and torture to punish.

I disagree. I think they make an impact, but only for certain people--people who may have other options, who made a mistake they don't wish to repeat, etc. Deterrents do not ameliorate poverty, mental illness, addiction, or any other myriad things that lead to crime, of course, but I do think that laws regarding parole, for example, can help curb some preventable crime.

In the case of murder there is no restitution is possible. The only thing left is punishment.
Restitution isn't possible in anything but the simplest cases (petty theft with no violence, con-artists, tax dodgers). Once you start trying to figure out what getting raped or hit by a car is worth, you are no longer dealing in the realm of what is verifiable.

Anyway, I've thought/read about this a lot, and even wrote a 15-page paper related to it. While I would agree that the chief goal of the law is to rehabilitate the offender, I think that a certain amount of retribution is necessary. Both for the victim's own well-being, and for the offender's own reintegration into society (which is, presumably, the goal of rehabilitation. Why make someone better if you're just going to brand them as "That Damn Pedophile," and shove them to the fringes of society?).
The problem is that the US legal system doesn't do either. Victims get little to no involvement in the punishment of the people who wronged them, and are often left still feeling disempowered afterward. Perpetrators are branded, even decades after completing their sentences, and society never forgives them or makes an effort to restore their status.

punishment is a attempt at rehabilitation you exist in a place that sucks for however long until the fear of punishment makes you behave.

now i do have an issue, with current system, once punishment is served all rights need to be restored to the punished. Now half way house time and a parole time could still be a period of restricted rights on the outside.

I'm inclined to agree with most of this. I think that the Justice System must be about the safety and well-being of the public, and whatever best accomplishes that end.

I do believe that the Justice System should be based off of retribution, nor am I convinced that deterenece is effective.

[bland, content-free post stating 'I agree too' goes here]

It seems to me that there should be only two things to do with convicted criminals:

A: If possible, rehabilitate them.

B: If rehabilitation does not work, find some other method of preventing the criminal from committing the crime in the future.

The state "punishing" persons appears ridiculous to me. What is the popular opinion on NSG?
Justice =/= punishment.

Justice is about giving someone a second chance. Reasonable. After that, vengeance is about removing any ability to re-offend. Harsh and brutal, yes, but humans have spent (too) many generations removing themselves from the harsh, brutal nature of reality.

The problem is that the US legal system doesn't do either. Victims get little to no involvement in the punishment of the people who wronged them, and are often left still feeling disempowered afterward. Perpetrators are branded, even decades after completing their sentences, and society never forgives them or makes an effort to restore their status.

Agreed. And on top of all that failing, it costs the taxpayers a ton of money. But it's certainly simpler than attempting rehabilitation and restitution.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1154/538228563_c45da921a6.jpg

I trust in the Justice League, for they are Never Outdated!!

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1154/538228563_c45da921a6.jpg

I trust in the Justice League, for they are Never Outdated!!

Gay doesn't even BEGIN to describe this picture.

Gay doesn't even BEGIN to describe this picture.Truer words, not yet spoken.

It seems to me that there should be only two things to do with convicted criminals:

A: If possible, rehabilitate them.

B: If rehabilitation does not work, find some other method of preventing the criminal from committing the crime in the future.

The state "punishing" persons appears ridiculous to me. What is the popular opinion on NSG?

the content of the op makes sense, while the thread title seems somewhat slightly at odds with it.

precisely what can actually be done is to deny the perpetrator of a crime the opportunity to repeat their offense. no measure can ever prevent all FIRST offenses, the distrait of confinement, exile, or other forms of distraint, can and do, at least for their prescribed duration, deny opportunity for the offenses repetition.

preventing crimes in the first place is a mater of incentives and disincentives, and these are only partially in the province of laws, but also that of cultural perspectives and other factors, some subject to legislation, others not.

justice on the other hand, is a matter of practicing fairness, of leveling playing fields, and this is a matter of enculturation and incentives, ways of life even, that are a matter of the evolution of cultures.

