|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 4, 2009 10:10:24 GMT
Ube - the point of Justice is that it replaces Revenge. Pure and simple
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 4, 2009 10:15:07 GMT
Ok. That doesn't explain why we should keep justice instead of simply ignoring both justice and revenge though.
Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 4, 2009 10:21:44 GMT
Well, I DID already do a whole article on it. Seemed pointless repeating. Here it is!
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Oct 4, 2009 10:41:37 GMT
Let me add a word play in the discussion:
Why is it that we demand capital punishment for capital crimes against society, but not for crimes involving capital?
A tax evader, or someone bringing whole societies on the verge of bankruptcy by risky businesses out of pure greed (personal as well as institutional) has no real reason to fear justice - is that just?
On a purely economic level, those do more damage to society than anyone killing another.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 4, 2009 10:51:31 GMT
That article doesn't really explain why either, it just says that we should have justice to avoid revenge. That, however, is a false dichotomy. There are more options than justice and revenge. Yes, we don't want revenge, which is why the (hopefully) unbiased state should deal with it instead of the victims. But why should justice be their aim? Why not (say) deterrence and rehabilitation instead? And Glance, economical crimes are crimes too. For good reason. Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 4, 2009 10:51:34 GMT
Because they are more abstract, Glance. Damage to an economy may hurt many people over time, but even if it's done with complete deliberation (And most are down to ineptitude, let's be honest) it's harder to follow the trail of damage done in any exact and meaningful way.
If person X takes money from person Y and embezzles it, it sucks to be person Y but we can't really be sure how much it affects his life because there may be a million other things that spring out of it, good or bad.
If person X stabs person Y with a knife we have exact and measurable damage done to person Y.
Which I guess is the other main point: we can always recover from a financial setback. It's rather less easy to recover from being stabbed to death.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 4, 2009 10:54:10 GMT
Ube - "The law is one thing and one thing only: it is a covenant between rulers and ruled. An agreement that the people will give up their right to revenge for so long as the govt exercises justice upon their behalf." The entire point of the article in one sentence. Your response is a failure of comprehension.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 4, 2009 11:09:15 GMT
The next fancy philosophy term I bring up is Humes law. ;D You're saying that's what the law is. I'm asking why that is what the law ought to be. Why should the rule look like that? Why not "the pepole give up their right to revenge and instead let the goverment deal with the problem"? Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 4, 2009 11:17:05 GMT
Aaaah, you want to deal with fantasy law making? Why should the punishment system not be reformed to create a proper balance between Justice, rehabilitation and reintegration, thus helping (ex-)criminals to become properly productive members of society?
No reason at all.
It would be darned hard in many cases, and that's why most govts (I'd say 'all' but I don't know that for sure) either give the idea lip service or don't even bother trying in any effective way.
But yes, if the political will existed, the framework could be set in place.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 4, 2009 12:03:50 GMT
Aaaah, you want to deal with fantasy law making? Sure, fantasy law making. I prefer the term meta-ethics though. If nothing else, it sounds cooler. Why should the punishment system not be reformed to create a proper balance between Justice, rehabilitation and reintegration, thus helping (ex-)criminals to become properly productive members of society? No reason at all. It would be darned hard in many cases, and that's why most govts (I'd say 'all' but I don't know that for sure) either give the idea lip service or don't even bother trying in any effective way. But yes, if the political will existed, the framework could be set in place. We live in a democracy (different democracies, but nevermind that). Change doesn't happen over a day in democracies, and it should not. Every example we have of sudden major system overhauls on the political level has been pretty disasterous (the french revolution being one example). Many, small changes towards the ideal might be slower than trying to implement the whole system straight away, but it's also a lot safer. And if you think of it, we're a lot closer to the ideal today than we were 100 years ago. The point of meta-ethics is to set out the course for the practical politics. What should we work towards? That is at least what I've been discussing here, I don't know about the rest of you though. Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 4, 2009 12:05:06 GMT
I hope you remember all of that in the EU topic, Ube...
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 5, 2009 9:09:49 GMT
The reason for justice is to provide a moderated punishment to the of a crime. Without justice a man that stole a loaf of bread (assuming they got caught) could get anything from being chained to a sink for an afternoon to pay for it, to being enslaved, maimed, or killed.
A Man that insults another man could get stabbed (they do anyway but in a system of justice it's the stabber that's in the wrong).
