Prohibitive Law vs Protective Justice

[nyse]

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.

I see this argument as a 'half-empty' viewpoint based on your belief that (some?, most?) humans are bad at the core and strong laws force some goodness. I'm of the 'half full' opinion that all are fundementally good and that external influences (in some cases that is the law itself) are to blame in most or all wrongs.

No, the authority couldn't simply change the protections to persecute someone or group at will--because it is a 'protection'. Unlike a 'law', protection is just an empty word UNTIL the person(s) harmed or threatened are produced. Could Hiltler have made the holocaust legitimat if he had to show precicely WHO was being harmed or threatened by the Jews?

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.

Can you show me in the enacted law exactly where this supposed sideline protective benefit is written? Go ahead and search, it's not there. Your mind, and society's collective minds may soften the stark law with warm fuzzy thoughts of protection but the law exists, on paper, for only one purpose and that is to punish people who break it...period.

This lack of protection in the law might have an occasional protective aspect in keeping the wrong person from being charged--sometimes, but that is also a double edged sword. The true non-protectiveness also enables a guilty person to walk free on a silly technicality--where he is free to harm someone else in exactly the same way.

Conversely, protective justice works on a sliding scale and everyone that faces justice will have some protective measures applied (more for the heinous/clear cut and milder for where the decision is harder to determine and/or where the harm was less. (under law, 'rape' is dealt with exactly the same in all applications but a 'date rape' that resulted from a last minute balk by the female, should be treated with more humanity than a cold violent rape at knife point.)

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.

That is your opinion, but you don't have the science or studies to back it up, as I don't have it to prove my side--because studies on this subject don't reliably exist. Yes, there *may* always be people who look only after themselves, but a system that disables *some* wrongs by removing the ability to speak against the system, by harming a person, is an improvement over what exists now. How great would the crime reduction be? There's only one way (other than theorizing) of finding out for sure.

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.



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?

Where are those limitations on the authority written in indelible ink? A constitution might be in place--but it is transitory and a determined government could legislate and amend it out of existence--as the Bush govenment is currently working on over the CIA torture practices. Once it becomes 'legal' to torture suspected Al Qeada members, then which group is next into the chambers?

As I've said over and over, 'protections' are where harm threaten or has happened to people. Concievably, a harmed or threatened person could be on the victim side, with the government as the perp and the court would still be the nuetral third party.

 

[Tasku]

I see this argument as a 'half-empty' viewpoint based on your belief that (some?, most?) humans are bad at the core and strong laws force some goodness. I'm of the 'half full' opinion that all are fundementally good and that external influences (in some cases that is the law itself) are to blame in most or all wrongs.

I do agree with you that most people are fundamentally good, but I also believe most people are fundamentally selfish, and without the fear of punishment they will have no restraint to do what they believe at the time to be necesseary, while at the same time it might be harmful to the whole community.

No, the authority couldn't simply change the protections to persecute someone or group at will--because it is a 'protection'. Unlike a 'law', protection is just an empty word UNTIL the person(s) harmed or threatened are produced. Could Hiltler have made the holocaust legitimat if he had to show precicely WHO was being harmed or threatened by the Jews?

Well, obviously Hitler's idea was to 'protect' the Germans from the jews, as he really did believe there to be a jew conspiracy. In that sense Hitler - mad man with limitless power - protecting his people from the evil jew was a basic example of protective justice in the wrong hands.

Protection is an 'empty word' as long as there is no one to fill that word with fear, lies and false information.

Can you show me in the enacted law exactly where this supposed sideline protective benefit is written? Go ahead and search, it's not there. Your mind, and society's collective minds may soften the stark law with warm fuzzy thoughts of protection but the law exists, on paper, for only one purpose and that is to punish people who break it...period.

Wether or not it is written to any book of law is irrelevant, not only because each country has it's own laws, but also because law can be applied in different ways and have different purposes. In some countries law exists to help the powerhungry meathead on the throne hold on to his daydream, while elsewhere it might be in place to keep order and security in the country. In these type of countries the law exists to punish those who brake it so that they may think again before actually braking the law. Thus it is protecting us in a sense from violence and other crimes.

I'm not saying the system is perfect, but atleast it is unbiased, unemotional and has a set of preset rules.

