Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What is justice?

To give closure to victims and to punish the guilty. As well as making an example out of them to warn other would be offenders.

Justice can only be found in the absolute torture and suffering of the criminal giving that its the only thing that makes criminals repent (the UK's very light justice system proves this). Though; it need not be physical. Mental anguish can be a good tool.

Do you feel that crime reduction should be part of it?

Mr Hyena wrote:So they are supposed to be pampered in prison?

I love how immediately after I post about the absurdity of arguing against a made up misrepresentations of someone's argument. You fire back with yet another misrepresentation. I never said criminals should be pampered in prison, I said that they should not be tortured and killed. There is a pretty big difference.

Not everyone in prison is a bad guy, some of them just made stupid mistakes, others were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or got involved with the wrong people. A few of them are completely innocent are were wrongly convicted. And a few a sick twisted scumbags.

But just because some criminals are sick and twisted doesn't mean that we a society should be sick and twisted, or stoop the criminals sick and hateful level. If we are going to have laws, and present a moral high ground for people to live by, then we should at least show some integrity and try to stick to the high ground ourselves.

Even when that does nothing to get Justice? Even when doing it DOESNT reduce crime.

Guess what? The death penalty doesn't reduce crime either, this has been show over and over. Even in previous centuries when people could be executed for misdemeanours like shoplifting. All it did was lead to more people being executed. Criminals don't expect to get caught, or aren't generally that forward thinking, or are just too desperate to care.

If you want to reduce crime you need to reduce the causes of crime... Poverty, inequality, unemployment, lack of education, lack of socioeconomic mobility, low living standards, lack of care for the mentally ill, Bad parenting and lack of positive role models.

As long as these issues are rampant in our society, crime will be too. Prison and punishment is just a pathetic band aid over the ever-growing problem. It does nothing to treat the underlying causes. This is why prisons are barely able to cope with the increasing prison population in the US. In South Africa where these social issues are far worse, prisons are as a result even more overcrowded.

Keep towing your "hard line" but if you really want to solve societies problems and make the world a better place, stop kidding yourself that we can do that with something like "government sanctioned torture", and get a clue.

In trials of treason or espionage, does the UK institute the Death penalty?

Serious question, as I'm not familiar with your laws.

Smacks wrote:If you want to reduce crime you need to reduce the causes of crime... Poverty, inequality, unemployment, lack of education, lack of socioeconomic mobility, low living standards, lack of care for the mentally ill, Bad parenting and lack of positive role models.

The very worst crimes aren't really caused by any of those though, and those are the very crimes which should be punishable by death. You can't provide financial inducements to serial pederasts and potential child-murderers in order to prevent them from carrying out their heinous acts. Also, I love how people like you seem to hate 'the mob' but love its money - liberal elitists want to pay people to live their lives better, and expect the ones who are victimised by them to foot the bill. Of course, when 'the mob' has the temerity to suggest that this is a touch unfair, and that people should take responsibility for their own lives, and their own failures, and that in a country such as the UK, where everybody has equal access to a good standard of education, and being poor can be a temporary measure, instead of an inheritance to be simply passed down the generations, they are rewarded with scorn and derision.

My main problem with liberals is not that they are 'woolly' and 'soft', as the tabloids would have you believe, but that they have a worrying contempt for democracy when it doesn't suit their agenda.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kronk wrote:In trials of treason or espionage, does the UK institute the Death penalty?

Serious question, as I'm not familiar with your laws.

No, we don't.

Albatross wrote:

kronk wrote:In trials of treason or espionage, does the UK institute the Death penalty?

Serious question, as I'm not familiar with your laws.

No, we don't.

I see. We have it here, but it's rarely used. Only a handful of times in the last century.

Albatross wrote:

My main problem with liberals is not that they are 'woolly' and 'soft', as the tabloids would have you believe, but that they have a worrying contempt for democracy when it doesn't suit their agenda.

This deserves an exalt good sir!

Even mention an annoyance at any of the plethora of pinko liberal ideas and your a nazi who vote's for the BNP.