governments MAY play a roll in these, but this is also a two way street, as governments, and political proccessess, under ANY idiology, respond and often to a degree reflect, the influence of their surrounding culture, not as idealized in perciption, popular or otherwise, but in the mechanics of how forces internal to culture in the anthropological sense actually function.

one thing i've observed, and frequently been contradicted by those more emotionally attatched to their familiar ambient assumptions, is that the more certain attitudes are romantacised, aggressiveness in particular, and that of gratuitous pseudo-conventionality espcially, the more crime rates tend to increase, while when popular perception become more objective and less vindictive, is when they actually most decrease.

in short, to seriously reduce rates of crime, honest and scientifically objective attention needs to be paid, in great detail to the structure of incentives and disincentives that in a society exist, and the mechanisms by which those incentives are created.

so called deterrence is seldom effective as a strategy in isolation, though it does, as the old saying goes, keep the honest honest. its shortcoming is that it is quickly overshadowed by either the heat of passion, or the glitter of greed.

rehabilitation is almost as mythological as deterance, and while desirable in principle, requires a very different atmosphere then that provided in contexts, often inescapably neccessary to provide even momentary distraint.

perhapse one needs to think in terms of ABILitation rather then RE hab ilitation. enabling those who seek gratification blindly in ways that cause harm, to aquire the skills to persue REAL gratification, in ways both more effective for themselves, and at the same time of course, at the very least, less harmful to others.

I like to define Justice as that state of being in which no harm is done to anyone ever again. I do believe this to be an essentially unattainable goal, but I also believe it worth pursuing.

I like to define Justice as that state of being in which no harm is done to anyone ever again. I do believe this to be an essentially unattainable goal, but I also believe it worth pursuing.
What do you mean by 'harm'?

Your two options make no room for crime prevention. Do you think it isn't possible, or simply a waste of resources?

Crime prevention isn't strictly about justice. Justice comes AFTER a crime. Prevention (pre + venio: come before)... well, comes BEFORE.

Anyway, I agree with the OP. Also, crime prevention is crucial. I think that one of the best ways to prevene crime is better education + pervasive social policies. Reduce the criminogenic factors, that is. I don't think that crime will ever be eradicated, it can just be contained: it's a constant of human societies.

Gay doesn't even BEGIN to describe this picture.

They're so gay, their collective name is Gay Gayerson *runs from LG who tries to get the royalties for the line, iirc*

Sometimes, somebody has to be punished.

Lady justice carries a scale in her arms to make sure guilt or innocence, and to make the penalty equal to the crime is present.

What do you mean by 'harm'?
I mean deprivation of basic human rights and needs. In a just society, people are citizens regardless of colour, creed or history, and citizens are not subject to violence, starvation, disease, restricted movement or congregation, constant surveillance, ideological or informational manipulation or repression, or social exclusion.

Hey, what if someone jaywalks to save the life of someone across the road? You can't rehabilitate them, and you definitely don't want to discourage that sort of behavior!

I apoliogize if that example feels contrived, but keep in mind that there are mitigating factors. No two cases are identical, which is why punishments ar ein the form "10-25 years in jail" not "17.31672 years in jail".

It seems to me that there should be only two things to do with convicted criminals:

A: If possible, rehabilitate them.

B: If rehabilitation does not work, find some other method of preventing the criminal from committing the crime in the future.

The state "punishing" persons appears ridiculous to me. What is the popular opinion on NSG?

Several questions about your post.

1) At what point would Rehabilitation be declaired a 'failure'? and what would you say to the family members of a victim of a killer who keeps killing after multiple attempts at rehabilitation fails? "Sorry, we'll try again at rehabilitation?"

2) who determins when Rehabilitation is 'possible'? a doctor? psycologist? Judge?

Justice isn't about punishment, it's about allowing closure for the Victim(s) and/or their family while protecting the person who caused the pain. it's not revenge, because the 'punishment' is regulated. A certain length of "time out" for certain crimes, restitution, or both. and for the perp, they have a chance to have their punishment reduced due to other circumstances. 'Parole', or 'Good Behavior'. Justice is about being Fair.