This lack of protection in the law might have an occasional protective aspect in keeping the wrong person from being charged--sometimes, but that is also a double edged sword. The true non-protectiveness also enables a guilty person to walk free on a silly technicality--where he is free to harm someone else in exactly the same way.

True. Those technicalities exist so that we may have a fair trial.

Conversely, protective justice works on a sliding scale and everyone that faces justice will have some protective measures applied (more for the heinous/clear cut and milder for where the decision is harder to determine and/or where the harm was less. (under law, 'rape' is dealt with exactly the same in all applications but a 'date rape' that resulted from a last minute balk by the female, should be treated with more humanity than a cold violent rape at knife point.)

Agreed. That could be changed by adding verses to the book of law. I don't think the above has anything to do with the differences between protective and prohibitive law. In both cases the perp will receive his punishment.

That is your opinion, but you don't have the science or studies to back it up, as I don't have it to prove my side--because studies on this subject don't reliably exist. Yes, there *may* always be people who look only after themselves, but a system that disables *some* wrongs by removing the ability to speak against the system, by harming a person, is an improvement over what exists now. How great would the crime reduction be? There's only one way (other than theorizing) of finding out for sure.

True. There is only one way to find out. But like I said, I'm not convinced that anything would change under different system, therefore I personally disaprove this argument. Sure, I might be wrong, but as much you are sure of your opinion, I'm sure of mine. No point arguing about it further, since neither one of us can change the others opinion: agree to disagree.

Where are those limitations on the authority written in indelible ink? A constitution might be in place--but it is transitory and a determined government could legislate and amend it out of existence--as the Bush govenment is currently working on over the CIA torture practices. Once it becomes 'legal' to torture suspected Al Qeada members, then which group is next into the chambers?

Indeed, and for that reason we need the people to be active aswell. At this task the Americans as citizens seem to be failing at the moment, atleast in my opinion.

The fact is, I'm not an American, and the US is not the only country with prohibitive justice in place and should not be the only example here. Infact, in my opinion, as I've already stated, and you may disagree as much as you want: capturing and placing under arrest individuals that they think *might* at some point in the future be of danger to the society is a form of protective justice.

As I've said over and over, 'protections' are where harm threaten or has happened to people. Concievably, a harmed or threatened person could be on the victim side, with the government as the perp and the court would still be the nuetral third party.

What exactly makes the court neutral? They are men and women with friends, economical needs and business partners. They have political ideas and opinions. They can be talked to, deals can be made. They may be neutral in paper, but no human being is neutral, we all have our own selfish needs.

This is where I think your system needs preset rules by which to go by: to make sure corruption will not destroy it.

 

[nyse]

I'm not saying the system is perfect, but atleast it is unbiased, unemotional and has a set of preset rules.

It isn't unbiased and here is another place where law falls apart. All people have to believe in law for it to work unbiasedly.

Let me present this very realistic scenario. I’m driving on a straight, dry, deserted highway, and I honestly don’t believe in law. My disbelief in law makes it less likely for me to commit wrongs against people, because I don’t have the avenue of law to circumvent my conscience. In this instance though, my conscience allows my speed being above the posted limit, as I’m not harming or threatening anyone. But, there is a radar trap and I’m cited. I feel I’m not guilty of any wrong, but the government wants to use my ‘breaking a law’ as a siphon in my wallet. The case goes to a court of law.

Ignorance of the law might not be deemed as an excuse, but what about my considered non-abiding with law at all? You and the judge may think that law is the glue that binds society together, but my fervent belief is that law is the caustic solvent that is ripping our natural cohesion apart—why should I be forced to abide with and bow down to a system that I truly find so fundamentally WRONGFUL? In my opinion, God’s higher law of ‘freewill’ supercedes the traffic code. (Under protective justice, my accuser wouldn’t just be an officer with a ticket book: the prosecution side would have the people whose safety my speeding was endangering—at that time. Oh no! That might mean the police would have to do some real on-site investigation, instead of just filling a fine quota.)

