44 replies to this topic

[Kaonashi]

Inspired by Burnsy2023's excellent posts in the 'Disembowelled Paedophile' thread in the news section, I'd like to have a little rant about 'the justice system'. No doubt it will cause some 'general discussion'...

As Burnsy pointed out, there are three main purposes for having a system of justice, but I would add a fourth to the list. They are:

1. Public safety.
2. To rehabilitate.
3. As a deterrent.
4. As punishment

I want to argue that retributive justice (i.e. # 4 above) is founded on old-fashioned religious views, and that as such, we should abandon it altogether. I also want to argue that if retribution has any effect on the offender at all, then it surely falls within the scope of points 1, 2 & 3 above, thus making retribution for its own sake unjustifiable and unnecessary.

So what exactly is the underlying notion of 'justice' within 'The Justice System'? The majority of people would claim that it has something to do with "punishing the offender" or "making them suffer for the suffering they've caused". This idea is more simply known as 'an eye for an eye'. It has its roots in an unenlightened worldview where the ultimate judge, jury, and executioner is a bearded white man in the sky. It gains its authority as a system from the authority of God, rather than its usefulness on Earth.

Most people will argue against this in the following way: It is only human nature to want to avenge wrong-doings, and therefore retributive justice reflects human nature. However, our systems of evidence, impartiality of police, courts and juries etc. all point to the fact that humans have developed past the point where we simply follow vengeful urges. There is a contradiction here in that we take impartial and terrestrial ownership of the evidential side of justice, but we then look to the 'human nature' model or the Divine model for guidance on how to proceed after we have collated the cold hard facts of a case.

We should instead be looking at the cold hard facts of retribution in terms of real-world usefulness. What we find if we do, is that punishment can be explained as numbers 1, 2, and 3 in the list above.

In short, retribution for its own sake is extremely difficult to justify without using words like 'deserve', or 'ought', or 'evil'. Explanations of these words invariably appeal to human nature or God for their authority (have a go – try to explain them without using those two anchors...). The justice system is set up exactly to prevent the retributive part of human nature. It is also set up to hasten (presumably an infinitely long wait for) Divine Judgement.

Discuss.

Edited by Bouquaine, 03 October 2011 - 04:34 PM.

[Morse]

You may struggle for an answer. So few folk have ever seen it. Those who eventually do are well down the list of the accuseds victims!

[pmtts]

What Exactly is 'Justice'?

Don't bother asking the majority of Judges in this country. I don't think they could even spell the word, let alone administer it!

[MC1]

I had a conversation with a distressed gent. He was claiming harrassment from his neighbour. He also claimed that his neighbour had carried out a serious crime on his son. This accusation was NFA'd in a past investigation.

He said to me that if his neighbour was hit by a bus tomorrow he'd be pleased, as justice had been done. My reply was that in my book, that is not justice. Justice is handed down by a jury of our peers, whatever that may be.


In my opinion, the idea of justice, and in particular custodial sentences serve these purposes:

1. A deterant
2. Public protection


Those are the main two points. Anything else, such as rehabilitation is the icing on the cake, but not the main purpose.

Don't bother asking the majority of Judges in this country. I don't think they could even spell the word, let alone administer it!

It's all very well us saying that this burglar should go down for 5 years or whatever, but a Judge does a difficult job in looking at it from all angles, and weighing up the pros and cons. This often leads them to a different jusgement than the public, because they have taken things into account things which we have not.

[Stratos]

Let's face it, many repeat offenders are complete scum and rehabilitation is not going to happen for them. As MC1 has said, locking them up as a deterrent and for public protection is the real reason.

We've all heard stories of burglars getting locked up and burglaries in their area dropping by 80%, only to go up again as soon as they're released a short time later.

[securitas88]

I would say that "justice" is criminals receiving a sentance which is appropriate to the crime and will provide suitable punishment both for the offence and as a detterent to re-offending. I strongly beleive that the concept of an eye for an eye is just and should be implemented in the most appropriate way. That doesn't mean a thief should have his hand cut off though- it means a murderer should at the very least spend the rest of his life in prison or more suitably be executed.

Edit: Spelling and grammar.

Edited by securitas88, 03 October 2011 - 05:44 PM.

[Burnsy2023]

Let's face it, many repeat offenders are complete scum and rehabilitation is not going to happen for them.

