Prohibitive Law vs Protective Justice

[BeerWench13]

The same can't be said for the Virginia Tech killer, or the Unibomber.

I'll give you the unibomber, but I say Hogwash! to the VT killer. If you analyze his situation, his lashing out was at his peers, not at the system. Please stop using this as an example for it actually hurts your theory tremendously.

Here's where the problem lies in your "protective justice" theory. If you allow, by freedom of choice, people to do as they wish, they will. Do you think I'd drive 100 mph if there wasn't a law prohibiting it and, more importantly, a consequence for doing so? The answer is hell yes I would. The faster the better I say! However, I don't drive that fast, not only for the safety of other motorists, but because I want to keep my license. If I drive that fast now, it is not to slap the face of the law but because I am either running extremely late or I'm not paying attention to my speed.

Your theory is flawed in your thinking that people will do the right thing. They just won't. It's a fact of life. Even now people do things that are wrong even though they may end up losing their own lives if they're caught. How can you possibly think that, if there are no consequences, they'll automatically decide that killing their wife or molesting that little boy next door is "wrong" and won't do it? Seriously, how young and naive are you that you think people are generally good?

Do me a favor and read up on sociopaths. They only comprise about 5% of the population, but check out what they're capable of and their basic traits, or lack thereof (love, shame, guilt, empathy, and remorse). These are scary people. They comprise about 20% of the prison population in the U.S. Now, think about all of those sociopaths running amok, no true way to "arrest" or "try" them (because, technically, they've done nothing against any law) or "rehabilitate" them, and the innocent people who would be harmed.

If there is no preset law against something, there is no right for any "police/court/society/whatever you wish to call it" to disallow that person to continue with their actions.

 

[nyse]

I'll give you the unibomber, but I say Hogwash! to the VT killer. If you analyze his situation, his lashing out was at his peers, not at the system. Please stop using this as an example for it actually hurts your theory tremendously.

I still disagree in that I think VT wouldn't have happened under PJ. The 'experts' who have analyzed and published 'accepted' theories on both VT and other sociopaths, haven't given any credence to what the feeling of social slavery might do to people who feel it more keenly. I believe that prohibitive law creates sociopaths--but I'll take your advice and quietly drop that portion of my debating--for now.

Here's where the problem lies in your "protective justice" theory. If you allow, by freedom of choice, people to do as they wish, they will. Do you think I'd drive 100 mph if there wasn't a law prohibiting it and, more importantly, a consequence for doing so? The answer is hell yes I would. The faster the better I say! However, I don't drive that fast, not only for the safety of other motorists, but because I want to keep my license. If I drive that fast now, it is not to slap the face of the law but because I am either running extremely late or I'm not paying attention to my speed.

Your theory is flawed in your thinking that people will do the right thing. They just won't. It's a fact of life. Even now people do things that are wrong even though they may end up losing their own lives if they're caught. How can you possibly think that, if there are no consequences, they'll automatically decide that killing their wife or molesting that little boy next door is "wrong" and won't do it? Seriously, how young and naive are you that you think people are generally good?

I'm 51, not wet behind my ears and I've given this material conciderable thought and study. My theory is not flawed by thinking that most people will do the right thing--it is correctly grounded on my incontravertable knowledge that no matter what a person actually does in the end, his/her conscience first suggested the decent action.

Do me a favor and read up on sociopaths. They only comprise about 5% of the population, but check out what they're capable of and their basic traits, or lack thereof (love, shame, guilt, empathy, and remorse). These are scary people. They comprise about 20% of the prison population in the U.S. Now, think about all of those sociopaths running amok, no true way to "arrest" or "try" them (because, technically, they've done nothing against any law) or "rehabilitate" them, and the innocent people who would be harmed.

If you examine law carefully and logically, as I have, you'd see that the serfdom concepts under it are perverse and utterly unjust. 'Slavery' is a passion-filled thought and my calling people 'slaves' has evoked some hostile reactions. Imagine the resentments towards society and humanity that someone who feels themself to be a slave might have. This is what I think gives birth to sociopaths--whether or not they or their {law approved} psychologists recognize it. However, that's not the point we're debating here.