So, my speeding isn’t on trial, but my beliefs are. I can’t hire a defense council, because his manipulations of non-truths to gain my favorable verdict would be against my moral mindset. The prosecutor and police are against the action of speeding—which imperiled nobody. The judge is defending law, which is against my principles. What chance does my freedom of belief have? (I suppose it wouldn’t make it to trial though: the police might beat and tazer me to death in custody, because my pure ideals threatened their unrestrained ability to issue malicious charges, commit unnecessary violence and take graft in the form of money or gratuitous sexual favors from female speeders.)

If this trial were in the public eye, then the government might have to tighten down the ‘freedom of belief’ loophole in the law—so nobody could use this defense again. The amended constitution might then read as: “Citizens have the right to freedom of beliefs--if the opinions are government approved ones.”

 

[Tasku]

Let me present this very realistic scenario. I’m driving on a straight, dry, deserted highway, and I honestly don’t believe in law. My disbelief in law makes it less likely for me to commit wrongs against people, because I don’t have the avenue of law to circumvent my conscience.

As I've already stated, I don't believe in such a theory. But carry on, yes you're driving on a deserted road... *listens*

In this instance though, my conscience allows my speed being above the posted limit, as I’m not harming or threatening anyone. But, there is a radar trap and I’m cited. I feel I’m not guilty of any wrong, but the government wants to use my ‘breaking a law’ as a siphon in my wallet. The case goes to a court of law.

Ignorance of the law might not be deemed as an excuse, but what about my considered non-abiding with law at all? You and the judge may think that law is the glue that binds society together, but my fervent belief is that law is the caustic solvent that is ripping our natural cohesion apart—why should I be forced to abide with and bow down to a system that I truly find so fundamentally WRONGFUL? In my opinion, God’s higher law of ‘freewill’ supercedes the traffic code. (Under protective justice, my accuser wouldn’t just be an officer with a ticket book: the prosecution side would have the people whose safety my speeding was endangering—at that time. Oh no! That might mean the police would have to do some real on-site investigation, instead of just filling a fine quota.)

Perhaps you don't see any harm in your speeding. But we all know how little we can see and poor our reaction is at high speeds. Wether or not you believe the road to be empty or not does not matter. The fact that you are thinking in such a way that you might harm someone if there was another person on the road makes you dangerous to your fellow man. Even if this time no one was there, the next time there might and the cops may not be there to stop you and you may end up killing another person. Thus stopping you and forcing you to accept the common rules may save someone's life in a similar future event.

So, my speeding isn’t on trial, but my beliefs are. I can’t hire a defense council, because his manipulations of non-truths to gain my favorable verdict would be against my moral mindset. The prosecutor and police are against the action of speeding—which imperiled nobody. The judge is defending law, which is against my principles. What chance does my freedom of belief have?

You are still free to believe what you want, but nevertheless you have broken the law and taken the risk of possibly endagering someone else's life, even if that did not happen at this time. Your attitude needs to be corrected, you need to be reminded that you may risk someone's life even if you are not aware of it yourself.

(I suppose it wouldn’t make it to trial though: the police might beat and tazer me to death in custody, because my pure ideals threatened their unrestrained ability to issue malicious charges, commit unnecessary violence and take graft in the form of money or gratuitous sexual favors from female speeders.)

Now you're just being melodramatic...

If this trial were in the public eye, then the government might have to tighten down the ‘freedom of belief’ loophole in the law—so nobody could use this defense again. The amended constitution might then read as: “Citizens have the right to freedom of beliefs--if the opinions are government approved ones.”

I wouldn't call that a loophole. A killer may just aswell say he doesn't believe in any sort of punishment and therefore he must be released from prison. This would not cause anarchy and legal debate in any court of law.

 

[nyse]

Now you're just being melodramatic...

I confess that in that statement--I was.

I think that you're getting closer to understanding my position, but what you don't share is my utter contempt for how the law doesn't do what we want and deperately need it to do. Interactions between people are much more complicated than a simple yes/no answer to whether or not a mythological (theoretical) beast called the law, was offended by the action of it's (unwilling) vassel. Surely our intellectual advancement should enable us to devise a better system of dispensing REAL justice (or at the very least a theoretically plausible attempt at it), than this mideaval flim-flamery of an unreal concept having the unquestionable authority to rule--while itself is impervious to chastisement when it gets it dead wrong, due to the process being completely one-sided in favor of proving that a law was indeed fractured.

