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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (14805)	11/13/1998 4:03:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

brees - Your list of goals seems appropriate enough. Your definition of justice is utopian and impossible to achieve when civilization consists of anything more than a few people. Nature has no innate equality among living things - only balances arrived at with influences from many, sometimes only distantly related sources. Our human sentience allows us to reintroduce the concept of personal equality that overrides physical prowess and also places us at the pinnacle of life forms on the earth. Natural justice is often swift and sure. Human justice is sometimes barbaric, and in some cases, unaccomplished due to weakness. Our country's system appears to have reached a balance that allows us some modicum of personal freedom while protecting most of us from the abuses of those who would harm us. Mr. K.

To: one_less who wrote (14805)	11/13/1998 4:59:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

Abdul Haq, are you talking about jurisprudence (the philosophy of law), the courts, or the administration of civil and criminal law? Or do you mean just the criminal justice system, understood to comprise the legislatures where laws are made, the police forces, the prosecutors, the prisons, etc., etc, not just the courts)? I presume the last-mentioned is what you mean when you say: "Looking over our shoulders we generally agree that we have a corrupt or at least ineffective justice system in America". (But why should we "look over our shoulders" ??) Which part of this system do you perceive as inefficient and/or corrupt? Are the laws at fault? The police? The courts? The prisons? Does our system compare unfavorably with the system in other countries? (We sure have a heck of a lot more people in jail!) I agree with you about the objectives of the criminal justice system, broadly understood to include legislatures, police, courts, prisons, etc. But I think we must recognize that these objectives are not quite as clear and simple as they appear on the surface. Now, consider this. One of the objectives is to reduce crime. Fine. But as Pontius Pilate might have said, what is crime? In South Carolina, and in other southern states, interracial marriage used to be a crime. During the Prohibition era, it was a crime to manufacture, distribute, or consume alcohol. These are no longer crimes. One way to reduce crime is to decriminalize certain activities; and a way to increase it is to criminalize others. I am not nitpicking here. Take drugs, for example. Before the 1930's, cocaine, opium, marijuana, etc., were all legal. Now "drug" criminals" account for the majority of people in jail. Decriminalize all illegal drugs tomorrow -- and poof! down goes the crime rate, dramatically. Or, legislators may decide to criminalize tobacco as well, and boom! up goes the crime rate. As for your definition of justice - "When everyones needs are met absolutely and simultaneously" -- think of it this way. Joe Blow "needs" money. To get it he steals my wallet, which I need. How can we meet these two conflicting needs absolutely and simultaneously? jbe