Prohibitive Law vs Protective Justice

[BeerWench13]

The nuts and bolts of how the system would work flow from the root change and I think if you 'grokked' (Robert Heinlien-Stranger in a Strange Land) that, then you could answer these questions for yourself.

Obviously I'm failing to grasp the root concept of your system (or so you stated in a previous post), so therefore, it would seem unlikely that I would be able to answer these questions myself, nor do I wish to do so.

Instead of avoiding the questions and answering with more questions or some nonsensical example that still does not answer the questions on the table, why not simply answer the questions?

You keep describing the current system over and over again, but have yet to outliine your alternative. I know enough about our current system. I live in it. I'm looking for answers to simplistic questions based on this "free" system. When you answer my questions with solutions instead of circular reasoning and examples of how the current system works, perhaps I will be able to grasp your concept.

 

[nyse]

You say the court and parole/rahabilitation board are not authoritarians of the serf rules system meaning they make up the rules as they see fit?

British common law grew from cases involving real people in real situations. They are not just a set of rules as passed by (corrupt) governments. Imagine if the 'criminal' code was developed in the same way: it would have a chance of actually working right.

 

[nyse]

Obviously I'm failing to grasp the root concept of your system (or so you stated in a previous post), so therefore, it would seem unlikely that I would be able to answer these questions myself, nor do I wish to do so.

Did you grasp the eggshell concept? Do you understand the real difference between Law and protective justice? If you have, then show me that you have and I'll answer the questions. If not, then I'm wasting my time because I'm building on a footing that you can't see.

 

[nyse]

In your proposed system on the other hand - if I'm understanding it correctly - the court system basically makes the decision on who is and who is not considered a threat to the society and they have no restraints - preset rules to follow and abide.

What is the difference from today where the police and the court makes the threat decisions?

Call me a donkey, squirrel or chicken, this system in my opinion, would not "free" us from anything, but rather push us back to the stoneage.

Law functions by telling people what they can or cannot do - equates to slavery.

Protective justice functions by telling people what it wants to protect them from.

It's simply moving the societal order from being prohibition based, to protection based - equates to freedom.

 

[nyse]

You keep describing the current system over and over again, but have yet to outliine your alternative. I know enough about our current system. I live in it. I'm looking for answers to simplistic questions based on this "free" system. When you answer my questions with solutions instead of circular reasoning and examples of how the current system works, perhaps I will be able to grasp your concept.

Which came first--thge chicken or the egg?

You want me to lay out how my proposed system would work and you hope to find the root concept in that. I want you to see the basic concepts before I can work up the natural changes that stem from the true base. I don't know where the middle ground is here.

 

[BeerWench13]

You've yet to explain the difference. I get your eggshell reference, but see no way that your justice system would've stopped the Va Tech shooter from acting as he did, nor how those who were killed would have been protected. You just keep talking in circles.

Trust me, I'm as frustrated as you are with this topic because you keep giving useless examples showing only a change in nomenclature. You have not explained the differences in your system or how it works, who decides what or whom is a "danger to society" and how they come to that decision.

Again, who is the court and how do they decide that someone is a threat to society? Under what premise?
Do you really think that by changing the name there will be no corruption in the system? Really????

What is the difference from today where the police and the court makes the threat decisions?

That was our question!

 

[nyse]

You keep describing the current system over and over again,

I've been doing that to show what isn't right in the system now. I'll try to refrain from that.

I know enough about our current system.

Not from the perspective that I see it.

I'm looking for answers to simplistic questions based on this "free" system.

I'll try again.

Free justice presumes that people have the intrinsic right to do whatever they choose--it does not break natural law. Obviously though, unlimited free action would inpinge on other people's right to safety, so protective justice reserves the right to protect people (not protect the law) from unwanted harms. EG. A free person has the technical right to 'murder', but the victim has an egual right (multiplied by society as a whole) not to be murdered, so the protective arm of justice will restrain people who have a predilection towards murder.

Example case.

A woman claims that she was date raped.

The police aren't just seeking to prove that a law was broken, so they can be unbiased. (The police are tasked with protecting the accused man's rights too.)

The court isn't dealing with a law that was broken, they are seeking to remedy a situation that happened between people (that could happen again). The alleged rapist's side will argue that the girl presented mixed 'stop' signals. The girl's side will say that he ignored her clear 'stop' signals. With the judge as the middle vote, the process will seek to find the remedies that best protect society from further threat--on both sides. The man may be deemed a threat ruled by his hormones over his reason, and put away. But the girl may also be deemed as a certain threat to other men too and some education might be ordered for her.