I wouldn't call that a loophole. A killer may just aswell say he doesn't believe in any sort of punishment and therefore he must be released from prison. This would not cause anarchy and legal debate in any court of law.

I've not highlighted 'anarchy' because I deem it different than 'lawlessness', but 'lawlessness' isn't a bad and scary thing when the term means a state with order maintained with something other than 'laws'.

Now to the bolded segment. This debate couldn't/wouldn't arise in a court of law because the judge has no answer for it (and he would crap his robes). What if a killer went into a school, butchered many people, but then didn't kill himself afterwords. Instead, with all the media spolights on him, he said. "I have the god given right to frredom of action to kill if I want and I did--because society has no intrinsic or justifiable right to command a free person. He is <logically>correct and some people will agree. Now, do we really need another school of innocent people slaughtered to swing the public's attention onto the basic wrongness of 'law', or might we debate theoretical ways of fixing the rotten foundation of justice?

 

[Tasku]

I understand the basic concept, just don't agree with it. It's not all bad, but has some serious gaps in it.

My problem with your concept is the lack of rules by which to abide by and the avenues by which it can be misused for personal gain. I'm generally quite cynical towards men in power, the super rich, and those raised to think they are somehow above the rest of us: the monarchs for example. History has shown us that power corrupts in any type of system, regardless of the leader's initial good will and big promises. It might not happen right away, but eventually wealth and power gets the best of us and they become the main concern of the man in power. For this reason I prefer the current system, where law is an outside entity and no one can escape it.

I guess what I'm saying is, I'd rather be a "slave" to law than a "slave" to another man. Although I still think slave is the wrong word to use here.

 

[beer good]

What if a killer went into a school, butchered many people, but then didn't kill himself afterwords. Instead, with all the media spolights on him, he said. "I have the god given right to frredom of action to kill if I want and I did--because society has no intrinsic or justifiable right to command a free person. He is <logically>correct and some people will agree.

Sure, there are people who agree with killers' rights to walk into a school and "butcher" children. Those people are most likely in need of heavy-duty psychiatric help, not to be held forth as moral role models.

 

[nyse]

I understand the basic concept, just don't agree with it. It's not all bad, but has some serious gaps in it.

Now I feel that I'm getting somewhere! Okay, with the basic concept in mind, let's bridge over some of those gaps--ask away.

My problem with your concept is the lack of rules by which to abide by and the avenues by which it can be misused for personal gain. I'm generally quite cynical towards men in power, the super rich, and those raised to think they are somehow above the rest of us: the monarchs for example. History has shown us that power corrupts in any type of system, regardless of the leader's initial good will and big promises. It might not happen right away, but eventually wealth and power gets the best of us and they become the main concern of the man in power. For this reason I prefer the current system, where law is an outside entity and no one can escape it.

There is a lack of rules but not a lack of constraints, because the old laws are applied in reverse--onto the protected person/people. For example, the prohibition against vandalism ceases to exist, but defacing someones property or the public's natural settings is harming the owner and the general public--so justice can still deal with the incidences. In other words, all of the old 'crimes' are made to apply to the protected people, instead of against the law. Justice becomes true without sacrificing any order in the absence of law.

Law using its ‘imaginary Cellophane’ between the assailant’s knife and the victim’s belly and only dealing with the harm to the thin film, is both ridiculous and harmful to society. It’s like society has given a condom to a rapist. He doesn’t worry about his forcing an unwanted pregnancy, or transmitting his STD, because in his mind (or better in his self-rationalization), all he is doing is ejaculating into his side of the condom.

I agree that power corrupts, so the answer is not to vest power with individuals. I personally think that political parties should be abolished as they are too easily corrupted and when elected, the invariably corrupt party leader becomes the {president, prime minister, or head poobah} where he can do real damage as he strokes his sponsor's wallets.

Why not have three judges sitting on the bench, instead of one. At the very least, it would cost a briber double to buy two of three, but two mouths have a double the chance of spilling the beans and ratting out the other bribed one.

Glib comment on bolded phrase--unless one is the likes of O.J. Simpson or Micheal Jackson.

I guess what I'm saying is, I'd rather be a "slave" to law than a "slave" to another man. Although I still think slave is the wrong word to use here.

