So here's a very basic question that is unrelated to any particular news topic (at least, from my asking): What do you think "justice" is? When do you think it has been served?

Is "justice" equivalent to the letter of the law? I have trouble believing that most people think that. Even the most determined "rule of law" proponent thinks that our statutes are too lenient or too harsh on some count. Some of us want to hang pedophiles. Some of us (possibly the same as the first group) think it's a travesty that a person can go to jail for possession of marijuana. So on and so forth.

Is justice just the best we can do with a legal consensus? If that's the case, is it a meaningful concept at all?

In lawsuits, are awards for "pain and suffering" ever acceptable, or is a strictly eye-for-an-eye remuneration the only way to go?

I don't have a cogent answer to any of these questions myself, but I'm curious as to the position of various soap boxers.

7/13/2009 1:19:14 AM

Quote :

"What do you think "justice" is? When do you think it has been served?"

Quote :

"Is "justice" equivalent to the letter of the law?"

I think there are a couple ways of looking at it. A "broad" view of justice would be that people generally get what deserve, in terms of court decisions - the punishment fits the crime. Of course, since everyone has a different view of what punishments should be afforded for certain crimes, you're unlikely to ever come up with a coherent, over-arching definition of that kind of justice.

The more useful version of justice involves asking if the legal process worked. Was each step in the process completed with integrity and transparency? Was the accused given all the rights that the law provides for? Was the evidence legally obtained?

Quote :

"Is justice just the best we can do with a legal consensus? If that's the case, is it a meaningful concept at all?"

Yes, and yes. We need some kind of idea of what punishment is appropriate for a crime. People are ultimately going to be the judge of that.

Quote :

"In lawsuits, are awards for "pain and suffering" ever acceptable, or is a strictly eye-for-an-eye remuneration the only way to go?"

I can't think of a situation offhand where I would consider it acceptable. Maybe someone can bring up an example.

[Edited on July 13, 2009 at 1:43 AM. Reason : ]

7/13/2009 1:42:25 AM

Quote :

"In lawsuits, are awards for "pain and suffering" ever acceptable, or is a strictly eye-for-an-eye remuneration the only way to go?"

that's seems like a false dichotomy to me.

7/13/2009 1:43:59 AM

justice is what one would reasonably expect for him/herself in the same situation.

7/13/2009 2:21:06 AM

Quote :

"In lawsuits, are awards for "pain and suffering" ever acceptable"

An inmate getting a $3million dollar lawsuit (potentially) b.c his eye aches after getting a little splatter of paintball paint in it (supposedly...)
is not justice.

Neither is a grandma holding getting $20million from McDonalds b.c she choose to drive with coffee between her legs.

On the other hand someone going to jail for 5 years for having an oz of pot is rediculous too.

7/13/2009 8:45:43 AM

oh

wonderful

i was in the mood for an asinine discussion

7/13/2009 8:56:01 AM

i wonder what HUR thinks of the civil lawsuit against oj simpson. . .

which side of his brain will win out? the racist side or the side that doesn't like monetary payments for criminal acts.

7/13/2009 9:26:05 AM

Quote :

"that's seems like a false dichotomy to me."

You're right and I'm sorry. My intent was not to present those as the only two possible options, though I agree it came across that way.

That being said, it's often how the subject is broached in here. HUR is particularly fond of finding the most ridiculous examples of pain and suffering to ridicule the whole process and call for its abolition.

Quote :

"i was in the mood for an asinine discussion"

Then the Soap Box is the place to be. Congratulations!

If you think this discussion is notably asinine, you clearly have not been reading any of the other threads on this forum.

Quote :

"The more useful version of justice involves asking if the legal process worked. Was each step in the process completed with integrity and transparency? Was the accused given all the rights that the law provides for? Was the evidence legally obtained?"

OK, fair enough. But I ask again if the concept is meaningful anymore when you consider that up until relatively recently people were punished for having buttsex through legal proceedings that were completed with integrity and transparency.

7/13/2009 10:51:14 AM

Quote :

"oh wonderful i was in the mood for an asinine discussion"

Yes you're above this sort of conversation aren't you. You, with all of your intellectual laurels.

7/13/2009 10:55:12 AM

Quote :

"Neither is a grandma holding getting $20million from McDonalds b.c she choose to drive with coffee between her legs."