If there is no preset law against something, there is no right for any "police/court/society/whatever you wish to call it" to disallow that person to continue with their actions.

Protective Justice DOES HAVE presets--they are just not 'Laws'. The police/court/society also HAS the right to restrict and restrain--it's just not in 'punishment'.

I've thought of an interesting example case to present here.
*Jack Firsttime-Rapist versus Jill Ivana-Be-Raped*

Jack sees Jill in a bar and there is some interaction. Jack correctly reads some signals in Jill's words and actions. He drags her to his car and begins to rape her--both of them are enjoying the unspokenly concentual rough sex. A police patrol sees the vehical springs bouncing and they find the 'rape' in progress.

Prohibitive Law's response - The 'fun' is halted--because a law is being broken--and the girl's part in this is no longer the principle issue. She might quietly think 'I liked it', but the press would shame her family for it, her peers would pressure her into puting the rapist away, and the law doesn't want her real opinion--it only wants her to say that she 'witnessed' the rape law being broken. Jack is ultimately put behind bars and his young life is ruined, because his only defence is one that 'society' doesn't care to hear.

Protective Justice response - The 'fun' is halted--and rightly so, because the police are protecting Jill. In a confidencial and impartial setting, the investigators and court would seek to determine, why the event occurred and if anyone was hurt or threatened. Jill could say that she invited it and Jack could truthfully assert that he wouldn't have raped her if he didn't feel encouraged by her. Jack would probably be warned that if he acted on his assumptions with some other girl, that he may not be so lucky, but society's reaction would end there. "No harm equals no foul."

With Protective Justice, all the current 'laws' and the police/court 'authority' to act on them still exist--but they are worded and treated differently. The state isn't the aggrieved party: it is only the public's NUETRAL protector.

 

[nyse]

All have gone silent?

This is what frustrates me. The majority of people agree that there are problems in the law, but none can give any reasonable suggestions of how to fix it. Then I suggest that the real problem is the law itself, and people either 'panic argue' or clam up when they can't shut me up with sound logic. If it's any consolation for you, I've talked with qualified lawyers who couldn't defend their precious law either.

 

[Tasku]

I didn't clam up. I said "I agree to disagree", to which you replied pretty much saying that you're right and I'm wrong no matter what. No point trying to argue against that, since whatever I say is wrong, and you won't even look at this objectively.

You are free to think however you like. I don't mind.

 

[BeerWench13]

I didn't clam up either. I just had a busy weekend and no time to check email or log onto the forum.

Protective Justice DOES HAVE presets--they are just not 'Laws'

Again, this is just changing the word "law" to "preset". There is no real change from the current system except that you're attempting to keep the media out (which would be nigh near impossible) and have an emotional instead of judgemental trial for the criminal and the victim. I don't think that emotions should be a part of justice.

I agree that justice can be unfair and convict parties who are not guilty. I, myself, have been a victim of perjury and falsely convicted for something of which I was not guilty. However, since I had no witnesses on my side, when it came down to 3 against 1 and they'd had 4 months to put their story together, I was destined to lose. No, it wasn't fair. No, I did nothing wrong but show up to pay a bill for a friend (no good deed goes unpunished ), but the judge ruled fairly given the evidence he was presented.

I refuse to argue any further either. I understand your concept, but find it just as flawed as the current system and, therefore, not a solution but an alternative. In your suggested system I see the opening for just as much corruption and misuse of power as the current system has, if not more so.

 

[nyse]

Again, this is just changing the word "law" to "preset". There is no real change from the current system except that you're attempting to keep the media out

<exhasperated sigh>I quoted your statement which said 'without preset laws' and responded by saying that P.J. had 'presets', but they weren't 'laws'. How is that saying that is "just changing the word "law" to "preset"? Basically, your above statement, proves to me that the below one is not true.