It is basically the underpinnings of criminal law, no matter what flavour you use - As such the punishments have to be enough that the person that was wronged (or family/friends/angry mob that are supporting said person) feels that it fits the crime, but not so harsh that it provokes the criminal element into ever harsher crimes (e.g. if theft attracts the death penalty, as does murder, then why would a thief not kill any witnesses? Or even more relevant for today, if looking at kiddy porn attracts the same penalty as doing the deed, then why would anyone that looks, not then touch...)
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 6, 2009 3:29:02 GMT
You know, I've got to say, EK is probably right. Revenge is seen as a form of justice, or fairness. It's only fair, the thinking goes, that if you kill you should be killed. And I don't think that innate sense of fairness is going to go away. For all my ivory tower theories about other reasons why the death penalty is ok, it really just comes down to revenge. I came to this conclusion because if someone murdered my grandma, for instance, I would want him dead, or worse. If the law couldn't accomplish this, I might be tempted to take it into my own hands. And of course that's why we have a justice system, so people don't just make up their own law based on what they feel is fair.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 6, 2009 3:36:14 GMT
Yes
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Oct 6, 2009 9:23:23 GMT
Yet it is interesting to note that relatively early the Germanic cultures developped from 'vendetta'-culture to 'you pay the damage', whereas in other cultures blood vengeance without alternatives persisted.
Weregild (alternative spellings: wergild, wergeld, weregeld, etc.) in early Germanic law was a reparational payment usually demanded of a person guilty of homicide or other wrongful death.
The payment of weregild was an important legal mechanism in early Germanic society; the other common form of legal reparation at this time was blood revenge. The payment was typically made to the family or to the clan.
No distinction was made between murder and manslaughter until these distinctions were instituted by the Holy Roman imperial law in the 12th century. Payment of the weregild was gradually replaced with capital punishment, starting around the 9th century, and almost entirely by the 12th century when it began to cease as a practice throughout the Holy Roman Empire.
The standard weregeld for a freeman appears to have been 200 solidi (shillings) in the Migration period, an amount reflected as the basic amount due for the death of a ceorl both in Anglo-Saxon and continental law codes. This fee could however be multiplied according to the social rank of the victim and the circumstances of the crime. For example, the 8th century Lex Alamannorum sets the weregeld for a duke or archbishop at three times the basic value (600 shillings), while the killing of a low ranking cleric was fined with 300, raised to 400 if the cleric was attacked while he was reading mass.
The size of the weregild was largely conditional upon the social rank of the victim. A regular freeman (ceorl) was worth 200 shillings in 9th century Mercian law (twyhyndeman), a nobleman was worth 1200 (twelfhyndeman). The law code even mentions the weregeld for a king, at 30000, composed of 15000 for the man, paid to the royal family, and 15000 for the kingship, paid to the people. An archbishop is likewise valued at 15000. The weregild for a Welshman was 110 if he owned at least one hide of land, and 80 if he was landless.
Thralls and slaves technically commanded no weregild, but it was commonplace to make a nominal payment in the case of a thrall and the value of the slave in such a case. A shilling was defined as the value of a cow in Kent or elsewhere, a sheep. The weregild for women relative to that of men of equal rank varied: Among the Alamanni, it was double the weregild of men, among the Saxons half that of men.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 6, 2009 9:29:37 GMT
intresting
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Oct 6, 2009 9:37:41 GMT
The question is why.
Was it ethic driven value of life...
...or rather practical considerations like "We already lost one able to wield a sword, no sense in losing another one?" or "Who will now feed those left behind?"
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 6, 2009 10:09:03 GMT
I would imagine it was a practical consideration, and not just based on we've already lost one sword, but rather keeping the best swords, and not further weakening our forces (if he was good enough to kill the eldest, how will the younger fare)
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 6, 2009 10:20:35 GMT
Practical in more ways than one. A society divided against itself by internal vendettas is one that will not unite against a common threat, but will rather fragment further.
After all, if Cousin Bob gets killed, few people stop to consider that Cousin Bob killed the murderer's Uncle Elmer, do they? It's tit for tat right the way up the line and fast turns into 'they killed one of ours, so we'll kill one (Or two, or more) of theirs'.
Putting a value on a person's life may seem cold, but it has three important aspects to it: it helps the victim's family to financially cope with the victim's death; it acts as a deterrent by significantly hurting the killer and their family financially, and it serves to prevent vendetta by replacing it with Justice.
So a good system all round.
|
|