Justice is the "fair" dispensation of the law.

Punishment is negative reinforcement

Deterrents are positive reinforcement

Justice is only be outdated if the law is outdated as well.

One could argue there is no punishment or deterrent that will prevent some indiviuals from committing crime. It brings into question several facets among them:

Nature vs. Nurture
Distribution of wealth
Maslow's hierarchy of Needs

Several questions about your post.

1) At what point would Rehabilitation be declaired a 'failure'? and what would you say to the family members of a victim of a killer who keeps killing after multiple attempts at rehabilitation fails? "Sorry, we'll try again at rehabilitation?"

2) who determins when Rehabilitation is 'possible'? a doctor? psycologist? Judge?

Justice isn't about punishment, it's about allowing closure for the Victim(s) and/or their family while protecting the person who caused the pain. it's not revenge, because the 'punishment' is regulated. A certain length of "time out" for certain crimes, restitution, or both. and for the perp, they have a chance to have their punishment reduced due to other circumstances. 'Parole', or 'Good Behavior'. Justice is about being Fair.

1) When it is declared a 'failure" that person should never again see the light of day. He or she should remain in custody until he or she is fit.
2) I think all 3 of those should be used? Legally is there any reason to keep the subject in custody. Is there medically any reason to keep the subject in custody? Psychologically Is there any reason to keep the subject in custody? If all 3 do not agree you should remain in custody or treatment until you are deemed worthy. That is the part we often get wrong.

The state "punishing" persons appears ridiculous to me.

Why? It's what they deserve. What else could be more proper?

perhapse one needs to think in terms of ABILitation rather then RE hab ilitation. enabling those who seek gratification blindly in ways that cause harm, to aquire the skills to persue REAL gratification,

If some wrongo wants to make himself better, great.

But he can do it on his own time and dime.

All the state should be interested in is punishment of the guilty for its own sake.

Really, the proper punishment for all bona fide crimes is torture and execution anyway, so what he does when he "gets out" becomes meaningless. The only valid reason for not actually imposing that proper penalty is the possibility of error in identifying the guilty party.

Justice is the "fair" dispensation of the law.
Does that mean there is no such thing as an Injust Law?

1) When it is declared a 'failure" that person should never again see the light of day. He or she should remain in custody until he or she is fit.
I said WHEN should rehab be declared a failure, not what to do when it's declared a failure.
2) I think all 3 of those should be used? Legally is there any reason to keep the subject in custody. Is there medically any reason to keep the subject in custody? Psychologically Is there any reason to keep the subject in custody? If all 3 do not agree you should remain in custody or treatment until you are deemed worthy. That is the part we often get wrong.
Deemed worthy? who makes that determination?

you'll have courts backed up because three people cannot agree on the fitness of the defendant.

Does that mean there is no such thing as an Injust Law?

There are absolutely "unfair" laws. Fairness is perceived. It is an intangible. Fairness is completely subjective and is completely adversarial. By it very nature one must be consider right and one must be considered wrong. Somebody wins and somebody loses.

I said WHEN should rehab be declared a failure, not what to do when it's declared a failure.

Deemed worthy? who makes that determination?

This also is subjective. Loosely when it fails to meet the objective of first the possiblity of repeating the offense at some later date. That should be first an foremost. I mean really what does locking someone away for 10 years for stealing a car do for that individual. It hopefully allows them to reflect on their behavior and to commit to not repeating this offense in the future. It does nothing for the person who lost the car unless the car is returned. In which case he or she lost the opportunity cost for it use during the period it was missing/stolen. In otherwords it could have just sat in the driveway unused or it might have been used. To some degree you can compensate someone for their time. The difficulty comes with murder you can never repair a person life.



you'll have courts backed up because three people cannot agree on the fitness of the defendant.