I dislike the black and white "string them up" idiocy of the right, but I absolutely loathe the staggering hypocrisy of the left.

In short, id rather be stuck in a lift with a comically bigoted old man that reads the Daily Mail, than a staggeringly hypocritical "right on" Guardian reader.

That's very interesting.

It is not advancing the debate, though.

Albatross wrote:

My main problem with liberals is not that they are 'woolly' and 'soft', as the tabloids would have you believe, but that they have a worrying contempt for democracy when it doesn't suit their agenda.

I'm a fairly conservative person, but to be honest, I find this to be a misleading statement. Conservatives are just as likely to ignore democracy when it doesn't suit their needs. Political opinions don't make you a bad person, being a bad person does.


As far as the capital punishment thing goes, I agree with it in principle, but find that the execution (pardon the pun) is often flawed. For physical punishment to be effective, it needs to be immediate. As I understand it, the brain needs to form a concrete connection with the action and the punishment. That's whay spanking kids after the fact doesn't work. This makes it very hard to institute any kind of capital punishment system that would fit with in a democratic legal system.

Couple of questions for those of you from the UK, since I think there is some differences in our legal, prison, and political systems.

Is your crime rate higher than the US? Is the recidivism rate higher?

Do you allow capital punishment of any kind, under any circumstances?

How many folks do you guys have sitting in prison who are wrongfully convicted?

Here in the US, we have a high crime rate and a ridiculously high recidivism rate. (Most criminals are repeat offenders, and no punishment will serve to dissuade that.) We forbid capital punishment under a wide variety of circumstances, but do allow it in specific ones. (Murder in some states, child molestation in some, and treason during wartime, technically.) We also have a ludicrously high number of prisoners in jail who did not do the crime they were convicted for.

Just curious, I suppose.

Albatross wrote:The very worst crimes aren't really caused by any of those though, and those are the very crimes which should be punishable by death.

Actually I would say that failure to identify and care for the mentally ill, along with poor or even abusive parenting are factors that contribute greatly to shaping serial killers and child molesters. But you are taking my words out of context, I was responding to a poster who talked argued that harsher punishments would deter criminals. The evidence suggests that it is actually quite ineffective. My argument was merely that providing a better standard of living for citizens is a much more effective way to alleviate crime.

Please explain how wanting a better standard of living for citizens is in any way a bad thing?

Also, I love how people like you seem to hate 'the mob' but love its money - liberal elitists.

Woah... who said I'm a liberal? Let alone an elitist one? This has nothing to do with be believing criminals just need a hug.

Ask any family of a murder victim what they want most, and I guarantee you that it isn't the murder tortured and killed. What they want most is for the crime to have never taken place and to have their loved one back.

You might have heard the adage: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I don't want better eduction for children, and parenting classes for single mothers because I'm a wooly liberal duchebag. I want it so their brats don't mug me in 10 years. I want it so they become productive members of society, rather than a burden rotting in jail. This isn't liberal, it's just good sense. Solving a problem before it happens is far better then making empty gestures afterwards, killing criminals after it's too late and the damage is already done.

With regards to 'the mob' and mob rule... I think a good example is the call for a referendum on the UK joining the Euro. Why? I'm not ashamed to admit that I really don't know if it would be good for the economy or not, I'm not an economist. Maybe I could read up and make an informed decision, but what would be the point when some other idiot can cancel out my vote on the grounds that the pound has a picture of the queen on it so he likes that one. If idiots outnumber informed people (which sadly they often do) then in 10 years time we could all be working in sweatshops making trainers to export to China.

People ideally shouldn't have a say in things that they don't understand, for the same reason that children shouldn't play with scissors, and people who aren't bomb disposal experts shouldn't disarm bombs.

Not everyone in prison is a bad guy, some of them just made stupid mistakes, others were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or got involved with the wrong people. A few of them are completely innocent are were wrongly convicted. And a few a sick twisted scumbags.