1st...the jury awarded $2.6 million, not 20
2nd...the judge reduced the award to $640,000.00
3rd...the state allowed comparitive negligence, mcdonald's being 80% at fault...if this was NC, it would've been contrib and she would've received nothing

7/13/2009 11:03:05 AM

I like how "intellectual" is an insult.

7/13/2009 11:12:05 AM

Quote :

"Is "justice" equivalent to the letter of the law?"

Absolutely not. How has justice been served when we arrest and incarcerate someone who has victimized no one in their entire life? I cannot stand seeing victimless crimes so heavily punished. At most, such "crimes" should end up resulting in fines. The only time I can see incarceration for a crime that had no victim being reasonable is perhaps if the crime could have resulted in death/GBH and just happened not to.

7/13/2009 11:21:40 AM

I think Justice is subjective and definitly abstract.

Not all laws are just and legality does not equal morality.

7/13/2009 11:42:19 AM

Quote :

"I like how "intellectual" is an insult."

I like how you completely missed my sarcasm. You ain't shit kid. Sit the fuck down. You're at best an English major, if I recall correctly, and at worst an English dropout. The idea that you're above practically any conversation that occurs on this board is laughable.

Either way you reek of the sort of insecurity that comes along with (a) an overinflated sense of one's own intelligence and (b) a completely lack of evidence or feedback for the support of this view.

[Edited on July 13, 2009 at 11:58 AM. Reason : .]

7/13/2009 11:57:30 AM

Damn, man, it's like Food Lion had an MVP special on Haterade for your ass. Did I run over your dog or some shit?

7/13/2009 12:04:40 PM

The only thing I hate about you is your shitty posts.

7/13/2009 12:14:59 PM

quite apart from my opinion of the topic at hand

(which is how we define justice, which is a good topic to discuss)

i appear to be getting an asinine discussion here

just not the type i anticipated

you are acting Str8Foolish

[Edited on July 13, 2009 at 12:28 PM. Reason : thought you'd like that]

7/13/2009 12:17:02 PM

*posts something from ronpaulforums.com*

7/13/2009 1:49:08 PM

Quote :

"Not all laws are just and legality does not equal morality."

Quote :

"How has justice been served when we arrest and incarcerate someone who has victimized no one in their entire life? I cannot stand seeing victimless crimes so heavily punished."

OK, so your positions are that justice cannot be adequately defined in terms of the law. In that case, how is it defined in your views?

And, if justice and the law don't line up, which one takes precedence?

7/13/2009 11:42:22 PM

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. on justice:

Quote :

"After a lunch with Judge Learned Hand, as Holmes was departing in a carriage to return to work, Judge Hand said to him: 'Do justice, sir. Do justice.' Holmes had the carriage stopped. 'That is not my job,' he said. 'My job is to apply the law.'"

I think one must determine whether his or her notion of "justice" is punitive, corrective, or both. As I participate as a citizen in our collective justice system, I find myself hoping that the lesser crimes will be met with more corrective justice and the greater crimes met with more punitive justice.

As to my personal code of justice, I find myself wanting to issue more punishment. There certainly is, however, a corrective aspect to it.

Let's say someone breaks in front of me in line at a convenience store--there is no law against this that I am aware of, but it violates my personal code and I will not allow it. Am I going to call the cops to come sort it all out? No, of course not. I will handle the situation myself--physically if necessary. There is a feeling that if I do not stop the person at issue from doing this (1) my personal sense of justice will have been violated and (2) the offender may do this to someone else (the corrective aspect enters).

In any event, I will attempt to address the questions:

1. What do you think 'justice' is?

In a civilized society, it is the rule of law--equitably and morally applied to the extent practically possible. But we all know that the law is often not applied fairly or morally. This is why I reserve the right to go outside the law--not above it--to protect my God-given rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" whenever the lawmakers or the law enforcers or the jurists cannot or will not protect these precious rights for me.

2. When do you think it has been served?

All I can say is that no man will truly find redress of a serious grievance in a court of law. But our justice system is the best alternative I see to simply killing one another in the streets. Even so, I am much closer to Hammurabi's Code (sans most of the death penalties and other ridiculousness) and a no-duty-to-retreat philosophy than the turn-the-other-cheek philosophy found in the Bible or, say, Ghandian passivity.