The flaw in the system. True enough, the punishment might not always fit the crime. We are at a loss in some cases what the punishment should be. In a perfect world would would have that prison from Superman. Something along the lines of a folding hole which leads to another dimension.

This also is subjective. Loosely when it fails to meet the objective of first the possiblity of repeating the offense at some later date. That should be first an foremost. I mean really what does locking someone away for 10 years for stealing a car do for that individual. It hopefully allows them to reflect on their behavior and to commit to not repeating this offense in the future. It does nothing for the person who lost the car unless the car is returned. In which case he or she lost the opportunity cost for it use during the period it was missing/stolen. In otherwords it could have just sat in the driveway unused or it might have been used. To some degree you can compensate someone for their time. The difficulty comes with murder you can never repair a person life.and what of Rape? Assault?
what if the amount stolen can never be returned?

so instead of three strikes, you only give one second chance?

The flaw in the system. True enough, the punishment might not always fit the crime. We are at a loss in some cases what the punishment should be. In a perfect world would would have that prison from Superman. Something along the lines of a folding hole which leads to another dimension.
even then, that extra dimensional prision is flawed. are there denizens in that dimension? are we sending those to their deaths or empowering them?

I like the system we got now. but I'm questioning the OP's viewpoint.

and what of Rape? Assault?
what if the amount stolen can never be returned?

True again there is no punishment that will fit that crime. The best you can hope for is not allowing it to happen again in the future.


so instead of three strikes, you only give one second chance?
Ideally no strike that would require a chip implant or something that would remove freedom. Generally a bad idea because it can be misused.


even then, that extra dimensional prision is flawed. are there denizens in that dimension? are we sending those to their deaths or empowering them?

It is that mythical place called "away". They can never repeat the offense. There is no ability for restitution though. That generally is consider and bad thing as well.


I like the system we got now. but I'm questioning the OP's viewpoint.
I agree justice is not necessarily out dated unless those laws are out dated or the punishment does not fit the crime. In the latter case it is not justice it is something else and we would do well to call it that.

I agree justice is not necessarily out dated unless those laws are out dated or the punishment does not fit the crime. In the latter case it is not justice it is something else and we would do well to call it that.

*nods*

It seems to me that there should be only two things to do with convicted criminals:

A: If possible, rehabilitate them.

B: If rehabilitation does not work, find some other method of preventing the criminal from committing the crime in the future.

The state "punishing" persons appears ridiculous to me. What is the popular opinion on NSG?

I think that the punishment is subject to the cultural context. That perhaps better explains why in some Arab countries stealing is punished by cutting off the hands and in other countries the perpetrator would just go to jail.

What is concieved as "punishment" changes from one country to the other, from one culture to the other, ruled by the judicial system or an established set of religious rules. Now, if the concept of justice is outdated or not, I don't know. I hope it isn't, because what would be a country or a society with no sense of it? Chaos? I don't concieve it.

Now, that begets the following question: Can society exist and co-exist without a sense of justice? Can humans survive without understanding that for every action, for every wrong-doing, there needs to be an equal and counter reaction or punishment? And doesn't justice is something deeply entrenched in us as social individuals?

I think that the punishment is subject to the cultural context. That perhaps better explains why in some Arab countries stealing is punished by cutting off the hands and in other countries the perpetrator would just go to jail.

Kind of ironic that the punishment will have the opposite effect in this case. Yes it kind of makes it difficult for repeat offenses so it achieve one of the critieria.

It also almost assure that the person will do what you did not want him or her to do in the first place. Which was take something that doesn't belong to him or that he didn't work for. In the latter case the person is reduced to begging which kind of gets you to the same place. That person takes things which do not belong to him or he did not work for but this time through Charity.



Right we have to ask who's justice. Each country has it own set of rules.

[QUOTE=Nanatsu no Tsuki;14443627]
Now, that begets the following question: Can society exist and co-exist without a sense of justice? Can humans survive without understanding that for every action, for every wrong-doing, there needs to be an equal and counter reaction or punishment? And doesn't justice is something deeply entrenched in us as social individuals?