It's easy to dismiss them as just 'scum' but these people often don't know any better. I'm not saying this relieves them of any personal responsibility, but how can you change your ways without knowing what to become? If you've been brought up in an abusive household as far too many children do, your education has been ruined because you've never had the childhood to learn, you can't place all of the blame squarely on the person. This is why rehabilitation is so important. It's about showing that there is a way forward without crime but not everyone has the inclination to take this road. Which is why punishment may be important to this process. Perhaps you need to put someone in such a place that they do want to get out and better themselves? Perhaps punishment can be an extrinsic motivator for rehabilitation? Some people may be intrinsically motivated to become better people, but I would suggest these are by far the minority in the criminal justice system, so perhaps some outside motivators such as hard labour may be beneficial? Personally, I think both are needed for many people to successfully change their ways.

I would say that "justice" is criminals receiving a sentance which is appropriate to the crime and will provide suitable punishment both for the offence and as a detterent to re-offending. I strongly beleive that the concept of an eye for an eye is just and should be implemented in the most appropriate way. That doesn't mean a thief should have his hand cut off though- it means a murderer should at the very least spend the rest of his life in prison or more suitably be executed.

Edit: Spelling and grammar.

There's a really big issue with your statement there. You use words such as "appropriate" and "suitable", which are highly subjective. The whole rapist thread shows that emotive topics like that can change people's perception of what is "suitable" or "appropriate" without looking objectively at the harm caused to both the victim and society. This IMO, is dangerous.

On another note, did anyone see the BBC4 season of programmes about justice? Especially the lectures by Harvard Professor Michael Sandel?

[brianb]

i think people are getting a bit theoretic


sentencing , doesn't act as a deterrent as , as soon as one offender is locked up another one appears

it most certainly doesnt work for rehabilitation as the re offending rates show

it only works to protect the public if they are given an indeterminate sentance

so whats left ?, punishment i think

[MC1]

sentencing , doesn't act as a deterrent as , as soon as one offender is locked up another one appears

Well obviously. There are 6 billion people on the planet. But if there was no sentencing, a whole lot more would appear, that's the point.

[Burnsy2023]

sentencing , doesn't act as a deterrent as , as soon as one offender is locked up another one appears

If a law was passed to say that anyone driving whilst holding a mobile phone was jailed for 28 days, I bet you that would be a very effective deterrant.

it most certainly doesnt work for rehabilitation as the re offending rates show

Rehabilitation isn't easy by any means, but that's not to say it doesn't work. Perhaps we need to change the way we do it?

it only works to protect the public if they are given an indeterminate sentance

That's just nonsensical.

[Rocket]

Justice can only be done when it is 'seen' to be served. If the vast majority of the public do not see that justice has been served (such as in the 'Disembowelled Paedophile' thread) where a 13 year old schoolgirl was raped twice and the offender who had not been dealt with correctly for his first 2 crimes got just 4 years in prison then the justice system has failed. This was not his first offence, He started at the age of 13 when he sexually assaulted a 7 year old girl, then he tried to rape a 15yr old classmate when he was also 15.


Perhaps if that particular offender had received a fit and proper sentence in the first place then others may not have felt the need to take the law into their own hands and dispense the ultimate summary justice?


No way will I ever condone summary justice as per this incident, but I put my faith in the courts to dispense justice in a suitable manner to keep the law abiding majority of the population safe.

[Burnsy2023]

Justice can only be done when it is 'seen' to be served. If the vast majority of the public do not see that justice has been served

Ok, I'll ask you to explain this point. Why do you think this is necessary? Do you think people could just place faith in the 'system'?

[Radman]

Justice can only be done when it is 'seen' to be served. If the vast majority of the public do not see that justice has been served (such as in the 'Disembowelled Paedophile' thread) where a 13 year old schoolgirl was raped twice and the offender who had not been dealt with correctly for his first 2 crimes got just 4 years in prison then the justice system has failed. This was not his first offence, He started at the age of 13 when he sexually assaulted a 7 year old girl, then he tried to rape a 15yr old classmate when he was also 15.


Perhaps if that particular offender had received a fit and proper sentence in the first place then others may not have felt the need to take the law into their own hands and dispense the ultimate summary justice?


No way will I ever condone summary justice as per this incident, but I put my faith in the courts to dispense justice in a suitable manner to keep the law abiding majority of the population safe.

Sums my thoughts up exactly rocket.

How was justice done in the above case? Four years for raping a 13 year old.... It's both baffling and horrifying at the same time.

I think it's clear we are too soft on offenders in the UK, very clear... I don't believe in the death penalty but I do believe in strict sentencing. For peole who offend time and time again, how many chances do you want to give them? How many times do you want them to laugh at the justice system or worse still (in my experience) have an offender walk out of court with a smile on their face.

We need to start clawing the power back off of these people before we lose it completely.

[Rocket]

Ok, I'll ask you to explain this point. Why do you think this is necessary? Do you think people could just place faith in the 'system'?

