|
30.5 Days posted:It sounds like retribution is revenge in the form of an institution. The most base reason the justice system exists at a societal level is to replace the system of familial revenge with something that is dispassionate, fair, and not cyclic.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:48 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:The most base reason the justice system exists at a societal level is to replace the system of familial revenge with something that is dispassionate, fair, and not cyclic. I imagine you meant to say basic but I think you said it right by accident.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
There are two types of deterrence: General "We are going to make an example of you so no one else does this" Effective for things like speeding and other regulatory offenses "I'm not going to speed because I don't want a ticket." Not so effective for violent crimes "Well, I *would* murder you with this axe, but I don't want to go to jail, so I guess we're cool." Specific "If you are in jail, you, personally, can't keep breaking the law." Really has a big real world overlap with retribution "we are going to put you in jail because we are unhappy with you and you need to pay society." In a law school essay, they are clearly different principles. In execution, not so much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I imagine you meant to say basic but I think you said it right by accident. I said it exactly how I meant it
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:There are two types of deterrence: I wasn't confused by what you were saying, I was confused by the dude saying you were saying the opposite, when I'm pretty sure I accurately represented you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The most base reason the justice system exists at a societal level is to replace the system of familial revenge with something that is dispassionate, fair, and not cyclic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I wasn't confused by what you were saying, I was confused by the dude saying you were saying the opposite, when I'm pretty sure I accurately represented you. 30.5 Days posted:Well yesterday AR was making the argument that retribution is important so victims can feel good about having revenge. But that didn't catch on, so today retribution is the same as restraining someone from committing more crimes and anyone who says otherwise is a pedant. No. you didn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Yeah, I was introduced to this in Japan, where people straight up told me that the death penalty is the state standing in for what would otherwise be a family responsibility. Japanese prisons are horrifying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:YOU ARE LITERALLY DESCRIBING DETERRENCE Right. So we have a hypothetical in which deterrence and prevention are guaranteed without any change in situation. Is it wrong to do something further?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Japanese prisons are horrifying. And I'm pretty sure here is bad too, unless newspapers and stuff have lied to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Japanese prisons are horrifying. The entire Japanese police and "justice" system is an absolute horror show.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:So I have heard, but also a miniscule number of people are in them compared to here. Having seen both, no. Japan is worse. Way worse. And the whole practice of gommenesai (sp?) is just awful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
You loving idiots are arguing about the definition of words. Just agree on principles and don't put a title on it you petty loving losers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Having seen both, no. Japan is worse. Way worse. Baronjutter posted:The entire Japanese police and "justice" system is an absolute horror show. Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Right. So we have a hypothetical in which deterrence and prevention are guaranteed without any change in situation. Is it wrong to do something further? Yes? Like, of course? I'm not sure what kind of situation you're describing. I guess like a battered wife murdering her husband, should we put her in prison at all since she only had the one. However, if murdering your abusive husband had no repercussions it would no doubt be more common. Obviously, AR's "I would murder you with this axe but then I'd go to prison" example only goes so far: if murdering people with axes literally was not a crime, then more people would probably murder others with axes. So attaching some sentence is necessary for deterrent reasons. So, I don't think that you're actually capable of describing a situation in which the needs of deterrence and rehabilitation are already met without sentencing. If you can then what you're describing should probably not be a crime at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Wow, really? I didn't think anything in the developed world could be worse than American prisons. No, you had it correct the first time, American prisons are way way worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:No, you had it correct the first time, American prisons are way way worse. How are you qualified to know this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Yes? Like, of course? I'm not sure what kind of situation you're describing. I guess like a battered wife murdering her husband, should we put her in prison at all since she only had the one. However, if murdering your abusive husband had no repercussions it would no doubt be more common. Obviously, AR's "I would murder you with this axe but then I'd go to prison" example only goes so far: if murdering people with axes literally was not a crime, then more people would probably murder others with axes. So attaching some sentence is necessary for deterrent reasons. Why? What is incorrect about punishing someone according to what they deserve?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Yes? Like, of course? I'm not sure what kind of situation you're describing. I guess like a battered wife murdering her husband, should we put her in prison at all since she only had the one. However, if murdering your abusive husband had no repercussions it would no doubt be more common. Obviously, AR's "I would murder you with this axe but then I'd go to prison" example only goes so far: if murdering people with axes literally was not a crime, then more people would probably murder others with axes. So attaching some sentence is necessary for deterrent reasons. Arguing with the hypothetical, you get an F.