Perhaps as I evolve on my path to self-actualization I will achieve a nonviolent approach. Alas, I am not there yet.

7/14/2009 2:40:04 AM

Justice, in my opinion, has very little to do with the law. The law is a system of rules and punishments (and "correctives") that is enforced (or not enforced) and manipulated in a supposedly earnest attempt to perpetuate a desirable amount of order in society. I suppose you could call that justice, but it is more appropriate to call that what it is: law and order. And this isn't "law and order" like the TV show or the stoned musings of a college kid. It's just law and order--dirty, clean, fair, twisted, prejudicial, impartial, lucky, sneaky, conspiratorial, etc...

The word, "justice," on the other hand, should be reserved for the higher, more elusive goal of rightness.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: And, if justice and the law don't line up, which one takes precedence?"

As a matter of course, the law obviously takes precedence. Just ask Bobby Fuller.

7/14/2009 10:57:56 AM

Justice is the general social consensus that proper punishment/restitution has been made for an act that is considered a crime. For the most part the Law is in line with the social consensus.

When the Law is not in line with the current consensus, the worst possible thing that can happen is that the law is ignored in order to satisfy the disparity. That is the job of the legislature. If the people are unhappy about a law, they should petition their representatives to change it or appeal it to a higher court if applicable.

7/14/2009 12:30:21 PM

Quote :

"As a matter of course, the law obviously takes precedence."

Well, yes, I realize that in terms of what the state is going to do, the law will win out. I meant in how you act and how you think people ought to act.

Quote :

"In a civilized society, it is the rule of law--equitably and morally applied to the extent practically possible. But we all know that the law is often not applied fairly or morally."

If I understand you correctly, you're equating justice with the rule of law. Can the laws themselves be "just" or "unjust?" If a law is unjust, then how is any rule of law that includes it just?

7/15/2009 3:36:04 PM

^ My position was clearly posted. The sentence you excerpted makes much more sense in the context of the entire paragraph:

Quote :

"In a civilized society, it is the rule of law--equitably and morally applied to the extent practically possible. But we all know that the law is often not applied fairly or morally. This is why I reserve the right to go outside the law--not above it--to protect my God-given rights of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' whenever the lawmakers or the law enforcers or the jurists cannot or will not protect these precious rights for me."

As one can see, I separated my agreement to be governed by societal justice and my personal code of justice. But they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

7/15/2009 4:06:46 PM

Quote :

"Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason."

-David Hume

I figure "justice" is essentially the same way, based in human emotion and not reason. Asking for a "concept" of justice is like asking for a "concept" of sadness.

7/15/2009 4:12:43 PM

Quote :

"“The foundation of justice is good faith.”"

-Cicero

To expound, laws do not begin with the whims of man. It might shock some of you here, but I do believe in the idea of Natural Law and an eternal definition of what, despite the laws of man, is just. If rape wasn't against the law, or slavery is enshrined as a part of the law, is it just to let it go unsanctioned in the cosmic sense? Of course not.

While I am very scared of the rule of religious doctrine, I do still think a decent outline for Natual Law is something like the 10 Commandments (excluding the ones exclusive to the worship of God). But it in no way emcompasses the extent of what is right and wrong in all situations.

This is one of those topics I can only type a little about at a time since I want to make sure what I say sounds the way I want, so I'll hold off on more for now.

7/15/2009 8:47:29 PM

Quote :

"As one can see, I separated my agreement to be governed by societal justice and my personal code of justice."

I beg to differ. You refer to the "rule of law," defined roughly as "is a general legal maxim according to which decisions should be made by applying known principles or laws, without the intervention of discretion in their application."

Then you go on in the paragraph that you yourself re-quoted to say that "the law is often not applied fairly or morally." This implies that the application of the law -- not the law itself -- may be unfair or immoral. At no point do you address whether or not the laws themselves are just. As far as I can tell, you only mention going "outside the law" in cases where the law, as written, is not properly enforced. These are two very different things.

Quote :

"I figure "justice" is essentially the same way, based in human emotion and not reason. Asking for a "concept" of justice is like asking for a "concept" of sadness."

At least you're willing to accept that justice is effectively a meaningless term. So, in your view, "justice" is defined exclusively by personal satisfaction?