Slave is the right word--despite the hackles that it raises. When not in the cotton fields, and unless sold, slaves were allowed freedom of a homelife in their hovels to raise families--to keep them happy, productive and reproducing. Currently we are allowed more freedoms, but law and income tax drive home our true status. For myself, I refuse to be a slave, because the concept is dehumanizing (read also as making humans less human) and utterly unnecessary because protective justice would work better.

Suppose that in lieu of the state being the law authority, it was deemed that the Pope, as the king of king's representative on earth, should be the head figure of law and that preists would be the judges. Obviously this wouldn't be popular with non-catholics but law and order must prevail at all costs--so everyone would be forced to convert to Christianity. (I see current law as treating me in the same way. I don't have any faith in law's basic tenets--yet law still feels it has the holy authority to force me into it's pews.)

 

[Tasku]

I'm all for sharing power. In my opinion there should not be any presidents or any single person with the power to make decisions on certain things all by himself. But what you've described above might just aswell work in our current system of democracy and prohibitive law. Instead of 500 representatives in congress / senate or where ever, we might have 1 000 of them, possibly in more than one capital city. Change of system is not required for that to happen, only change of constitution and bureaucracy.

That being said, I still don't see how protective justice would be any better than our current system. I respect the law and feel safe with them in place, as I've already said. There is no reason in my opinion to remove these rules that apply to everyone.

 

[nyse]

I'm all for sharing power. In my opinion there should not be any presidents or any single person with the power to make decisions on certain things all by himself. But what you've described above might just aswell work in our current system of democracy and prohibitive law. Instead of 500 representatives in congress / senate or where ever, we might have 1 000 of them, possibly in more than one capital city. Change of system is not required for that to happen, only change of constitution and bureaucracy.

Imagine if a nation suddenly voted only independent members to their parliament. There would be no party in power, so no leader of that party to be pres or PM. Hense there would be no pres, pr PM to nominate cabinate members and portfolios. All elected members, who represent ONLY their electorates, would have to share the power positions in committees. That would be a real Democracy.

That being said, I still don't see how protective justice would be any better than our current system. I respect the law and feel safe with them in place, as I've already said. There is no reason in my opinion to remove these rules that apply to everyone.

Another thing that you don't seem to share is my opinion of how strong the conscience is, if given a chance to afffect actions. "A carrot is more effective than a sick." A promice of a good feeling in the conscience, outweighs the threat of a punishment.

I drowned in a SCUBA accident in 2004 and enjoyed an 8-minute death experience. Consequently, I strongly believe in God--but not the Christian version. It makes sense to me how doing the right thing counts for more--when you aren't told to do it (by a law). Thinking of it that way, laws are preventing people from feeling the full effects of their natuaral goodness. I would feel vastly safer without laws, where the conscience was allowed to function as God intended--but with 'protections' in place as a safety net for when the someone does override their inner voice. Plus, the incidents where people break laws only to voice displeasure with authority would be virtually eliminated.

 

[nyse]

Sure, there are people who agree with killers' rights to walk into a school and "butcher" children. Those people are most likely in need of heavy-duty psychiatric help, not to be held forth as moral role models.

This might be a difficult concept for you to understand, but I strongly believe that the greatest crime ever committed against mankind--is the law itself. It was a theft of gargantuan porportions that stripped us of our free will, and it was rooted on a lie.

People call 'lawyer' the 'youngest profession', but it's been around since ancient Greece in the time of Aristotle and Socrates. Then, it was called the 'Sophist School' and it taught orators to argue speciously, to win cases for a fee (hmmm, sound familiar?).

The 'rule of law' that you seem to revere is rooted on a <false> notion that society has a right to enslave people--it doesn't. The Sophists then 'sophisticated' civilization around this lie. However, even a semi-truth when added to a lie, becomes just as false as the original lie (it's like adding one odd number to as many even ones as you like). Ergo, both <sides> (all one lying side) of every court case are spouting lies and the returned result can NEVER be true or just.

Each of you has claimed that law protects people, but I've said over and over that it doesn't. Law's protection is a deception, like everything else in law is a falsehood. When, we as people open up our eyes and see the lie for what it is, then we can model a justice system that is just, because it is based on truth.