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Wow, really? I didn't think anything in the developed world could be worse than American prisons. I dunno what word or concept you're referring to there though. You have either a very small definition of "developed world", or a very small level of exposure to the actual developed world. Or you are an idiot. Take a guess which one I am going to call Vegas and put  on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:No, you had it correct the first time, American prisons are way way worse. Depends on how you define "worse" Japan's are cleaner and have less riots. Their policies are also a lot more draconian. No talking except at meal time, liberal use of solitary confinement, unpaid labor, family is required to pay for your incarceration, etc. etc. And gommenesai translates to "I'm sorry". In the justice context, it is basically "I committed a crime against you, here's some money." If the victim accepts the money, the matter is often considered dropped as Japan has a big overlap between criminal and civil law. A rapist can literally pay the victim to shut up and it's considered legally valid. Oh, and if you're not Japanese, especially if you are Philippino, good luck getting an investigation done at all. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Why? What is incorrect about punishing someone according to what they deserve? Considering that you're talking about reducing the quality of living for another human being, I don't think the onus is on me to explain why it's wrong, it's on you to explain what benefit society derives from it. Considering that you're talking about extraneous punishment above and beyond what is necessary to reduce crime and rehabilitate criminals, I'm not certain what argument could be made that doesn't immediately devolve into platitudes. Kalman posted:Arguing with the hypothetical, you get an F. I endeavored to even imagine a situation that fit your requirements, found the closest thing I could, explained why it did not fit your requirements, and then used that exercise to explain my reasoning for answering you, "yes". I then challenged you to find a better example. I don't know how much closer I could engage with you. Can you actually come up with an example in which society's needs for deterrence and rehabilitation are met without sentencing? Because if not, there are no consequences to answering "yes", so why would I hesitate to do so?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
What's specifically so bad about Japanese prisons? The only thing I've heard (which is terrifying) is they don't actually tell the prisoner when they're going to be executed so it might be tomorrow, might be ten years from now and every time the guards rock up in the morning it could be time to head too the gallows. That's really messed up but it can't be the only thing wrong with them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
I mostly only know about the japanese police and court systems. Basically the police are almost entirely incharge of who is convicted, the courts are just a rubber stamp. Being a defence lawyer is one of the worst jobs you can have, everyone hates you for trying to protect criminals. Who ever the police say did it did it and the police have near 100% conviction rates. If that means just grabbing the person closest to the crime scene, specially if they aren't pure blooded japanese, that's a-ok. You don't need to investigate anything, you can beat confessions out of people or detain them until they confess, even if that's days or weeks. Any evidence collected by the police in any way is admissible in court, not that the standards for a conviction are high. Society in general totally trusts what ever the police determine, even the act of being arrested is basically a conviction because why would the police arrest you if you aren't a criminal? Also "domestic abuse" is almost never investigated by the police because that's a private family matter. Basically trials are show-trials with the verdict almost entirely decided by the police, and the police are incredibly lazy and under incredible pressure to always solve every case otherwise it would harm the reputation of their department and japan in general.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I endeavored to even imagine a situation that fit your requirements, found the closest thing I could, explained why it did not fit your requirements, and then used that exercise to explain my reasoning for answering you, "yes". I then challenged you to find a better example. I don't know how much closer I could engage with you. Assume the situation exists. Then answer the question. The specifics of the situation are 100% irrelevant to the question asked, which is: If you assume that deterrence and rehabilitation are met by the offenders current situation, is applying some modification in the offenders situation as a result of their crime morally wrong or not? quote:Can you actually come up with an example in which society's needs for deterrence and rehabilitation are met without sentencing? Because if not, there are no consequences to answering "yes", so why would I hesitate to do so? So do you think that sentencing is justified even if you assume that deterrence and rehabilitation are met, or not? It's a simple question designed to force you to understand whether you actually oppose retributive theories of justice or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Kalman posted:So do you think that sentencing is justified even if you assume that deterrence and rehabilitation are met, or not? I do not, but this is the third time I've answered this question. I apologize for explaining myself rather than just submitting to whatever retarded socratic railroad this is supposed to be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I mostly only know about the japanese police and court systems. Basically the police are almost entirely incharge of who is convicted, the courts are just a rubber stamp. Being a defence lawyer is one of the worst jobs you can have, everyone hates you for trying to protect criminals. Who ever the police say did it did it and the police have near 100% conviction rates. If that means just grabbing the person closest to the crime scene, specially if they aren't pure blooded japanese, that's a-ok. You don't need to investigate anything, you can beat confessions out of people or detain them until they confess, even if that's days or weeks. Any evidence collected by the police in any way is admissible in court, not that the standards for a conviction are high. Society in general totally trusts what ever the police determine, even the act of being arrested is basically a conviction because why would the police arrest you if you aren't a criminal? Also "domestic abuse" is almost never investigated by the police because that's a private family matter. I thought Phoenix Wright was supposed to take place in some sort of dystopian future, not the actual present-day version of a developed nation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Considering that you're talking about reducing the quality of living for another human being, I don't think the onus is on me to explain why it's wrong, it's on you to explain what benefit society derives from it. Considering that you're talking about extraneous punishment above and beyond what is necessary to reduce crime and rehabilitate criminals, I'm not certain what argument could be made that doesn't immediately devolve into platitudes. I'm not sure platitudes means what you think it means, cause it doesn't mean "wrong".