Other than justice dealing with the event, neither the man or the girl has been further harmed by the process. It wasn't a scandalous public event that ruined her reputation while making his family move away in shame. Justice operated with the same confidenciality as a visit to the doctor.

 

[nyse]

[Shameless Plug]

I just recieved this email. This is why I write.

Hi Russell

I picked up your book in a second hand bookshop in Delhi. It kept me enthralled during the wait for the late plane ex-Delhi, during the 10 hour connection wait in Kuala Lumpur and finally the flight on to Perth, Western Australia. Well done - very engrossing.

I love books that bring unusual, or lesser known, facts to my attention. I am referring to Potemkin Stairs in Odessa. With the help of the Internet I am now fully aware of the opticial illusion, who built them and when etc. Thanks for weaving this into your yarn.

Keenly await the sequel and hope you get Shiva's Messenger made into a film.

 

[Tasku]

What is the difference from today where the police and the court makes the threat decisions?

And what keeps the police and court in your proposed system from taking advantage of their position, if there is nothing that will restrict their power or make them accountable for their actions?

Law functions by telling people what they can or cannot do - equates to slavery.

Slaves are a forced labour force. I'm not a slave, I work for money and work out of my own free will.

(Wether I'm a slave or not is not the point, I'm aware of this, but you need to stop bombarding us with slogans, it has no effect, trust me)

Protective justice functions by telling people what it wants to protect them from.

It's simply moving the societal order from being prohibition based, to protection based - equates to freedom.

This I understand. But what I've been asking you over and over again is:
Who, in the protective based system, will protect us from the protectors themselves, if they start misusing their power, being that there are no preset rules for it?

This is my last attempt at trying to get an answer to this, after which I will deem this theory a Utopia and be done with it.

 

[BeerWench13]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerWench13
I know enough about our current system.

Not from the perspective that I see it.

This is where you will lose any following you may have. Try to refrain from insulting the intelligence of the few who are actually listening to your idea and you may well find them supporting it. After reading this I had no desire to read further because you obviously think me an uneducated person who is just arguing for the sake of argument. Though this may not be the case, this is what you're portraying and, not only is it offensive, but it shows you to be an arrogant, bigoted person who sees only their own point of view as the correct point of view and looks down on anyone who may have a free thought. Which, by the way, is the sheerest form of slavery.

*Sigh* I'll try once again.
Who is "the court"?
How do they decide who needs to be protected or removed from society because they are a threat? Under what premise?
Where do they get their power to remove someone from society?
Who keeps them from just deciding that they're going to "rehabilitate" you because you insulted them in some way?
How do they determine that someone is "rehabilitated"?

 

[pearshaker]

You now, nyse... for a writer - you certainly do not articulate things very well...

 

[nyse]

This is where you will lose any following you may have. Try to refrain from insulting the intelligence of the few who are actually listening to your idea and you may well find them supporting it. After reading this I had no desire to read further because you obviously think me an uneducated person who is just arguing for the sake of argument. Though this may not be the case, this is what you're portraying and, not only is it offensive, but it shows you to be an arrogant, bigoted person who sees only their own point of view as the correct point of view and looks down on anyone who may have a free thought. Which, by the way, is the sheerest form of slavery.

"Not from the perspective that I see it."

You interpreted this differently than I meant it. I wasn't insulting your knowledge of the law but rather commenting on how you looked at Law from the favorable angle, while my perspective is negative to it.

*Sigh* I'll try once again.
Who is "the court"?

I don't like the word 'court', which stems from the royal entourage that decides on the fate of commoners. The current 'adversarial' trial supposes that answers to questions are absolute--they aren't and the process (in a complicated case) would be more accurate with the result of two coin flips (one to determine if the police got the right person and the other to decide innocence or guilt).

Whatever it is called, the system is staffed by judges authorized (elected) by the protected people and by lawyers (needs another word too) who are paid by the justice system (Justice would also be protecting us from legal sharks feeding on bank accounts).

How do they decide who needs to be protected or removed from society because they are a threat? Under what premise?
Where do they get their power to remove someone from society?
Who keeps them from just deciding that they're going to "rehabilitate" you because you insulted them in some way?
How do they determine that someone is "rehabilitated"?

With protective justice, there isn't any 'them'. The authority derives its power from the people. The electorate establish what actions they wish to be protected from. Perhaps the method would be as a ballot. I also like the idea of funding the police/justice separately from the rest of government.

 

[nyse]

And what keeps the police and court in your proposed system from taking advantage of their position, if there is nothing that will restrict their power or make them accountable for their actions?

What keeps them from it now? Poilice take bribes and lawyers drag their feet in cases to inflate their billing. There is NO oversight for either the police or the justice department (except 'internal affairs' which means the same as 'white-washing').