Quote :

"I do believe in the idea of Natural Law and an eternal definition of what, despite the laws of man, is just."

Two questions:

1) Based on what do you believe this?
2) If there is a Natural Law, can it be achieved? Do we know when we have achieved it?

7/15/2009 9:11:47 PM

Quote :

"1) Based on what do you believe this? 2) If there is a Natural Law, can it be achieved? Do we know when we have achieved it?"

1) A belief in a power beyond what we can comprehend. It could range from "God" to "conscience" I suppose. I admit that a problem does arise in that some warped individual might have a different concept of a vengeful God, but because of my faith background, I assume (and possibly take for granted) that God is a righteous judge.

2) Well, humankind is far from perfect, but that doesn't mean we must succumb to our lesser instincts.

[Edited on July 15, 2009 at 9:16 PM. Reason : .]

7/15/2009 9:14:56 PM

^^ Differ all you like--but it's a difference without a distinction. I was quite clear:

Quote :

"This is why I reserve the right to go outside the law--not above it--to protect my God-given rights of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' whenever the lawmakers or the law enforcers or the jurists cannot or will not protect these precious rights for me."

An "unjust" law would necessarily violate "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as it relates to my constitutional rights and probably my personal code of justice, too. Unjust laws--and enforcement of these unjust laws--were not excluded from my statement and are not excluded from my philosophy.

You need to define "unjust." This, of course, raises a key problem: What's unjust to you may not be unjust to me. This is one of the primary reasons that members of society agree to be governed by laws.

7/15/2009 10:03:41 PM

The Law can be just or unjust. The goal is for the legislature to make laws that are just based on the input of the people. The disparity created from when society rules a law is unjust to when it is changed by the legislature is what creates problems. So here is the deilemma. Do you A) Go with our current system and uphold the law, regardless of justice or B) ignore the law and go with what society deems just?

In situation A you end up maybe punishing people for things that society doesnt consider wrong anymore (ex:weed). In situation B you end up making the law irrelevent and instead put it squarely into the hands of the accused's peers.

In situation B its possible that 2 people accused of the exact same offense can get different outcomes due to combination of judge+jury. Imagine someone is charged with an offense that is illegal under the law, but is then let go by the court. Another individual sees this and commits the same offense. He goes to court, but is convicted by a different jury. This is not just. Undermining the system creates confusion and leads to anarchy.

I believe in the strict rule of law. Everyone should get equal protection and equal punishment. If a law itself creates an inequality then it should be banished by the supreme court. If a law is no longer considered just for all, then it should be ammended by the legislature.

Our problem is the slow speed of our legislature and the corruption of our judiciary by the executive.

7/15/2009 10:55:10 PM

Quote :

"Our problem is the slow speed of our legislature and the corruption of our judiciary by the executive."

this is interesting. how do you suggest one remedies this? how do you make the judiciary into something independent of any corrupting sources? you'd need some sort of council of philosopher kings as judges, i'd think.

and i'd prefer a deliberative body to a rash one.

actually it seems to me that both of these expecations are not only impossible, but not desirable. i think most would agree and i feel you likely do as well given the reality of human governance.

7/15/2009 11:13:38 PM

Quote :

"An "unjust" law would necessarily violate "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as it relates to my constitutional rights and probably my personal code of justice, too."

My, my, my, my, my. That's all we hear from you. Does your concern end with your rights?

Quote :

"Unjust laws--and enforcement of these unjust laws--were not excluded from my statement and are not excluded from my philosophy."

They may be included in your philosophy but pretty much by definition of all the terms involved they were excluded form your statement.

--

Quote :

"A belief in a power beyond what we can comprehend."

Well yes, OK, lovely, but based on what do you believe in that, and further, that said belief should influence the application of justice on individuals who may disagree with you?

Quote :

"If a law itself creates an inequality then it should be banished by the supreme court. If a law is no longer considered just for all, then it should be ammended by the legislature."

Even assuming that this all works as it is supposed to, what should people do in the interim?

7/16/2009 1:00:31 AM

Quote :

" this is interesting. how do you suggest one remedies this? how do you make the judiciary into something independent of any corrupting sources? you'd need some sort of council of philosopher kings as judges, i'd think. and i'd prefer a deliberative body to a rash one. actually it seems to me that both of these expecations are not only impossible, but not desirable. i think most would agree and i feel you likely do as well given the reality of human governance. "

Which is why i am also a strong supported of limited federal government. The fed always takes longer to move than your local government. This is why as we've given the fed more and more power, it seems the rate of progress has ground to a halt.