We can survive but it is not pleasant to do so. We prefer justice to the alternative which no Justice.

We are a very social creature. The concept is deeply rooted in our beginnings.

Kind of ironic that the punishment will have the opposite effect in this case. Yes it kind of makes it difficult for repeat offenses so it achieve one of the critieria.

Exactly. Without hands someone won't steal, but it perhaps also teaches others who witness the punishment to think twice before committing a crime.

It also almost assure that the person will do what you did not want him or her to do in the first place. Which was take something that doesn't belong to him or that he didn't work for. In the latter case the person is reduced to begging which kind of gets you to the same place. That person takes things which do not belong to him or he did not work for but this time through Charity.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Right we have to ask who's justice. Each country has it own set of rules.

As I posted before, justice subject to the country in question or, if the country's highly religious, the canon or creed they follow would dictate justice.

We can survive but it is not pleasant to do so. We prefer justice to the alternative which no Justice.

Yes, perhaps it would be too lonely.

We are a very social creature. The concept is deeply rooted in our beginnings.

Indeed.

Exactly. Without hands someone won't steal, but it perhaps also teaches others who witness the punishment to think twice before committing a crime.

Suppose we make a mistake. How do we return that person's hands? So that is not just, nor is fair. Does losing one's hand make up for the lost object? I don't think so but they do. A punishment should be able to be undone by our standards. Not by theirs.

It could be considered 'fair' because it is applied to all people.

A lot of undefinable variables floating around in there.

Suppose we make a mistake.
There's no such thing as a mistake. The sovereign decides all of his subjects' morality and the only laws that apply are those that he deems necessary to protect the security of his nation. Security is the only important thing to worry about, for if we don't have security what good is the appearance of justice? An absolute sovereign is the only way to protect the sanctity of contracts in a world where the only natural law is that of self-preservation.

Suppose we make a mistake. How do we return that person's hands? So that is not just, nor is fair. Does losing one's hand make up for the lost object? I don't think so but they do. A punishment should be able to be undone by our standards. Not by theirs.

The ''An eye for an eye'' law has its pros and cons.

True, the punishment perhaps is not fitting the crime. But that's why, in the first place, I said that the concept of justice is subject to a cultural context. What you or I may view as just, may be not viewed that way by someone of another culture.

It could be considered 'fair' because it is applied to all people.

Agreed.

A lot of undefinable variables floating around in there.

Which is a problem when one is trying to define what's just or unjust according to cultures.

There's no such thing as a mistake. The sovereign decides all of his subjects' morality and the only laws that apply are those that he deems necessary to protect the security of his nation. Security is the only important thing to worry about, for if we don't have security what good is the appearance of justice? An absolute sovereign is the only way to protect the sanctity of contracts in a world where the only natural law is that of self-preservation.
Thank you for that, Machiavelli.

Thank you for that, Machiavelli.

Except that Machiavelli considered Democracy the best government.

The ''An eye for an eye'' law has its pros and cons.

True, the punishment perhaps is not fitting the crime. But that's why, in the first place, I said that the concept of justice is subject to a cultural context. What you or I may view as just, may be not viewed that way by someone of another culture.



Agreed.



Which is a problem when one is trying to define what's just or unjust according to cultures.



Could we make a system of law devoid of cultural context? The difficulty would be getting everyone to agree on them but it could be done. Something along the lines of UN resolutions. The language become very lengthy and involved but it could be done.


Culture and justice do not necessarily go together.

If you can separate it out, it does not belong with justice then. It is not at it atomic level.

The ''An eye for an eye'' law has its pros and cons.

True, the punishment perhaps is not fitting the crime. But that's why, in the first place, I said that the concept of justice is subject to a cultural context. What you or I may view as just, may be not viewed that way by someone of another culture.