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm not sure platitudes means what you think it means, cause it doesn't mean "wrong". I just looked up the word and saw that I was, in fact, misusing it. I meant to say that I'm not sure what argument could be made that doesn't immediately devolve into substanceless emotional statements about how crimes make you feel bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I do not, but this is the third time I've answered this question. I apologize for explaining myself rather than just submitting to whatever retarded socratic railroad this is supposed to be. Okay, you don't believe in retributive justice. So you were fine with the grand jury not indicting Darren Wilson even though he never would have been convicted and the impossibility of conviction would mean he and others wouldn't be deterred from re-offending?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Kalman posted:So you were fine with the grand jury not indicting Darren Wilson even though he never would have been convicted and the impossibility of conviction would mean he and others wouldn't be deterred from re-offending? This post leaves me speechless. You've taken my breath away, forums poster Kalman.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I just looked up the word and saw that I was, in fact, misusing it. I meant to say that I'm not sure what argument could be made that doesn't immediately devolve into substanceless emotional statements about how crimes make you feel bad. So is the only arguement you're making about retributive sentencing that its inefficient use of resources? Cause I thought you were making substanceless emotional statements about how it makes you feel bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:So is the only arguement you're making about retributive sentencing that its inefficient use of resources? Cause I thought you were making substanceless emotional statements about how it makes you feel bad. No, the argument I'm making is that human beings have rights and you can't take them away without a good reason! "He made us sad" isn't a good reason, even if he made you sad by killing someone! "We have to do this to stop him killing people" is a good reason as well as "We have to do this so everyone knows they can't kill people" and "We have to do this so that he'll not kill people in the future" is also a good reason. Sadness, no, not a good reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
except as stated before, harsh punishments for crimes like murder do not, in fact, have a recognizable general deterrent effect. No one weighs the potential jail time before deciding to kill. By the way...not to totally derail this conversation (too late) but specific deterrence, which you seem to endorse, is taking away a person's liberty based on things the *might* do in the future. How is that superior?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:except as stated before, harsh punishments for crimes like murder do not, in fact, have a recognizable deterrent effect. I agree, having harsh sentences is unnecessary because there is no deterrent or rehabilitative benefit. Having, you know, any sentence, that's another kettle of fish. quote:How is that superior? How is it superior to keep someone in the highest-quality conditions feasible until they are rehabilitated (or for life, if they cannot be), rather than putting them in a shithole to punish them? I feel like your arguments are based around the idea that retributive justice has its place because we use it to determine sentences and then walk away. But everything about our justice system is built around retributive justice. "Why do prisoners get cable TV?" that immortal question, is based around the idea that "prisoners are being punished, why not just put them up in the ritz?" The idea that a justice system built around minimum necessary restraint and treatment would somehow be worse than one actively built around producing unpleasant feelings in prisoners because schadenfreude is an important component of the justice system, is so insane I'd be surprised you expressed it if I hadn't read your posts before today. 30.5 Days fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I agree, having harsh sentences is unnecessary because there is no deterrent or rehabilitative benefit. Having, you know, any sentence, that's another kettle of fish. So what, in your view, is an appropriate murder sentence? By the way, if you support any sentence at all where there is no rehabilitative or deterrent benefit, you do, in fact, support some use of retributivism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:This post leaves me speechless. You've taken my breath away, forums poster Kalman. So why should the grand jury have indicted?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Depends on how you define "worse" This sounds just as bad as the justice system in Los Angeles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So what, in your view, is an appropriate murder sentence? I mean like murder 1 sorta deal, I think 10-20 is appropriate but the execution of that sentence would be where the key components of retribution would have to be excised. Prison conditions would have to be drastically improved. Treatment would have to be the focus. Actual job training instead of free labor for the state. Early parole would actually have to be used, should be available at the request of those treating the prisoner, and the parole board would have to have a really drat good reason to ignore the recommendation of the doctor treating them. I'm sure you can imagine all the other 'hippy bullshit' I'm discussing. A long post-incarceration treatment plan run by doctors rather than parole cops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:48 |
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I mean like murder 1 sorta deal, I think 10-20 is appropriate but the execution of that sentence would be where the key components of retribution would have to be excised. Prison conditions would have to be drastically improved. Treatment would have to be the focus. Actual job training instead of free labor for the state. Early parole would actually have to be used, should be available at the request of those treating the prisoner, and the parole board would have to have a really drat good reason to ignore the recommendation of the doctor treating them. I'm sure you can imagine all the other 'hippy bullshit' I'm discussing. A long post-incarceration treatment plan run by doctors rather than parole cops. ten years for taking a human life? Possibly less with early parole? I can't say I agree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:32
|
|