I understand your concept, but find it just as flawed as the current system and, therefore, not a solution but an alternative. In your suggested system I see the opening for just as much corruption and misuse of power as the current system has, if not more so.

You haven't twigged to the vast diffence between the two and I'm running out of different ways to describe it.

*Law focuses on the deed, while justice looks closely at the effects.
*Law gives lawbreakers a way of circumventing their consciences, but protective justice closes that loophole.
*Law's authority only comes from the power of arms, while Protective Justice is a 'right' that's granted to authority by the protected people.
*The 'rules and punishment' basis of law is a slavery concept, while protective justice is rooted on 'freedom'.

In your suggested system I see the opening for just as much corruption and misuse of power as the current system has, if not more so.

You do not understand my concept, and your assessment is incorrect. The whole concept of law INVITES corruption while Protective Justice allows justice to really be just.

 

[nyse]

I didn't clam up. I said "I agree to disagree", to which you replied pretty much saying that you're right and I'm wrong no matter what. No point trying to argue against that, since whatever I say is wrong, and you won't even look at this objectively.

You are free to think however you like. I don't mind.

Am I really free to think as I do? Are you? When more people think as I do, that law is a sham with no right to rule, what will happen to law? Will IT outlaw free thinking to preserve it's sanctity?

Law is an imaginary boogie man concept that looses it's fearsome power when the light of clear thought shines on it.

 

[BeerWench13]

Whatever. I'm seriously done with this "idea" that you seem to be unable to put into rational thought. I'm done with your tirades and your irrationality when someone sees a flaw in your system. Carry on if you wish, but I have no further interest in your supposed "free" law.

 

[nyse]

Whatever. I'm seriously done with this "idea" that you seem to be unable to put into rational thought. I'm done with your tirades and your irrationality when someone sees a flaw in your system. Carry on if you wish, but I have no further interest in your supposed "free" law.

I seriously can't understand why you can't understand. I'm sorry if in your opinion, I seem to go on tirades. The concept I'm proposing really does have merit--when you understand why/how it works.

May I try a questionair to try and determine where the break in communication is.

Do you understand, how law is an 'imaginary shield' concept between the doer and the done to?

Do you understand why I suggest that the human conscience is circumvented by the concept of law?

Do you acknowledge the human sub-conscious mind as a powerful force over our actions? (Ie. why is it so difficult for a person to quit smoking, even when their conscious mind really claims to want that--especially with aids like nic patches used?)

Do you see the primary difference between prohibitive law and what I've called protective justice being that it removes the 'shield' entity?

 

[PipPirrip]

Do you understand, how law is an 'imaginary shield' concept between the doer and the done to?

I understand your concept, but you have just made an assertion. You have not demonstrated that this is so. You have made some assertions about the thought processes of various criminals and people on this list, but you have no evidence that your assertions are true or correct.

Do you understand why I suggest that the human conscience is circumvented by the concept of law?

I have no idea why you are suggesting this. I do not pretend to be able to read your mind.

Do you acknowledge the human sub-conscious mind as a powerful force over our actions? (Ie. why is it so difficult for a person to quit smoking, even when their conscious mind really claims to want that--especially with aids like nic patches used?)

Given your failure to substantiate the first point this is irrelevant.

Do you see the primary difference between prohibitive law and what I've called protective justice being that it removes the 'shield' entity?

Actually, in my opinion, there are two much more significant differences between the systems.

The first, philosophical, under your proposed protective justice, someone may be incarcerated indefinitely based upon the proposition that they have not demonstrated that they are not a threat to commit an act against the good of the state.

The second, practical, someone may be incarcerated based upon the deliberations of a court. The decision is parochial, it is also not subject to public scrutany, it is also arrived at based upon the arguements of a goverment financed judge, prosecution, defense and investigation team. The potential for abuse of such a system seems limitless.

 

[nyse]

I understand your concept, but ...

Not quite, but on reading your post I'm happy to see that someone is at last trying to understand--before making judgements.