I believe in the goodness of people. If the tool they use to commit wrong (the law) is removed, souls can show their true colors.

Slaves are a forced labour force. I'm not a slave, I work for money and work out of my own free will.

(Wether I'm a slave or not is not the point, I'm aware of this, but you need to stop bombarding us with slogans, it has no effect, trust me)

okay

This I understand. But what I've been asking you over and over again is:
Who, in the protective based system, will protect us from the protectors themselves, if they start misusing their power, being that there are no preset rules for it?

"Rules are made to be broken." Anywhere that a rule-set exists, people will seek to push them as far as possible. By saying that 'police must not accept bribes', you've challenged them to find other avenues than cash to benefit from their position. protective justice shuts that door before it can be opened even a crack. When the only duty of police is to protect the people, how can they abuse that trust? (There is no inanimate object for a cop to blame a misdeed on.)

 

[nyse]

This is my last attempt at trying to get an answer to this, after which I will deem this theory a Utopia and be done with it.

What is wrong with Utopian thinking? I optimistically believe that one day Capitalism will fail as communism did and that democracy will rise in it's place. A point will come when people stand up and say "this is SO stupid!" I'm also certain that law will collapse as well, to be replaced by a better system of protective justice.

I'm also nearly done with it too. At least for now, as I've got to spend the next couple of weeks working on my sequel novel.

 

[BeerWench13]

You interpreted this differently than I meant it. I wasn't insulting your knowledge of the law but rather commenting on how you looked at Law from the favorable angle, while my perspective is negative to it.

Fair enough. I see how it could be meant that way.

I believe in the goodness of people. If the tool they use to commit wrong (the law) is removed, souls can show their true colors.

Did this statement scare the hell out of anyone else?

"Rules are made to be broken." Anywhere that a rule-set exists, people will seek to push them as far as possible.

*Light Bulb*
You're going with the Adam, Eve and the Apple theory.
Basically, the question of would Adam and Eve (if they truly existed-not the point here) have eaten the Apple if God had not forbidden it? I see your thought process now (thank you for responding so many times to emphasize your point). My fear is the statement above about the goodness of people. Again, I'm going to use the Adam and Eve story for my example.
There are two ways to look at the story (which, even if you don't believe in the Bible or Adam and Eve is a good fable/parable):
A) Adam and Eve ate the Apple because it was forbidden fruit.
B) Adam and Eve ate the Apple in spite of it being forbidden fruit.

Though both seem the same, the motive behind the action is the real question. In example A, they ate the apple simply to "lash out" at The Man. In example B, their curiosity got the best of them and, as is human nature, even though they knew it was wrong, they did it anyway to satisfy said curiosity. They were not lashing out, but acting on their own selfishness.

Now, the real question is as follows: Is mankind good enough and selfless enough to "do the right thing?" History shows us that the odds are not in our favor on this one.

 

[Tasku]

I can't say that I completely agree with your theory of rules being broken only for the sake of braking rules. There's no way of proving this one way or another, so no point arguing about it.

I'm also not saying that the current system cannot be abused, we see examples of abuse every day, but my point is, your system has even less restrictions for abuse than we now have, and it is far easier to exploit. I personally don't believe any man (or woman) should have the power to determine if another man (or woman) may or may not be part of the society. Ofcourse sometimes this has to be done, but I prefer to have preset rules on how to do so, so that his / her decision can be argued or founded on something, not only on the whims of a group of people who've achieved that position and power for whatever reason. I would not trust any group of people with the power that your police / courts would have in the system you propose, because in my opinion, it would eventually lead to dictatorship, torture, favours being made and received, lobbying, corruption etc, etc, even more than our current system.

There is nothing wrong with Utopian thinking. By calling it Utopia, I'm saying that it sounds like an okay idea, but I think it would only succeed in a perfect world, perhaps if humans ever learn to think unselfishly, which I doubt we will, because selfish thinking is what keeps us wanting more and better, and thus moving us forward in the fields of technology and science.

Conclusion: our outlook on mankind is so different, we can not agree on this, ever. So we just have to agree to disagree. If your system will ever gain majority support, I will be in the minority opposing the change. But for now atleast, you're in the minority.

 

[nyse]

*Light Bulb*

This *lightbulb* is what I've been fishing for and now we can have the conversation I've been hoping for.

A) Adam and Eve ate the Apple because it was forbidden fruit.
B) Adam and Eve ate the Apple in spite of it being forbidden fruit.

C) Adam ate the apple because it was forbidden fruit, but Eve ate the Apple in spite of it being forbidden fruit (or vice-versa because I'm not making a sexist comment).
If C) is correct, then removing the taboo strips Adam of his reason for eating the apple. Presuming that apple-eating is a wrongful thing, then there is a 50% potencial reduction in it--simply from decriminalizing it (and leaving it up to Adam's conscience).