Cultures may vary, but do you not think "punishment" is an ineffective idea? Many nations who have even abolished the death penalty have the lowest crime rates--even if one were to put a criminal to death, would it not make more sense to put him to death to prevent futures crimes, rather than to feed society's sadism (which it views as a virtue)?

Except that Machiavelli considered Democracy the best government.
Well, yes, but The Prince is the main source of the attitudes we traditionally associate with "Machiavellian" ideas, and that is undoubtedly in favour of tyrannical monarchy.

Well, yes, but The Prince is the main source of the attitudes we traditionally associate with "Machiavellian" ideas, and that is undoubtedly in favour of tyrannical monarchy.

You're on the right track, but you've got the wrong political philosopher.

Think less pizza and more tea.

Well, yes, but The Prince is the main source of the attitudes we traditionally associate with "Machiavellian" ideas, and that is undoubtedly in favour of tyrannical monarchy.

It is not favor of tyrannical monarchy any more than On the Origin of the Species is in favor of murdering weak humans and reproducing with any compatible mate in sight.

You're on the right track, but you've got the wrong political philosopher.

"You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of eminent Russian- American philosopher...."

Cultures may vary, but do you not think "punishment" is an ineffective idea? Many nations who have even abolished the death penalty have the lowest crime rates--even if one were to put a criminal to death, would it not make more sense to put him to death to prevent futures crimes, rather than to feed society's sadism (which it views as a virtue)?

I think in some cases it is all we have. The death penalty is more about revenge than about punishment. Revenge is a base emotion. Life incarceration is really no better. There is no "just" punishment in most cases where the Death Penalty is relevant. It is only modestly a deterrent in that it prevents this individual from committing the crime again. The causes of crime a varied and complicated. It does little for looking at these causes and correcting them. It may deter others from committing this crime is the best we can say.

Justice is the "fair" dispensation of the law.

Punishment is negative reinforcement

Deterrents are positive reinforcement

Justice is only be outdated if the law is outdated as well.

One could argue there is no punishment or deterrent that will prevent some indiviuals from committing crime. It brings into question several facets among them:

Nature vs. Nurture
Distribution of wealth
Maslow's hierarchy of Needs

Justice generally takes place after adjudication. I'm not so sure deterrents enter in here.

Well, yes, but The Prince is the main source of the attitudes we traditionally associate with "Machiavellian" ideas, and that is undoubtedly in favour of tyrannical monarchy.

No, it isn't.

Please learn the difference between political science and political philosophy.

Justice generally takes place after adjudication. I'm not so sure deterrents enter in here.
Justice leads to adjudication, adjudication to ruling. Ruling may lead to punishment depending on the crime. The question was is justice or punishment outdated?

No, it isn't.

Please learn the difference between political science and political philosophy.

So who was I? Does anyone know?

So who was I? Does anyone know?

Hitler? Plato?

Hitler? Plato?

Hitler :P Hitler was an awful political philosopher, he was a little too off the deep end to be coherent.

Plato believes in an oligarchy of sorts, with more than one person ruling over the plebs in a sort of "intellect-ocracy". Philosopher-kings is what he was all about.

No, it isn't.

Please learn the difference between political science and political philosophy.
Firstly,
...it is best to be both feared and loved; however, if one cannot be both it is better to be feared than loved.
... seems like as good a recommendation of tyranny to me as any I can think of.

Secondly, what does Political science have to do with The Prince as a recommendation to acquire and exercise monarchical power as a function of self-interest? Machiavelli might have been a political historian, but his work was one of advice rather than simple narration.

Could we make a system of law devoid of cultural context? The difficulty would be getting everyone to agree on them but it could be done. Something along the lines of UN resolutions. The language become very lengthy and involved but it could be done.

You do have a point there. It could be done. The main problem is, once you establish such a justice system, could all peoples integrate to it?


Culture and justice do not necessarily go together.

Indeed, they do not. But people do, as social beings immersed in a specific culture, pair justice according to their cultural context. Hence why I used Arab countries as an example.

If you can separate it out, it does not belong with justice then. It is not at it atomic level.