The 'imaginary shield' is in the wording (and theory) of law. IE. If you go to hurt someone in a manner that is covered by a law, you are warned by the law, that this action is against the law (as opposed to being against the person). If you complete the prohibited action, the person is hurt--but the law acts as if only IT (and a nebulous 'society as a whole') was the injured party. The 'imaginary shield' was broken and the police court deals only with that.

Actually, in my opinion, there are two much more significant differences between the systems.

The first, philosophical, under your proposed protective justice, someone may be incarcerated indefinitely based upon the proposition that they have not demonstrated that they are not a threat to commit an act against the good of the state.

Definately not against the state. They are incarcerated for having injured a protected person, based on the proposition that having done so once, they may again--unless we're fairly sure that they won't.

The second, practical, someone may be incarcerated based upon the deliberations of a court. The decision is parochial, it is also not subject to public scrutany, it is also arrived at based upon the arguements of a goverment financed judge, prosecution, defense and investigation team. The potential for abuse of such a system seems limitless.

The deliberations and descisions are anything but parochial. The basis of the court action is whether a protected person harmed another protected person and/or whether they are a threat to other protected persons. The court and the state are a neutral third party (as it is in tort law), because the 'crime' itself isn't deemed to have harmed the state (as it actually doesn't anyways because the 'law' shield is imaginary).

 

[BeerWench13]

*sigh* I'm really not sure why I keep banging my head against this brick wall. One more time...

They are incarcerated for having injured a protected person, based on the proposition that having done so once, they may again--unless we're fairly sure that they won't.

Who is "we" and how do "we" get to that position?
What keeps "we" from being biased?
How does "we" determine that someone is not going to do it again?
How do "we" determine that they will?
How do people do things, such as beating and robbing a senior citizen now, when there's a direct law against such things, but rely only on their consciences if there is no law?
How can you possibly believe that the law goes against the conscience instead of being a backer of it?

 

[nyse]

I have no idea why you are suggesting this. I do not pretend to be able to read your mind.

I didn't ask you to read my mind, only to have read in the foregoing conversation for 'why'. The human conscience <<SHOULD>> assist in the prevention of wrong doing, but it's function is impared and even nulified by the theory of 'law' being the 'imaginary shield'.

Given your failure to substantiate the first point this is irrelevant.

Uh? the preceeding point was on the human conscience. How does that equate to my next point on the human sub-conscious mind or make it irrelevant? I'm not suggesting that the conscience and the sub-consious are the same thing. In fact, it's the one that allows the other to be circumvented.

<<Emptied quote - used to separate different sub-topic.>>

I find it ironic to this topic that an original copy of Magna Charta was just bought/sold for $23 million--concidering that the document is really a bogus contract, like a sham deed to the Brooklyn Bridge. King John sold something that he didn't possess.

The Magna Charta's presumption was that the king's 'right' to make rules for serfs to obey, was passed to a concept called 'the law'. However, no king ever possessed the 'right', because each human has a god-given 'free-will' and that is absolute. As new parliaments since the Magna Charta came about, they enacted a supposed chain of possession for this highly-valued (but actually non-existant) 'right', BUT, neither society nor law has or ever will have the true authority to limit the 'freewill' granted to each human at birth. So why try?

In fact, trying to limit freewill is the reason that law doesn't work as we all want it to. The Justice that I'm trying to suggest, (when some people here come to understand it), doesn't attempt the impossible (as law does). Instead, it places 'protections' on people and society DOES have the RIGHT to do that. Protections would also work better at doing what people wish (and wrongly think) that laws are intended to do--because a 'protection' factors both the concience and the sub-conscious into the theory.

 

[PipPirrip]

OK, you win. Your articulate arguements attacking the words "state" and "parochial" and cunningly cutting and pasting my message so that my phrases appear to refer to something other than original has convinced me that your justice system is superior.

 

[Tasku]

Nyse you keep answering our questions by explaining the basic concept of your system, which has already been understood, but never actually answering the questions we are asking of you and I don't understand why you keep doing that.