Now, the real question is as follows: Is mankind good enough and selfless enough to "do the right thing?" History shows us that the odds are not in our favor on this one.

History has REALLY shown that mankind has never had a chance to prove itself of generally good charactor--the few greedy people with guns (or swords) and laws have tried to keep all the best apples for themselves.

 

[nyse]

I can't say that I completely agree with your theory of rules being broken only for the sake of braking rules. There's no way of proving this one way or another, so no point arguing about it.

But there is a point in discussing what we can theorize about it, and that theoretical thinking and talk could lead to an inspiration on how it could be proven. However, there is a historical model to examine for a possible example. Did problems related to the consumption of alcohol increase or decrease with the prohibition laws, and did they increase or decrease when the laws were repealed?

Conclusion: our outlook on mankind is so different, we can not agree on this, ever. So we just have to agree to disagree. If your system will ever gain majority support, I will be in the minority opposing the change. But for now atleast, you're in the minority.

I'm too certain that I'm right (and too stubborn) to 'agree to disagree'.

 

[BeerWench13]

Adam still had his conscience and he had a "law" forbidding eating the apple. He did it anyway (as did Eve - I'm not trying to be sexist either).

You can only theorize on someone's motives for doing anything. I understand what you're trying to say, but I fear that you're relying on mankind being able to listen to his conscience on his own and this is your fatal flaw. People don't do the right thing all of the time. Hell, many people don't do the right thing even some of the time. There are many things that motivate them to do wrong and only one of them is striking out against the system. The law is meant to give strength to the conscience and consequences for not obeying what one knows to be right.

Do you honestly believe that Jeffrey Dahmer wouldn't have killed all of those people if there had been no law against it?

If your answer is no, then you need to really study human psychology.

If your answer is something to the extent of Dahmer being mentally unstable and either way would've been unable to do the right thing, then answer this question: What would society have been able to do with Dahmer without a law to prove that he had wronged society and was a danger to both society and himself?

 

[nyse]

Adam still had his conscience and he had a "law" forbidding eating the apple. He did it anyway (as did Eve - I'm not trying to be sexist either).

The key here could be that he had a "law" forbidding to blame or place the wrong of his action onto.

God said 'you must not eat the apple', so Adam's mind could rationalize it like this. 'My eating the apple is only hurting the entity of God's law'.

Had God phrased it differently, 'eating an apple hurts me', would Adam have done it?

You can only theorize on someone's motives for doing anything. I understand what you're trying to say, but I fear that you're relying on mankind being able to listen to his conscience on his own and this is your fatal flaw. People don't do the right thing all of the time. Hell, many people don't do the right thing even some of the time.

But the Adam and Eve theory shows that Eve might not have eaten it if the law wasn't there to act because of. And I've also plausibly suggested that Adam may not have done it in spite of (where the inanimate law didn't exist to place it on). It stands to reason that in a larger population of Adams and Eves, that in a percentage of cases, (no, not all), some apples wouldn't have been eaten for no other reason than that the 'prohibiting law' didn't exist.

According to this theory, the occurence of crime would be reduced by removing the factor of 'law'.

There are many things that motivate them to do wrong and only one of them is striking out against the system.

I fully agree. Cain killed Abel but 'law' was not a factor in that. (God hadn't expressly forbidden homicide yet). Society needs to have a vehicle to deal with wrongs.

The law is meant to give strength to the conscience and consequences for not obeying what one knows to be right.

I disagree. Law is meant to give an authority the mechanism for punishment (consequence). Law doesn't bolster the conscience at all, and in fact as shown with Eve, it weakens it.

Do you honestly believe that Jeffrey Dahmer wouldn't have killed all of those people if there had been no law against it?

Jeffrey Dahmer had a sexual motivation so his killings probably would've still occurred. The same can't be said for the Virginia Tech killer, or the Unibomber.

What would society have been able to do with Dahmer without a law to prove that he had wronged society and was a danger to both society and himself?

Society could have 'protective justice' for exactly this reason. Instead of saying that 'crime is against the law', society needs to state that 'wrong actions are against the victims' and we need a system that deals with those.

Tort law has a plaintif on one side and a defendant on the other. These two sides are each human (or corporate) entities. The judge stands between but he is detached from both and impartial.

(Criminal) wrongs between people should be handled in the same way that tort law is. Joe Rapist has the technical right to rape, but Jane Victim (and all her potencial Victim sisters) have the right not to be raped. If the state wasn't the wounded party whose law was broken, then a protective justice system could be an impartial judge.