It doesn't matter the reason why. They broke the law. Theres plenty of people out there that are no doubt in similar situations...but chose not to break the law. Thieves, murders, gangsters...its all the same. Contemptible human beings with no purpose but to shred the privacy and destroy peoples lives. (not damage...DESTROY.)

For the few innocently convicted people its unfortunate. But at the same time prisons are largely soft B&Bs now.

But just because some criminals are sick and twisted doesn't mean that we a society should be sick and twisted, or stoop the criminals sick and hateful level. If we are going to have laws, and present a moral high ground for people to live by, then we should at least show some integrity and try to stick to the high ground ourselves.

And why does that involve ignoring the families of the victims and frankly insulting them with lenient as hell sentences and no physical labour?

Do you feel that crime reduction should be part of it?

Crime reduction is the secondary goal. Primary goal is to get Justice and not to ignore the families of the victim, which is how current 'Justice' systems work. Once the prisoners are fearful of society they will stop breaking the law which they would have done regardless of all done to stop the so-called causes.

Guess what? The death penalty doesn't reduce crime either, this has been show over and over. Even in previous centuries when people could be executed for misdemeanours like shoplifting. All it did was lead to more people being executed. Criminals don't expect to get caught, or aren't generally that forward thinking, or are just too desperate to care.

It doesn't matter if the death penalty doesn't reduce crime because the other methods don't. The purpose of the death penalty is to put fear into those who break the most extreme laws. (Such as murder, pedophiles etc). Its a way of getting the animals out of humanity.

'Desperate'? in the UK theres no reason to break any law. Its disgusting to even think so.

Besides, its very very cheap. A scalpel, one guy, a dimly lit room isn't costly and is very effective.

If you want to reduce crime you need to reduce the causes of crime... Poverty, inequality, unemployment, lack of education, lack of socioeconomic mobility, low living standards, lack of care for the mentally ill, Bad parenting and lack of positive role models.

And yet crime will still be going strong. We will seem even more lenient and they'll know theres no true punishment. What does it matter if your sent to jail with all your buds, have Sky TV and all sorts, with no bills to pay.

Keep towing your "hard line" but if you really want to solve societies problems and make the world a better place, stop kidding yourself that we can do that with something like "government sanctioned torture", and get a clue.

Solve societies problems? Society will always have problems. Its about how people react to them. If they follow the law; then its fine and dandy. But if they break the law theres no excuse; and that they deserve nothing but a torturous existance. This is because it doesn't matter. Crime won't reduce even if you solve all problems in the world unless you stop making jails so cushy and great.

Its the only way is to be hard on crime. Not soft.

Please explain how wanting a better standard of living for citizens is in any way a bad thing?

It isn't bad. But its not going to stop anything. Look at all the crime thats happening with big business people and they have the best standard of living in the world. Not exactly stopping it is it?

Do you think it is an important part of the criminal justice system to reduce the crime rate?

Do you think it is an important part of the criminal justice system to reduce the crime rate?

It is. But Justice comes first. Because without Justice there is no Justice system. Thats why people have no faith in today's Justice systems.

Is it more important to have justice than to reduce crime?

Kilkrazy wrote:Is it more important to have justice than to reduce crime?

"Rehabilitated" people can re-offend despite the best efforts of the system.

Dead people, well, they struggle to do anything, much less increase the crime rates.

Is it more important to have justice than to reduce crime?

Yes. In the case of murder...a dead people can't reoffend. But more important a thief will learn to be afraid of the repercussions of his crime. Not only that; but it brings sympathy to the victims to hear that justice has been served.

Kilkrazy wrote:Is it more important to have justice than to reduce crime?

I'd say that crime reduction should be society's first priority (between these two options).

But that doesn't mean it isn't important to enact justice on those that violate the law. Why can't we have both?

mattyrm wrote:Dead people, well, they struggle to do anything, much less increase the crime rates.

There are only a handful people I can think of who managed to commit further crimes after being executed, and I am pretty sure they are essentially fictional

Regards justice/crime reduction... it is an interesting question and will vary, IMO, according to the crime.