Now scroll up and go to BeerWenche's last post and answer each of her individual question one by one and with thought, and maybe we don't have to keep circling around anymore.

We get it already: law is imaginary thing blah, blah... crime against law itself, and so on. Now try to answer our questions regarding the weaknesses of your proposed system.

 

[nyse]

*sigh* I'm really not sure why I keep banging my head against this brick wall. One more time...

Because inquiring minds want to know? Seriously though, these are good questions and I hope I can satisfactorily answer them.

Who is "we" and how do "we" get to that position?

"We" here refers to the current law aparatus--with their job descriptions amended to the new philosophy.

When you build a tower, you should put it on a 'true' foundation, or when it gets higher, it will fall under it's own weight--as 'law' is wobbling now. Once justice is put on a 'true' foundation, the superstructure will naturally have to come into 'plumb' with it.

How does "we" determine that someone is not going to do it again?
How do "we" determine that they will?

Perhaps when the 'protection' system is fully established, they and/or their closest friends/family will truthfully tell us. With law, the omnipotent STATE is the criminal's opponent and the purveyor of 'puniushments'. When a justice system IS impartially protecting BOTH the perps and the victims, a person will know that they (or their loved ones) will get get 'help' instead of 'punishment'.

People DO know that when they go to a hospital and are truthful about their symptoms, that they have a better chance of the doctor being able give them the appropriate treatment. The same could eventually be true for justice, but until that evolves, "we" will have to do roughly as "we" are doing now, and learn more as we go.

How do people do things, such as beating and robbing a senior citizen now, when there's a direct law against such things, but rely only on their consciences if there is no law?

Currently, we rely on the law AND the conscience. Most people won't because of their conscience and some might not because of the threat of law's punishment. But obviously in some instances, neither is effective and granny DOES get mugged.

What might be the thought process (both conscious and sub-conscious) of the mugger in the moments before the mugging? First, he decides that the risk of the law's punishment is worth the potencial reward--so the law is no longer an issue for him. We're left with only the conscience as Granny's defence--BUT--here is where the piss-poor law theory kicks in. His sub-conscious mind knows that it can skirt around the conscience, by blocking out his harm to an innocent old lady, and thinking of it as breaking a big-bad-law instead--his mind does an end-run around his good conscience.

Under protective justice, the conscience still exists as does the society's stated position that certain actions are wrongful (like laws, but not as laws) when committed against a person. The man concidering whether to mug granny knows that if he's apprehended, he will be tried and probably incarcerated to prevent him from mugging others (not for punishment). He decides that the risk is worth the reward, but now he faces his conscience. This time he can't mentally shuffle the act onto a law, or think of it as a statement against the authority, becuase the improved theory of justice has removed that avenue. In his (sub-conscious) mind, the mugging will simply be hurting a frail old person for his own greedy reasons--can he still do it?.

How can you possibly believe that the law goes against the conscience instead of being a backer of it?

This question is answered in the 'Granny Scenarios' above. Now I'll quote you from an earlier post.

"Do me a favor and read up on sociopaths. They only comprise about 5% of the population, but check out what they're capable of and their basic traits, or lack thereof (love, shame, guilt, empathy, and remorse). These are scary people. They comprise about 20% of the prison population in the U.S."

Three of the four (love omited) are FUNCTIONS of the CONSCIENCE! But sociopaths DO have consciences, as ALL living humans do. The REAL cause of sociopaths is that they have found a way to nullify the effects of their consciences--and my granny scenario hopefully shows how the law paves a path around it for them.

The current system of law created the sociopaths that exist now. I don't know if the new justice would erase their tendancies, or if those people are unredemable. However, a true justice system wouldn't be making new ones faster than it can deal with the old ones (as I believe that law is doing).

 

[nyse]

Nyse you keep answering our questions by explaining the basic concept of your system, which has already been understood, but never actually answering the questions we are asking of you and I don't understand why you keep doing that.

If she or you understood the basic concepts, then why would Beerwench STILL think that nothing replaces laws and why would she STILL be asking how law nullifies the conscience?

