Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (4695)	2/3/2001 11:00:43 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Bland remembers from his studies in psychology years ago something to the effect that punishment or the threat of punishment was the single most effective tool for behavioral modification, according to some study or another. It was also the most universally deplored, resented, and disapproved of by the study participants.

To: Lane3 who wrote (4695)	2/3/2001 11:12:07 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I think it's really important not to be dismissive of crime victims. I remember when people ignored rape complaints by prostitutes, for example. I think it's also dismissive if police can't/don't put sufficient resources on a case to investigate it properly. It's also dismissive if juries refuse to convict (a la OJ). I agree with all of that. But how when the authorities have investigated a case and the perp is caught what about the punishment would distinguish vengeance from justice. Is vengeance just a greater level of punishment? In other words if a punishment is extremely harsh and worse then usual for a particular crime is it then vengeance? Is perhaps justice just vengeance tempered by mercy, or is it justice when it is implement fairly and or dispassionately and vengeance when it is implemented in a spirit of hatred, whatever the severity of the punishment? Is it odd that every idea I am adding in this paragraph is in the form of a question? :) Also, taking the law into one's own hands if there's no further risk to the victim What if you lived in an area where the law could not touch the perp because either he basically was the law (dictator, absolute monarch, or perhaps merely a member of the privileged class that is immune from sanction for picking on the peasants), or if the area was basically in anarchy. Actually I suppose in the first case the victim and others still would be in danger so that covers your point there, although I would usually separate the motivations for punishment into justice/vengeance (about which I am honestly unclear about the exact deviding line), protection (some one locked up, exiled, or executed is unlikely to harm the local population), and deterrence. Would it be your opinion that any punishment that is not justified by the needs of deterrence and protection would then be vengeance? Are you tired of all my analogies and hypothetical situations? <g> You brought up this subject. What did you have in mind? Well I have a lot of ideas but I expressed many of them as questions... I think perhaps that vengeance is almost the same as justice but it done from a spirit of hatred. The hate is the important distinction. This is a new idea for me, I basically just came up with the thought (not that I am claiming originality, I'm sure someone has thought of it before) so I have not developed it much. Responding to your point about taking the law in to your own hands being vengeance (when the perp is not still an ongoing danger) I think that this is not necessarily true in theory but it just about always true in practice because who among those who would take the law in to their own hands when the perp is not still a danger would not be acting from hatred? I imagine that people fitting that category would be very rare indeed. Tim