Let me offer one more attempt at elucidation. "Rape" is not a wrong simply because a governing body has forbidden it. A "rape" is a wrong because a woman shouldn't have her body violated. When courts begin treating wrongs for what they ARE, and not just what the law falsely says that they are, then we can have justice.

 

[nyse]

Sure, there are people who agree with killers' rights to walk into a school and "butcher" children. Those people are most likely in need of heavy-duty psychiatric help, not to be held forth as moral role models.

Reading my last post showed me that I didn't make it clear why your words equated to what I said.

I believe that "a killer has the 'right' to walk into a school and 'butcher' children". Just as every person has the inalienable 'right' to do whatever we will. (So according to you, I must need that heavy-duty psychiatric help.) We, as the rest of society do NOT have the 'right' to 'forbid' him. BUT, we DO have the right (and the duty) to 'protect' those children. The children have an equal (actually, greater than equal) right not to be killed, than his right to kill them. Because the killer's exercising his 'right' would take away the children's 'right' to life, we need bolster their 'right' by taking whatever restraining action against the killer (or would be killer) as is necessary--even to the point of locking him away for the rest of his life--if needs be.

Order is good, but Law is very bad and contrary to good order.

 

[beer good]

I believe that "a killer has the 'right' to walk into a school and 'butcher' children". Just as every person has the inalienable 'right' to do whatever we will. (So according to you, I must need that heavy-duty psychiatric help.) We, as the rest of society do NOT have the 'right' to 'forbid' him.

Yes we do. Of course we do.

 

[nyse]

Yes we do. Of course we do.

Again I detect sarcasm in lieu of valid argument. Either you are a slave, or you and not: your 'rights' determine which is true.

Would a syllogysm help you determine which you are?

Slaves obey rules or they are punished.
Laws are rules with punishments.
Those who obey laws are slaves.

 

[nyse]

I guess what I'm saying is, I'd rather be a "slave" to law than a "slave" to another man. Although I still think slave is the wrong word to use here.

This statement gives rise to a question of where law's right to enslave comes from. You and any individual member of society has NO singular right to make rules for another adult to be a slave to. The government might 'tax' each citzen for 100% of their 'right' to rule and punish, but it doesn't matter how many millions in society that 'zero' is multiplied by, the result is zero right to enslave.

(Conversely, each person DOES have a right to protect themselves. Each citizen can lend his authority to the justice system and then it WOULD have a justifiable right to take protective actions.)

 

[Tasku]

I've lost interest to this thread long since, but one thing did come to mind and I might aswell say it out loud.

I believe that "a killer has the 'right' to walk into a school and 'butcher' children". Just as every person has the inalienable 'right' to do whatever we will.

For sake of example, let's say the US would be a protective justice based system, where every man is free to even kill, if they so desire, while their northern neighbor, Canada, would be a prohibitive based system.

Let's assume US and Canada had lost all diplomatic relations between each other due to political disagreement and they had no treaty for extradition or any other such agreements on legal matters.

Let's assume a nutter living in American decides to exercise his rights to do whatever he will, and he is feeling thirsty for some blood of children, because various types of killing just happens to be his favourite past time. And under the current system he has any right to do so, as long as he is not a threat to the society he lives in.

So, exercising his right, he goes accross border to Canada and walks to a school armed to the teeth, killing fifteen. He escapes back to the US. He has not been a threat to any people for who to protect the US system is inplace for, and therefore he has only exercised his right as a free man to do whatever he will?


This was not really a question per say. Just pointing out how twisted it sounds when you say a man has right to even kill...

I would call that "extreme freedom".

Anything extreme is not a healthy thing.

 

[nyse]

I've lost interest to this thread long since, but one thing did come to mind and I might aswell say it out loud.

I'm sorry to hear this, and as you're the one person on this forum I thought stood the best chance of getting it, I'll doubtlessly drop it now.

For sake of example, let's say the US would be a protective justice based system, where every man is free to even kill, if they so desire, while their northern neighbor, Canada, would be a prohibitive based system.

Let's assume US and Canada had lost all diplomatic relations between each other due to political disagreement and they had no treaty for extradition or any other such agreements on legal matters.

Let's assume a nutter living in American decides to exercise his rights to do whatever he will, and he is feeling thirsty for some blood of children, because various types of killing just happens to be his favourite past time. And under the current system he has any right to do so, as long as he is not a threat to the society he lives in.