But what is, again, justice and what is unjust? It's all a huge spiral.

Cultures may vary, but do you not think "punishment" is an ineffective idea? Many nations who have even abolished the death penalty have the lowest crime rates--even if one were to put a criminal to death, would it not make more sense to put him to death to prevent futures crimes, rather than to feed society's sadism (which it views as a virtue)?

Which punishment, dear Parkus? The ones given by our law system or the ones given by other law systems alien to ours? It's true, places that abolished the death penalty possess some of the lowest crime rates worldwide. The death penalty is, as seen by your example, useless or dated.

Which punishment, dear Parkus? The ones given by our law system or the ones given by other law systems alien to ours? It's true, places that abolished the death penalty possess some of the lowest crime rates worldwide. The death penalty is, as seen by your example, useless or dated.

Simply deal with criminals as the same kind of problem as stray dogs, who are either "rehabilitated" (found a new home) or "separated from society" (put to death); perhaps you can think of a more humane way of separating a criminal from society?

Simply deal with criminals as the same kind of problem as stray dogs, who are either "rehabilitated" (found a new home) or "separated from society" (put to death); perhaps you can think of a more humane way of separating a criminal from society?

Let me maul this a bit.

Let me maul this a bit.

http://stephenwprice.com/db2/00124/stephenwprice.com/_uimages/Mauled.jpg
Oh this topic has been mauled already.

Simply deal with criminals as the same kind of problem as stray dogs, who are either "rehabilitated" (found a new home) or "separated from society" (put to death); perhaps you can think of a more humane way of separating a criminal from society?

I think that, a more humane way of separating criminals and also achieve rehabilitation would be to force them to labor, for the betterment of society, in isolated areas (country side, deserted regions). It's punishment and rehabilitation combined. Could that serve a justice that is outside of cultural contexts? I think it could.

Firstly,

... seems like as good a recommendation of tyranny to me as any I can think of.

It is simply cause-and-effect: Power sticks to those who are feared.


Secondly, what does Political science have to do with The Prince as a recommendation to acquire and exercise monarchical power as a function of self-interest?

The book is on power and how it works. A book on plumbing could be used to sabotage or fix things. In the few passages Machiavelli does talk about what the book should be used for, he says specifically he does not recommend using it for self-gain.

Machiavelli might have been a political historian, but his work was one of advice rather than simple narration.

He was just like Darwin--he says how things are, not how he wants them to be.

I think that, a more humane way of separating criminals and also achieve rehabilitation would be to force them to labor, for the betterment of society, in isolated areas (country side, deserted regions). It's punishment and rehabilitation combined. Could that serve a justice that is outside of cultural contexts? I think it could.

The idea is not terrible, but I cannot condone it because I am strictly anti-slavery.

The idea is not terrible, but I cannot condone it because I am strictly anti-slavery.

What would you propose then?

It seems to me that there should be only two things to do with convicted criminals:

A: If possible, rehabilitate them.

B: If rehabilitation does not work, find some other method of preventing the criminal from committing the crime in the future.

The state "punishing" persons appears ridiculous to me. What is the popular opinion on NSG?

Hmm, I think that rehabilitation without some sort of punishment would simply encourage people to commit crimes. People need to know that if they commit an crime there are conquences to their actions otherwise they will simply do it again and again. At the same time to punish someone with out rehabilitation can lead to the same results unless they can't possiblely commit the crime again. On the other hand people some people such as serial killers and sociopaths are simply lost causes.

Personally I think the death penalty should be reserved for only the worst of crimes, premeditated murder, war criminals, mass murders, serial killers and traitors.

Hmm, I think that rehabilitation without some sort of punishment would simply encourage people to commit crimes. People need to know that if they commit an crime there are conquences to their actions otherwise they will simply do it again and again. At the same time to punish someone with out rehabilitation can lead to the same results unless they can't possiblely commit the crime again. On the other hand people some people such as serial killers and sociopaths are simply lost causes.