I still think a judiciary that has a strict interpretation of the law is more fair in the long run. Another example: Imagine you have a company that continually does something nasty to its customers. What they are doing is not technically illegal, but society has deemed it wrong. Customer A takes the company to court. The judge and jury ignore the law and rule in favor of customer A. The people rejoice that justice has been done. The media reports on it and everyone feels good. Instead of creating a law abolishing the practice, the legislature ignores it with the rational that the courts will handle it. Customer B has the same problem with another company. He takes them to court. This time the court decides that while morally and ethically wrong, there is no law against the practice and rules in favor of company B. Customer B is now completely screwed. The media doesn't care because they've moved on to a new story.

If both customers are getting fucked, the media focuses on how wrong the companies are and how there should be a law against it. The legislature wants to get in on the hype so they make a law against it. This takes longer but it guarantees justice.

[Edited on July 16, 2009 at 1:19 AM. Reason : a]

7/16/2009 1:04:55 AM

Quote :

"Even assuming that this all works as it is supposed to, what should people do in the interim?"

Depends on the delay. From the time a law is determined to be unjust it would be:
promote public awareness/petition government -> civil protest -> violent protest -> revolution

During all of this the judiciary should continue upholding the law on the books. If there's room in sentancing, use it. Going back to the weed example, if someone gets arrested for growing pot or whatever, it would be stupid for the court to ignore the offense if the evidence is clearly against him. However, depending on legislation, the sentance can be minimal. I dont know what or if there are for manditory sentances for pot.

If there is any kind of loose interpretation for a law it should be in sentancing. Manditory minimums are pretty stupid imo.

7/16/2009 1:13:57 AM

^^^ Christ, is there anything that doesn't chap your ass, Frumpy? This well-known poem should explain my thoughts about the rights of others:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.

7/16/2009 4:38:11 AM

Here's a question. Limited Government proponents prefer the governance of local bodies over non-local ones. This makes sense for logistical reasons, and because people in a community are more likely to know if the community's needs than those outside it. But why are we to believe that they would act more justly than the Federal gov., or a King?

Quote :

"Well yes, OK, lovely, but based on what do you believe in that, and further, that said belief should influence the application of justice on individuals who may disagree with you? "

- I believe this based, ultimately, on my own faith, which was reached through a leap of faith and not necessarily empirical reason (ie: Kierkegaard's idea of how belief in the divine must ultimately be gained through such a leap)
- Well, my God might be a little more accepting than other's Gods, so you're not getting a strict view of this from me. But you're right, the concept of divine justice is quite different with other groups (ex: extremist Islamic justice against women). Ultimately my God, however, is all-knowing, but also all loving.

I guess it all comes down to faith. Let me ponder this further.

[Edited on July 16, 2009 at 1:41 PM. Reason : .]

7/16/2009 1:36:06 PM

^^OK. So you are for the rights of others as a means to protect your own ass. I'm not saying it's a bad thing -- really and truly, I'm not -- but I want to make sure I understand clearly.

7/16/2009 1:40:46 PM

local communities tend to be more homogeneous and thus more likely to agree with the decisions of local government. Its also much easier to leave a city or town you dont care for, for one thats more likely to support your views than it is to leave the US due to a law you dont like.

If the idea of justice is dependent on and individuals beliefs, it would make sense that he would prefer to live among people who support the same belief system and apply it to their laws.

Vs a large fed or a king, you surely can have a just government and you can even have a just and benevolent dictator, however thats outwieghed by the chance of a terrible dictator or a large, overburdened, beuracracy.

7/16/2009 1:47:22 PM

Justice is a social construction. Society sees X action in Y terms and expects Z outcome. Y can vary greatly as each X action has a specific Y view. Different cultures/countries see the relationship between X and Y in different ways.

Justice should DEFINE THE LAW AND SOCIETY SHOULD DEFINE JUSTICE. THE PURPOSE OF LAWS IS TO ENSURE JUSTICE IS DONE FOR THE CRIME COMITTED (AKA, THE FREAKING JUSTICE SYSTEM).