We get it already: law is imaginary thing blah, blah... crime against law itself, and so on. Now try to answer our questions regarding the weaknesses of your proposed system.

But if you could understand WHY those are a BAD thing then you might understand how those are fatal weaknesses in YOUR system.

The fundemental difference between my discussions and yours is that I understand BOTH sides.

 

[nyse]

OK, you win. Your articulate arguements attacking the words "state" and "parochial" and cunningly cutting and pasting my message so that my phrases appear to refer to something other than original has convinced me that your justice system is superior.

I'm interpreting this as sarchasm. Unfortunately, when one 'quotes', the prior remark that spawned the comment doesn't come along. Is that cunningly cutting?

I offered a questionair to determine where I should concentrate to clarify for you--but half of your answers were only jabbing at the wording of my questions. Does this help either of us?

Perhaps I erred in not commenting on the one question that you answered that showed an inkling of comprehention. Yes, I've made assertions about the thought process of criminals and I haven't backed them up with psychological case studies--can you please tell me where I can get those--when nobody seems to have looked at it like this before?

What I'm offering here is THEORETICAL on how the law COULD be viewed in a criminal's sub-conscious mind MIGHT be working. Now can you provide any THEORTICAL thoughts or logic on why my theories are incorrect?

 

[PipPirrip]

I'm interpreting this as sarchasm.

You can interpret it as you will. I am not willing to spend time debating the matter with a person who uses cheap naff rhetoric devices such as you have displayed in so inept a fashion.

 

[Tasku]

Perhaps when the 'protection' system is fully established, they and/or their closest friends/family will truthfully tell us. With law, the omnipotent STATE is the criminal's opponent and the purveyor of 'puniushments'.

Would they really truthfully tell us?

I don't understand how changing the system would change the human mind. The mind will work in a selfish manner as it has worked before regardless of the system around us. Instead of having "law" and those who guard it play the part of the authoritarian, in the protective system the authority, the enemy of the criminals, would be the protectors and the rules of society just the same. Only exception is that instead of putting people to jail when the crime has been committed, they may be sentenced for life in prison for any act on the decision of those who make those decisions.

When a justice system IS impartially protecting BOTH the perps and the victims, a person will know that they (or their loved ones) will get get 'help' instead of 'punishment'.

Punishment to the perp is protection to his future victims and his current victim against any new acts of violence or other crime, yet at the same time laws being impartial and applied only as a form of punishment are also protecting the perp from being wrongfully accused of an act he would never had committed in the first place.

If she or you understood the basic concepts, then why would Beerwench STILL think that nothing replaces laws and why would she STILL be asking how law nullifies the conscience?

I'm not arguing about human conscience, because I don't believe the rules around us change that one bit. It's called evolution, human nature, lessons from history. There is no set of rules that will change that. There will always be people who only look after themselves with no respect for others, they will kill and steal no matter what system they live in.

The questions I was referring to were the ones about the weaknesses of your system: the lack of rules that restraint the decision makers from deciding who is a threat to society and who is not. This question I've been repeating over and over again. To me this is the number one problem and in my opinion will sink any society under protective law into tyranny. This is what we've been asking of you time and time again, but you keep avoiding it and start going on about the basic concepts, which I think we both understand already, if not fully, then atleast... well the basics of it.

But if you could understand WHY those are a BAD thing then you might understand how those are fatal weaknesses in YOUR system.

The fundemental difference between my discussions and yours is that I understand BOTH sides.

I *do* understand your side. I just don't believe in it the way you do. I believe it is weak because it can so easily be taken advantage of by those in power. In our current system atleast we have consequences for braking the sanctity of the law. In your system consequences are determined by men in power.

Sure, our laws are also made by men in power, but within preset rules which apply to everyone, even the President. What keeps the President or the governing elements in your system from deciding that the opposition and their ways are a threat to the society and need to be locked up for good, before they destroy the whole country? Nothing? Because he wants everyone to like him?