For example, common burglary - many people would probably feel that someone getting locked up for a couple of years for this kind of crime would probably be justice enough for them and burglary tends to (as far as I am aware) be one type of crime where one (or a group of people) ill commit multiples of said crime, thus throwing them all into a concrete lined pit with bread, water and daily cold hosings would both count towards "justice" and also reduce crime rates, since the perpetrators are sitting in a hole in the ground.

Something like crime of passion murders on the other hand tend to be a single individual committing a single crime. One could argue that in this case "justice" would be served by executing the murderer, yet crime would not be reduced by doing so, or even locking them up, since their crime, although a severe one, is one that they are unlikely to repeat.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Is it more important to have justice than to reduce crime?

Yes. In the case of murder...a dead people can't reoffend. But more important a thief will learn to be afraid of the repercussions of his crime. Not only that; but it brings sympathy to the victims to hear that justice has been served.

You would rather see crime increase as long as justice is done?

Mr Hyena wrote:It doesn't matter the reason why. They broke the law. Theres plenty of people out there that are no doubt in similar situations...but chose not to break the law. Thieves, murders, gangsters...its all the same. Contemptible human beings with no purpose but to shred the privacy and destroy peoples lives. (not damage...DESTROY.)

You have such a narrow view. Some people are in prison for things like protesting, or causing traffic accents, or even over enthusiastic self/home defence. Or because they got drunk and stepped on a cops foot... Yeah it's stupid and they could have handled themselves better, but I don't think they need to be tortured for it.

And why does that involve ignoring the families of the victims and frankly insulting them with lenient as hell sentences and no physical labour?

Again with the misrepresentation. I didn't say that victims and their families should be ignored. In fact I would very much like for them to never become victims in the first place. As for prisons being cushy B&Bs and sentences being lenient and not involving labour... I did not say or imply any of that. If you going to disagree with me at least disagree with stuff that I actually said.

It doesn't matter if the death penalty doesn't reduce crime because the other methods don't.

Actually they do, it can be shown that places with fewer socioeconomic divisions and better standards of living, also have lower crime rates, particularly for violent crimes.

The purpose of the death penalty is to put fear into those who break the most extreme laws. (Such as murder, pedophiles etc). Its a way of getting the animals out of humanity.

I'm sorry what? The purpose is not to deter crime but to put fear into the hearts of criminals?.. So they feel fear, but not enough to actually deter them from doing the crime? We've been over this... punishment isn't an effective deterrent, there is good evidence for this. Why ignore the evidence and pursue a course of action that doesn't work? That is practically the definition of irrational.

If you want to reduce crime you need to reduce the causes of crime... Poverty, inequality, unemployment, lack of education, lack of socioeconomic mobility, low living standards, lack of care for the mentally ill, Bad parenting and lack of positive role models.

And yet crime will still be going strong. We will seem even more lenient and they'll know theres no true punishment. What does it matter if your sent to jail with all your buds, have Sky TV and all sorts, with no bills to pay.

What? Firstly reducing poverty and the other measures I mentioned really does also reduce crime. It won't eradicate crime completely but it can have a big impact.

And again with stawman argument, how on Earth does getting rid of poverty and improving education make us seem more lenient on crime. What does that even have to do with crime? And where did sky TV come from? No one is talking about that. Please focus on what is being said and stop making stuff up.

Solve societies problems? Society will always have problems. Its about how people react to them.

Working to prevent problems is a superior strategy to 'reacting' to them after the damage is done. Also there is a big difference between a society who's biggest problem is 'house prices are too high' and a society where the problem is murder rates are too high and prisons are overflowing.

The purpose of the death penalty is to put fear into those who break the most extreme laws. (Such as murder, pedophiles etc). Its a way of getting the animals out of humanity.