Anyways, back on point....there are times when Z is not the outcome (activist judges, contempt jurys, the law is written poorly, the woman at McDonald's, whatever). In these cases, society loses and should take action.

Quote :

"But why are we to believe that they would act more justly than the Federal gov., or a King?"

This is one of the reasons why we are FEDERALISTS. Federalism is key to our government because it allows each area to govern itself. In a country as large and diverse as the US, a Federal Law will usually never benefit all areas! Maintaining states rights have been vital to America's posperity and I KNOW WHITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT FEDZILLA CANNOT GOVERN WHERE I LIVE BETTER THAN LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS.

How on earth would you think that a King, who's personal views would be dictated for better or worse, would be inline with the publics view of justice? The idea of America is that the people make the laws by voting citizens to power and holding that person accountable. On a local level, I can contact my representatives to express my concern. they can go to the state legislature, the city councel meeting, the school board, and relay my message. I CANNOT GO TO WASHINGTON, DC AND TELL OBAMA or a King my feelings, now can I?

7/16/2009 3:06:30 PM

Quote :

"Justice is getting what you deserve. Mercy is not getting what you deserve. And grace is getting what you absolutely don't deserve. "

--Cathleen Falsani, author.

7/16/2009 8:44:47 PM

Quote :

"I KNOW WHITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT FEDZILLA CANNOT GOVERN WHERE I LIVE BETTER THAN LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS."

playing devil's advocate here: why? in the past local bodies have instituted segregation laws in the interest of the local population's homogeneity. is that right? isn't it good to have an overriding force in the case that a state court does something like, say, say that it's perfectly legal for the police to arrest you or someone you know for things you do in the privacy of your home (ala Lawrence v. Texas)?

Quote :

"How on earth would you think that a King, who's personal views would be dictated for better or worse, would be inline with the publics view of justice? The idea of America is that the people make the laws by voting citizens to power and holding that person accountable. On a local level, I can contact my representatives to express my concern. they can go to the state legislature, the city councel meeting, the school board, and relay my message. I CANNOT GO TO WASHINGTON, DC AND TELL OBAMA or a King my feelings, now can I?"

i could have substituted any governor for the word king, but that's cool, you can fly off the handle at my hypothetical if you want.

you ok dude?

7/17/2009 2:47:16 PM

I'd like to know if some of you feel that a decision such as Brown v. Board or Lawrence v. Texas were just decisions. Both overrode the decisions of more localized bodies which were more in-tune with the culture of the area. Is that right? Is it just to maintain segregated facilities or prosecute people for engaging in homosexual behavior b/c it's in-line with the "culture" of the area?

Is that not proof that local bodies can be just as tyrranical as a national one? It's not the norm, but is it the norm for the national gov. to do the same? What percentage of decisions passed down from the federal gov. infringe upon your way of life? Are they that more numerous than local decisions?

Of course, the benefit about local bodies is that you can leave easily as some have said, but that doesn't justify unjust decisions.

7/17/2009 6:25:47 PM

the conversation has gone off course, i am afraid.

7/18/2009 6:00:08 PM

Eye for an eye.

There was a thread a while ago about a woman who was blinded by a guy who threw acid at her face, and it made me re-consider the topic broached in this thread.

I believe the end-state condition should be imposed as punishment (thereby administering "Justice"). In the above example, the guy confessed and was found guilty. So, I believe he ought to have his vision taken away, but not in the same manner as she did (acid); that would be cruel and unusual punishment. But the end state is that her life is effectively over because of him, and therefore his should be also. Anything less is unfair and unjust. I don't know how you could peaceably or painlessly blind this convicted criminal, but if there's a way, then true "Justice" would be achieved by using it on him.

...though I can still think of a very few exceptions...killing someone will driving drunk should be punishable by firing squad...extreme stuff like that...

7/19/2009 2:18:14 AM

Let me begin by saying that, no matter where the thread may naturally go, I originally had no intention of getting into major supreme court cases. I realize that this all coincides with Sotomayor's confirmation, but that event had nothing to do with my posting this.