Personally I think the death penalty should be reserved for only the worst of crimes, premeditated murder, war criminals, mass murders, serial killers and traitors.

Agree 100%

I think that, a more humane way of separating criminals and also achieve rehabilitation would be to force them to labor, for the betterment of society, in isolated areas (country side, deserted regions). It's punishment and rehabilitation combined. Could that serve a justice that is outside of cultural contexts? I think it could.

the chain gang thing has been done before. why it failed was not just the slavery connotation, but the fact that the prisions could underbid any company for jobs.

now if the prision had a legit business...
Like (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/333877/uk_prison_restaurant_to_open_in_september.html) these (http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/08/31/AR2007083101379.html).

where they can learn a trade, gain experience and get the kind of support that will stick with them when they leave...

the chain gang thing has been done before. why it failed was not just the slavery connotation, but the fact that the prisions could underbid any company for jobs.

now if the prision had a legit business...
Like (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/333877/uk_prison_restaurant_to_open_in_september.html) these (http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/08/31/AR2007083101379.html).

where they can learn a trade, gain experience and get the kind of support that will stick with them when they leave...

Then that's something that should be implemented. The rehabilitation of prisoners is incredibly necessary for re-integration into society.

Justice: an arbitrary concept invented by humans, theorized and discussed for thousands of years but never fully agreed upon by all of humanity. Difficult to define, and impossible to find and measure on an objective scale.

Literally, the definitions of justice leave more room for improvement and debate on this than on the quark composition of a proton.

What would you propose then?

For rehabilitation: A study into why the criminal committed the crime, then an investigation into the subject's psyche; if possible, locate what is motivating the subject to become a detrimental member of society, then fix the problem using proper reinforcement and exposure to positive role-models. Work should certainly be encouraged, though the option should be left-up to the subject, and the subject ought to be paid for his or her efforts.

For elimination: The only humane way to deal with this problem is to create a comfortable, albeit not luxurious, colony supervised by the government.

To determine which of these two categories a criminal fell into, an in-depth examination would be performed concerning of the criminal's past actions, and what, if any, encouragement affected behavior.

For rehabilitation: A study into why the criminal committed the crime, then an investigation into the subject's psyche; if possible, locate what is motivating the subject to become a detrimental member of society, then fix the problem using proper reinforcement and exposure to positive role-models. Work should certainly be encouraged, though the option should be left-up to the subject, and the subject ought to be paid for his or her efforts.

For elimination: The only humane way to deal with this problem is to create a comfortable, albeit not luxurious, colony supervised by the government.

To determine which of these two categories a criminal fell into, an in-depth examination would be performed concerning of the criminal's past actions, and what, if any, encouragement affected behavior.

Although what you propose sounds promising and it could actually tackle the problem at hand, we run into a conflict. You suggest we investigate the psyche of the individual to check what may have triggered him/her to commit the crime. What if there's no psychological factor that triggers a certain person to commit a felony? What should be done then?

Although what you propose sounds promising and it could actually tackle the problem at hand, we run into a conflict. You suggest we investigate the psyche of the individual to check what may have triggered him/her to commit the crime. What if there's no psychological factor that triggers a certain person to commit a felony? What should be done then?

There are plenty of non-psychological factors, such as poverty. Why the subject committed the crime must be discovered. The whole idea is remove from society, as much as possible, and conditions which promote crime; if any subject commits a crime with an inspiration from a factor the government can, or should, not control, then that subject must be separated from society.

There are plenty of non-psychological factors, such as poverty. Why the subject committed the crime must be discovered. The whole idea is remove from society, as much as possible, and conditions which promote crime; if any subject commits a crime with an inspiration from a factor the government can, or should, not control, then that subject must be separated from society.

I see your point, and I do agree with you. The core of the matter on why a person steals or commits a crime needs to be found, to understand. And yes, removal from society is paramount.

B: If rehabilitation does not work, find some other method of preventing the criminal from committing the crime in the future.


One effective method is incarceration.