[quote]vroom wrote:
Is there a third option?[/quote]
Sure…
[quote]getafix wrote:
Another thought, I personally am not scared of harsh sentences, or being sent to prison for a crime I did not commit. Really, it does not create one bit of fear in me. I would like to think that law abiding citizens, including those in the States, feel the same way.[/quote]
Sure! It only happens to others, right?
Getafix, the first post matched the “self loathing complainer” criteria. Later posts matched legitimately argued opinion.
JP has been around a long time and has presented decent argued opinion many a time.
Elk,
It is really hard to put the concept you are talking about into words. I’ve tried and failed at it myself. I know what you mean, you are right on the money.
There are four general reasons why a conviction leads to some type of sentence: general deterrence (deterrence of all future law breakers), specific deterrence (the future deterrence of that particular criminal), rehabilitation, and retribution.
We can achieve none of the above goals perfectly. That does not mean we don’t try. Some of the above goals seem to contradict each other at times, for example punishment and rehabilitation. That does not mean we shouldn’t punish for crime or that we shouldn’t try to rehabilitate. Our prison programs have modest results at best. That does not mean we scrap them. We live in a flawed world so we do our best.
Retribution is not irrational. That is like saying justice is irrational. What is irrational is personal revenge. Personal revenge is flawed because it is unmeasured and usually does not respect the basic rights of the perpetrator of the crime. Personal revenge also creates a cycle where vengeance is then sought on behalf of the criminal for the unmeasured nature of the original revenge.
We have a basic social instinct to condemn crime, to say to those who terrorize their fellow citizens and violate them, “we do not tolerate this as a society”. Assurance that the person will not commit another crime (if that were possible) would not satisfy our basic need to condemn the crime and see justice done on behalf of the victims and on behalf of all of society. We all have this basic need to see justice done. We collectively entrust this social need to the state, simply because the state is best able to remove the flaws related to individually administered revenge.
The legal systems in Canada and the US are built around principles that protect the basic rights of criminals. The reversal of proof, right to legal counsel, right to a fair hearing before an impartial court, constitutional rights that govern how evidence is obtained, these are all in place to protect the integrity of our courts. Even the right to know what crime you are being charged with has important roots. There was a time in history when you could stand trial without this key piece of information.
Because of these principles we trust our courts. We don’t believe they they are perfect 100% of the time, but we do belive that they are right most of the time and that they are striving for that impossible perfection. In this flawed world, we must accept that imperfection. If we say “we should let 10,000 criminals go free in order to prevent locking up one innocent man” then that would be the choice to live in a society with no justice system at all and a choice to live in a society where people take the need to punish into thier own hands.
I have lived in Canada for two years now after moving from the USA. I am not a fan of American justice because of inappropriately long sentences and too many convictions of innocent people.
Having said that, I often tell my wife that Canada is the best place in the world to commit a crime as there is NO real punishment. I have seen murders committed and the person sentenced to “house arrest” for two years. I regularly see sexual assaults punished by 2 years in jail. These are rapes of strangers and routinely the criminal has a history of prior offenses with NO punishment.
A recent case was thrown out because the RCMP officer hit the wall near an offender and swore! The horror of it all. Almost every murder is prosecuted as a manslaughter case. What does this say? It says be afraid. There have been several murders in the city I live in in this year and not one has been solved. There have been several rapes and no one has been apprehended.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Elk,
I don’t want to stray off topic, but your comments can’t go unattended.
“That’s one of the differences I feel happens with conservatives and liberals. Republicans and Democrats is that “liberal” minded people look at the complexities and with logic and what makes sense.”
This? Coming from you? The man that when presented with tough questions from the other side of the fence has only one tool in his belt, the ‘neocon’ slur?
I disagree with your whole statement, but maybe - and I am being charitable - someone could make this argument. But of all the people left of center here - it’s not you.[/quote]
It doesn’t surprise me that you see it that way. I don’t think I am totally right and as Vroom pointed out it’s a hard concept for me at least to put into words. Well, I tried and maybe some will catch an inkling of what I mean.
I have a couple quick comments.
On the topic of killing a dude humping your wife compared to killing a dude who’s just black and standing in your way.
Thats Murder 1 and Murder 2. Different charges. One is premeditated and one in not. I find it repulsive that my life is undervalued as compared to a minority who is killed for the color of his skin.
I know its a law that is acting out against the ideal of racism, but there are better ways to implement it. Thats why sentencing has leeway: fine or 30 days in jail, rehab or clink, 25-life etc.)
Hspder, you bring up an interesting point. But its not realistic. If you did not premeditate the murder you won’t get Murder 1. If you didn’t intend to kill him you’ll get off. In the case you pointed out it’s much more likely that’ll he’ll get a few years in the can and get convicted of a (relatively) minor felony. His life will be fucked up and it should be. He killed someone, even though he didn’t mean to. Shit Happens. Reference TC’s article.
However, someone getting caught killing or raping in Canada getting a light sentence is real and does happen. If you can show one example of someone receiving the punishment you mentioned (no record, involuntary manslaughter but gets a life sentence) please reference it.
Its like talking about market dumping in economics. People talk all day, but there never has been an example.
[quote]Garrett W. wrote:
However, someone getting caught killing or raping in Canada getting a light sentence is real and does happen. If you can show one example of someone receiving the punishment you mentioned (no record, involuntary manslaughter but gets a life sentence) please reference it.[/quote]
In my example, it was not involuntary manslaughter – the guy didn’t do it at all, he was just in the wrong place in the wrong time and got framed, with bought witnesses saying it was premeditated.
I’m not making this up; This happened right in the SF Bay Area; I know the guy was actually innocent because he recently got released due to new evidence proving he was innocent and that somebody else had done it – after he was 11 years in jail!
And I read about other similar cases elsewhere almost every week. Now, considering we only read about the cases where the innocent guy actually ended up being released, we can all but imagine how many more are out there that aren’t as lucky…
[quote]Garrett W. wrote:
Its like talking about market dumping in economics. People talk all day, but there never has been an example.[/quote]
Actually I’m right now in Princeton exactly working (with my peers here) on a paper about (among other things) market dumping. And trust me, it’s very real. It is, almost always, impossible to prove – but it is VERY real. Especially in the IT industry.
Just because you can’t prove it, it doesn’t mean it does not exist…
First of all, JP, very well written post. I just have a few more comments…
[quote]JPBear wrote:
Retribution is not irrational. That is like saying justice is irrational. [/quote]
Justice performed by non-omniscient beings IS irrational. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong – it means that it serves emotional reasons – not rational ones. That was my point.
[quote]JPBear wrote:
Assurance that the person will not commit another crime (if that were possible) would not satisfy our basic need to condemn the crime and see justice done on behalf of the victims and on behalf of all of society. We all have this basic need to see justice done.[/quote]
Exactly. You say it yourself: it satisfies a basic need – an emotional one at that.
[quote]JPBear wrote:
In this flawed world, we must accept that imperfection.[/quote]
I agree 100%. And nothing I said goes against that. On the contrary, I said exactly that we are a flawed species and hence we need to compromise.
[quote]JPBear wrote:
If we say “we should let 10,000 criminals go free in order to prevent locking up one innocent man” then that would be the choice to live in a society with no justice system at all and a choice to live in a society where people take the need to punish into thier own hands.[/quote]
I think you’re exaggerating here a bit to get your point across, wouldn’t you agree? I believe it is not as clear cut as you are trying to make it, and that there is not a “clearly better” solution. And hence definitely no system that deserves a love declaration. 