----

Quote :

"Justice should DEFINE THE LAW AND SOCIETY SHOULD DEFINE JUSTICE. THE PURPOSE OF LAWS IS TO ENSURE JUSTICE IS DONE FOR THE CRIME COMITTED (AKA, THE FREAKING JUSTICE SYSTEM). "

I really don't understand. It seems like you're saying that justice defines laws and laws exist to ensure justice. In other words, you're not making much sense, in spite of the interjection of "society" part way through.

Do you mean that justice is what people say it is? If so, are you willing to accept the majority opinion on what is just and unjust? Based on your posts in this forum (indeed, in this thread), I think this unlikely.

Quote :

"How on earth would you think that a King, who's personal views would be dictated for better or worse, would be inline with the publics view of justice?"

In a great many instances, the public has no more say in choosing judges than it does in choosing kings.

Quote :

"I CANNOT GO TO WASHINGTON, DC AND TELL OBAMA or a King my feelings, now can I?"

Well, um, yes, yes you can. People much worse off than you have managed it before. Martin Luther King, Jr. didn't get a huge audience in DC by only bringing people who could afford to take time off work for a long-distance trip.

Quote :

"But the end state is that her life is effectively over because of him, and therefore his should be also."

Absolutely. You remember how Hellen Keller's life was effectively over at birth.

Frankly your whole post strikes me as absurd. "Eye for an eye...unless it's for something minor like driving drunk." Or maybe I've misinterpreted that illegible last sentence of yours.

7/20/2009 12:25:18 AM

7/20/2009 1:13:41 AM

I don't know if this applies, but I'll share it anyway.

I'm not cool with the death penalty. It seems like too many dark-skinned (and thus unsympathetic) people get it. And too many poor folks who get stuck with incompetent, overworked court-appointed attorneys get it. If the state could administer it fairly, I'd be all for it. But the state is fallible. I mean, it's bad enough they can strut around, locking people up forever...they don't need the power over life and death at their disposal as well.

So...the state hangs a guilty and deserving man...that's not justice in my opinion because it's part of a sweeping prejudicial murder machine.

But if a man hangs a guilty and deserving man...that could very well be justice.

7/20/2009 9:08:23 AM

^ Excellent point.

Quote :

"Frankly your whole post strikes me as absurd. "Eye for an eye...unless it's for something minor like driving drunk." Or maybe I've misinterpreted that illegible last sentence of yours."

Yeah, I see now did have a typo...it should have said "killing someone WHILE driving drunk..." In other words, I believe that if you commit murder because you were driving drunk, then you deserve the death penalty.

Oh, and even if you're caught before you harm anyone, I would still contend that it's not a "minor" offense.

7/20/2009 11:09:26 AM

Quote :

" It seems like too many dark-skinned (and thus unsympathetic) people get it."

I was intrigued by this and decided to look this up. The death penalty is commonly cited as being racist.

According to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/oracetab.htm, since 1976

302039 white offenders have been convicted of homicide
344312 black offenders have been convicted of homicide

And according to
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-death-row-inmates-executed-1976#defend, since 1976

656 (57% of total) white people have been executed.
405 (34% of total) black people have been executed.

I fail to see how it seems like too many dark-skinned individuals are being executed as compared to whites. I'm not trying to be antagonistic; please let me know where this statement's coming from.
Even combining the numbers for current death-row inmates and people already executed, there are still more white people getting the death penalty and more black people committing murder.

[Edited on July 20, 2009 at 4:17 PM. Reason : .]

7/20/2009 4:12:36 PM

if you look at the people sent to death row that number is closer (41% black, 45% white).

and it doesn't seem to me from a cursory look at the numbers that the death penalty itself is racist.

it's kind of hard to determine but i think there's a greater chance that our justice system itself is somewhat racist. looking around one site i found was saying that 95%+ of DAs (involving death penalty cases in that case, but i'm guessing the overall number isn't that different) are white. that seems like a problem waiting to happen. people have subconscious tendencies and procilivities toward siding with someone who looks like us (or the converse). i don't really think there is an easy solution to this or that there's an easy way to prove that it's true. it just seems likely to me. it could also just be that minority people are more likely to get into crime because they're poor. i don't know.

and another point raised on the site that you cited is that people who have white victims are far more likely to get the death penalty than other victims (79% of death penalty executions are white victims)

[Edited on July 20, 2009 at 4:23 PM. Reason : .]

7/20/2009 4:21:06 PM