So, exercising his right, he goes accross border to Canada and walks to a school armed to the teeth, killing fifteen. He escapes back to the US. He has not been a threat to any people for who to protect the US system is inplace for, and therefore he has only exercised his right as a free man to do whatever he will?

In your (extremely unlikely) scenario, the man has shown that he is a treat, regardless of where the event took place and the American Protective Justice system should lock him away. The Americans aren't punishing so it doesn't matter if they have jurisdiction where the killing took place, they are only acting against him to protect people.

This was not really a question per say. Just pointing out how twisted it sounds when you say a man has right to even kill...

I was talking about the 'right' to do so, as opposed to the 'moral freedom' to do so and society has no 'right' (nor the 'moral freedom') to strip people of their intrinsic 'rights' and treat us as slaves.

I would call that "extreme freedom".

Anything extreme is not a healthy thing.

Criminal law is an extremely unhealthy thing where society is wrong in the extreme. Your scenario showed a sociopath in action, but I believe the law has created many or even most of those and that a more appropriate term for them is 'lawopath'. Law is an invisible shield that offers no actual protection, but seen from the other side by someone who hates the law--it is a target. A lawopath strikes out at the law but since the law has no physical form, the blow hits a person.

 

[nyse]

Just pointing out how twisted it sounds when you say a man has right to even kill...

Again we seem to have arrived at a point where my explanations have failed to find full comprehention. You said you understand, but you haven't fully grasped the point of protective justice.

I'ts frustrating for me, but I'm sure that it's exasperating for you too. Alas, I also think I know what blocks your thinking unfetteredly on the subject. You all realy 'want' the law to protect, so you tend to close your mind to arguments against it or you use a non-crutial point in the talk to become 'offended' with--to turn your thoughts away from weakening your faith in the law. For me, these threads have been like I'm trying to logically discuss the bible with a Christian--they want to believe in the holy pages, so they (you) won't actually listen.

Protective Justice would work! It would do what we all only wish that law actually did.

 

[Tasku]

In your (extremely unlikely) scenario, the man has shown that he is a treat, regardless of where the event took place and the American Protective Justice system should lock him away. The Americans aren't punishing so it doesn't matter if they have jurisdiction where the killing took place, they are only acting against him to protect people.

My "extremely unlikely" scenario is infact not that unlikely if instead of Canada you use the likes of Iran, Syria or some other country that is not doing so well with the US at the moment, as example location.

With your reply though, we go back to my original problem with the system: the Americans determine he is a threat to their society, and therefore he will be locked up.

I admit my example was poor, but nevertheless your answer did nothing to remove my doubts of the opportunities for those in power using this system for their own benefit.

 

[nyse]

My "extremely unlikely" scenario is infact not that unlikely if instead of Canada you use the likes of Iran, Syria or some other country that is not doing so well with the US at the moment, as example location.

America has already sent 'nutters' to kill children and women--Bush puts uniforms on them and off they go.
[The above is just political stab and not part of my thoughts on justice.]

With your reply though, we go back to my original problem with the system: the Americans determine he is a threat to their society, and therefore he will be locked up.

I've said this line so often that now my mind hears it in Ethyl Merman's voice from 'Annie Get your Gun'--"Anything Law can do, Protective Justice can do better." Yes, with P.J. working as it should, the Americans determined he was a threat to their society, and therefore he was locked up. If they could catch and jail him with prohibitive law, then they would with P.J. too. (Perhaps under P.J. he wouldn't have an axe to grind over the law--that he hacks out on people.)

I admit my example was poor, but nevertheless your answer did nothing to remove my doubts of the opportunities for those in power using this system for their own benefit.

Those in power can currently make whatever changes they like to the law. Two examples are Hitler's legalizing the holocaust and Bush's homland security act. The difference with P.J. would be that the courts must show WHO is being threatened or harmed. In the case of speeding, the police investigaters could produce some person or people from the neighborhood and perhaps a history of the accidents in that stretch of road. OTOH, with consentual commercial sex, the courts couldn't act because neither party is being harmed or threatened. P.J. would BETTER protect us from those in power also because they wouldn't be lawmakers anymore.