View Single Post
Old 2009-10-01, 18:34   Link #151
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: CH aka Chocaholic Heaven
Age: 35
Originally Posted by Quzor View Post
So smite the criminal regardless of circumstance, that is your opinion? I fail to see how that delivers any more or less justice than my assertion that we should look for a means to create some social benefit from this situation. Your justice is delivered through your sense of "fairness", and my justice is delivered through my sense of "social ethical responsibility."
My bolding was probably misleading, what I meant is that the case justice is for everybody: you commit a crime => you get sentenced to something.
How you get judged, depending on circumstances, etc... is up to the judge.
Allowing somebody to escape trial is not the same as giving him a comprehensive sentence.

I'm assuming you just misspoke here, and you meant "It's not a perfect system, but it's the best one we've got." In which case, I argue that it may not be the best system. England seems to be doing rather well from a governmental standpoint, and their a monarchy. Canada is much in the same boat. On the other hand, the United States is $9 trillion in debt, and sinking further and faster every year. If the measure of the quality of a government is how it treats it's people, then I'd have to say that America has actually one of the worst governments in the world. There's a quote out there somewhere (I can't find it at the moment), about gaining better understanding of a society by looking at it's convicts. Well, America has more of them than any other country in the world; what does that say?
Yeah I misspoke the saying, sorry about that. I am fully aware of the multiple flaws of democracy (and not-so-democracies), but I value it still.

As sarcastic as you're being, I don't think you fully realize the positive implications of a system like this. If we started executing every single person who committed a crime, I think we'd see the crime rate drop dramatically. Unfortunately, we can't do that, as it infringes directly on the basic human right of life. Since we have that issue to deal with, why not try to gain benefit in other ways. There are plenty of starving people out there, plenty of homeless people out there, and I'm sure that Polanski's fortune could fund more than a few soup kitchens and homeless shelters for a good while.
I fully realize the advantages of such a system. What I was pointing at is precisely that values such as democracy and human rights are highly vulnerable to the utilitarian approach.

That's only one example. Hell, donate the money to a charity or organization that helps rehabilitate female victims of abuse, I don't care. I just think that there are far better ways to go about getting some justice than simply tossing him in prison.
No argument here. My main point being that he has to be sentenced, to what is up to the judge.
JMvS is offline   Reply With Quote