Most of the people that would qualify for a Death Sentence are people that live every day with the possibility of being killed w/o due process so I don't see how the state also threatening to murder them will be much of an incentive to discontinue that kind of behavior. The guy who was shot that started the recent riots in London sure didn't seem to care that he was going up against heavily armed law enforcement. It is mainly a deterrent to those who fear dieing, of which a great many hardened criminals do not; it is more a deterrent to the people making the law (and calling other humans animals) then it is to the people most likely effected by it.

kronk wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is it more important to have justice than to reduce crime?

I'd say that crime reduction should be society's first priority (between these two options).

But that doesn't mean it isn't important to enact justice on those that violate the law. Why can't we have both?

We don't know that it is possible to achieve both in the terms advanced by mattyrm and Mr Hyena.

For example, the idea that all victims seek vengeance is not true, so we cannot achieve justice simply by enacting vengeance.

For example, the idea that all victims seek vengeance is not true, so we cannot achieve justice simply by enacting vengeance.

Justice would be defined as whatever sentence brings closure to the victims. Be it life imprisonment, torture, eye-for-an-eye, small sentence, whatever.

You have such a narrow view. Some people are in prison for things like protesting, or causing traffic accents, or even over enthusiastic self/home defence. Or because they got drunk and stepped on a cops foot... Yeah it's stupid and they could have handled themselves better, but I don't think they need to be tortured for it.

Ok then; so what other way does it work? Assume we don't do that. How exactly do we stop petty crime from happening without using fear as a tool?

Again with the misrepresentation. I didn't say that victims and their families should be ignored. In fact I would very much like for them to never become victims in the first place. As for prisons being cushy B&Bs and sentences being lenient and not involving labour... I did not say or imply any of that. If you going to disagree with me at least disagree with stuff that I actually said.

But your ideas don't help after the crime has happened. If we follow your way we still don't get Justice for families who are affected. Prisons are cushy B&Bs currently is my point. Heck, some even get TELEVISION! in their cells...a massive injustice.

Actually they do, it can be shown that places with fewer socioeconomic divisions and better standards of living, also have lower crime rates, particularly for violent crimes.

Explain economic crime like our bankers then and other similar upper class crime. Those aren't low.

I'm sorry what? The purpose is not to deter crime but to put fear into the hearts of criminals?.. So they feel fear, but not enough to actually deter them from doing the crime? We've been over this... punishment isn't an effective deterrent, there is good evidence for this. Why ignore the evidence and pursue a course of action that doesn't work? That is practically the definition of irrational.

I'm willing to bet if you took first time offenders...and showed them the video of some criminal animal having battery acid sloowly dripped onto his eyes while awake...that would convince them not to commit another crime.

What? Firstly reducing poverty and the other measures I mentioned really does also reduce crime. It won't eradicate crime completely but it can have a big impact.

Murder will still be around. How do you punish it then? What sort of jail? What tactics?

And again with stawman argument, how on Earth does getting rid of poverty and improving education make us seem more lenient on crime. What does that even have to do with crime? And where did sky TV come from? No one is talking about that. Please focus on what is being said and stop making stuff up.

Because even if there was no poverty and education was at a high; there would still be crime. If prison's aren't changed then crime will still exist without trouble. Sky TV comes from current examples. There are criminals who get Internet access and Sky Television in prisons. Its an example of why our jails are cushy.

Working to prevent problems is a superior strategy to 'reacting' to them after the damage is done. Also there is a big difference between a society who's biggest problem is 'house prices are too high' and a society where the problem is murder rates are too high and prisons are overflowing.

But your still going to have murder, theft, rape etc. All of which still need a sound, strong strategy for in jails.

Also, Justice is a pretty subjective term. One man's justice is another's brutality. While a third man's justice is too soft for the first two.

If I am a victim of crime can I choose whatever sentence I like for the criminal?

In a proper system, yes you should. Nobody else knows what proper Justice would be in that circumstance.

Kilkrazy wrote:If I am a victim of crime can I choose whatever sentence I like for the criminal?

Nope. Not sure if that was directed at me, though.

What if there are two victims of the same crime and they choose different sentences?

That would be two different counts of the same crime, and each has the possibility of different sentencing, anyway.

What if the sentences are incompatible?