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 : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (5006)	7/8/2001 11:47:16 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6089

The whole subject of "justice" as punishment/retribution--with understanding and mercy--is one which seems to elude our comprehension. "Justice" seems to begin in our guts. The cerebral part of it seems simply to be an add-on; an add-on designed to remove justice from the hands of the individual--and to place it in the hands of the group. Kant believed that what was just and fair existed apart from reason, but that reason was the tool that could best discover it. Of course, that was just something that he made up; There is nothing to justify it so far as I have ever heard. I prefer to think of "justice" as the response of the powerful to the transgressions of the weaker. One hopes the response is reasoned, but this is always a question of opinion and guns. Let me free-float a few thoughts that may or may not improve the salad. There appears to be one basic negative emotion or experience--that being PAIN, HURT, or SUFFERING. Depression and anger may be considered as alternative methods of "expressing" this pain, and/or adjusting ones "expression" to fit the risks and opportunities that are perceived to be IN reality. One may guess that the suffering of Yates finally found expression in a dissociated and murderous combination of resignation and rage. Now begins the process of "justice." But what is that? There are two basic degrees of wrong that occur between people: Wrongs which produce suffering--and wrongs which essentially do not. Buying liquor as a minor is somewhat different than the acts of a Clifford Olson. Organized cultures have generally held the belief that any wrong done to any member of the tribe or community, was a wrong committed against the entire people--the "people" being self defined by the collective consensus of the particular group. The most basic expressions of "justice" is the paying back of suffering--with...suffering. How the suffering is returned, and who gets to participate in the "retribution" and "justice"--this varies over time and place. The "peoples'" right to participate directly in justice, is still recognized in many cultures; but it is increasingly common for the "people" to participate ritualistically. Western culture no longer uses stocks and rotten tomatoes or pig slop. We have refined this direct participation through the civilized substitution of cameras, commentators--and other avenues of the media. Also, much of the physical suffering has been removed in the interest of sanitation. There is poignant evidence of this in the speeches and faces of the families of the Oklahoma Bomber's victims. Many of these people did not believe that "justice" had been done--strictly because they were unable to vicariously sense physical suffering in the death of the Oklahoma bomber. Some (but not all) were comforted by the belief that the afterlife held an eternity of suffering in store for him. Your mention of mercy and understanding, T.S., introduces the point that some make for a case for society engendering LESS suffering (mercy and understanding)--against those whom have hurt members of the community. But although philosophers and social policy makers have succeeded in obscuring the fundamental motivations for "justice", it nevertheless remains the desire of many people (who have been caused to suffer), to experience, either directly or vicariously, the suffering of the perpetrator of the crime. But is there another way?? I like the idea of building a fence. I like the idea of "separating" people with extremely incompatible values. In such instances there is nothing to be gained through any pretence of association--and there is unlimited potential for loss. Prisons build fences to a degree--off and on and off again--but they seem to me to be ill conceived as a method to reflect and address the big picture. I am talking about exile; exile to arable land with absolutely no assistance or provision given--other than a free knife as they walk through the gate. Some say this is cruel; but why is building a fence, cruel?? Is it cruel to build houses? Is it cruel to put locks on the doors?? Building fences does not create social classes through birth, nor through wealth. Rather, it creates inter-societal differences based on VALUES. It essentially separates those of the "might is right" persuasion from those of the "do not touch me or my property without my permission" persuasion. What is cruel about allowing people to live their own values?? Some say it is cruel to not make these murderers like us. But what do they mean by this?? Like Muslims? Like Christians? Like humanists? How could we do this? And what would justify it? I suggest it is cruel to spend billions of dollars on people who respect and value a different code of association. These billions could be going to treat and assist the disenfranchised and the mentally ill, or the socially disadvantaged. It is important, in this regard, to ask ourselves: Which killers are mentally ill, and which simply enjoy or are indifferent to the suffering of other people? Certainly, most of us can tell the difference between people whose minds are no longer working as a sensible mediator between their inner world and "objective" reality--and those whom have perfectly sound minds, but whose values are at odds with concepts involving individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Individual victims (or individuals close to victims) would likely say as they do now: "But, it is not fair. They get away with murder. Nothing happens to them. They don't get punished. They don't suffer." Well, is it really true that they don't suffer? If your value system is stabbing people while they sleep--will you ever sleep well knowing you are among your own kind?? Well, these are just random thoughts that I have toyed with for a number of years. Remember, my money is my labour. How long must I be a servant to those who violate my values and the values of my society, and our principles of common decency as set down in legal documents. What do I (WE) hope to accomplish by labouring to provide for those who would kill us without any hesitation had they the power to do so? Why should we not labour for those who share our values rather than for those who are our enemies? What is our goal? Is it to cause them suffering? Then why should we pay for it? Is it to change their value system? What gives us the right? And what evidence do we have that we are capable of robbing people of who they are? Of course, there are many practical impediments to implementing such ideas, and I have glossed over a thousand difficulties. But even stated half seriously, the purpose of questioning our goals when we rob deserving, needy and suffering people of our resources--by choosing to labor for our enemies--this purpose is a serious one. As a society, we need to define our goals as regards "justice. We need to be able to define, measure, and justify what we are trying to accomplish. But the truth is, our "justice" system mirrors our progress from the jungle to the stars--and we are still afraid to let go of the vine. But why are we afraid of fences?