It all goes pear shaped when justice is not seen to be done, I can't think that many people will think that the sentence he received for such a heinous crime was fit and proper. The warning signs were there to the Judge that this was his 3rd sexually related offence so rehabilitation (apart from castration) was unlikely to be possible.

So why did he only get 4 1/2 years? I would like to know who thinks that justice was seen to be done there.

This is a bit like the public perception of crime, it's not necessarily the crime itself but the 'fear of crime' that has the population worried. The public would feel safer if they actually could see that criminals were getting proper sentences.

Let's face it, we know that the Courts do have the ability to dish out proper sentences because Judges were opening eyes with the sentences they have and are going out to those involved in the recent public disorder.

There were no new laws passed, just that the Judges came down hard and that it what is needed.

[somethingfunny]

Justice is just a word like abracadabra, it exists but does not mean anything.

People might think justice is an approriate punishment for an offence/crime, but that is not justice. It is just what it is, an appropriate punishment for an offence/crime.

You will not find justice in the courts, you will only see the "laws" applied to individual cases.

[Law_Grad]

It all goes pear shaped when justice is not seen to be done,

That’s a very misunderstood and misinterpreted phrase, as it had little to do with the masses seeing punishment being dispensed etc. It was more to do with those that administer justice, and their being seen as beyond reproach…no man being a judge in his own cause, bias and all that.


As for justice, I’m always reminded of a story involving Lord Dennings, or at least I seem to think it was him.

Accused / defendant / plaintiff: do you call that fair, this is supposed to be the court of justice, it’s a disgrace.

judge / Lord Dennings: I suggest you take a look at the sign above the front door, as it states “Court of Law”

Sometimes you have to settle for simply seeing the law applied, and if justice is found, then all the better for that.

[Rorschach]

I have no time for the "eye for an eye" mentality. Sure we could leave the victim in a locked room with the tied up offender and a baseball bat, but what would this achieve? The victim gets their jollies, and is most likely brutalised even more than they were before.

The two primary purposes of jail are to protect society (keep criminals off the street), and to rehabilitate. Our prison system is pretty bad at rehabilitating, which is a massive shame, but that's still a goal and it does sometimes happen.
Acting as a deterrant is merely a beneficial byproduct of this. A deterrant will neve be a perfect solution, as there will always be crimes of passion or people who think they wont be caught.

If there were a magic button to press that would rehabilitate someone completely, then I'd be happy for the worst murderer or rapist to be released back into society, even if they hadn't in anyway suffered.
Obviously I'm human too, and if the guy murdered my fatther I wouldn't be so level-headed, but punishing the guy wouldn't achieve anything beyond giving me a perverse satisfaction.

Punishment isn't justice, it's petty revenge. Protecting society and rehabilitating criminals is justice.

[brianb]

If a law was passed to say that anyone driving whilst holding a mobile phone was jailed for 28 days, I bet you that would be a very effective deterrant.

so if its that easy why dont they do just that ? hand out a months prison for minor motoring offences and littering, peeing in the street etc

it wouldnt take up prison places as according to you, no one would do it now, so why not ? perhaps that fear of sentence is only a very small part of why people choose do do or not do certain things

you might ask your self, whilst you pondering why people still steal in Iran or drink in Saudi, or smuggle drugs out of Thailand, considering the sentences are so harsh

[Zatarg]

I have reckoned for a while - and this is off my own mind so probably full of rubbish - that most of the arguments about Justice stem from the fact that "fair" (i.e. Just) is very subjective term.

If someone beat me up I reckon getting to beat the rubbish out of them is certainly fair. However, maybe they only attacked me because they thought I was going to do something bad to them? Does that make it fair that I got attacked - not to me. If he reasonably believed it then the law's on his side. I could expand on this into levels of justice - e.g. what is justice for an individual, is not necessarily justice for the entire country...

As for the Justice System. I reckon it should strike some balance between the offender, the offended and the public. First and foremost I think, from a "useful" point of view, public protection should come first. If the Sgt or the Mag thinks that you're a threat to the public you get remanded or refused bail.

After that, assuming a conviction, I'm not happy with the idea that prison *should* rehabilitate cons. The prison system should provide all the assistance a convict needs/wants to help them get their life to something that society is content with. Ultimately it is their choice anyway and pretending that it can be forced is a joke. I'm tempted to say "If you don't rehabilitate yourself then you don't get out" but that doesn't sit quite so well with me for some reason.

I reckon that works out well for everyone involved - especially the people in charge of the rehabilitation who must feel a failure.

That all said. I'm no expert on the current system(s) and I would not be surprised if there is some horrible moral law that the above violates terribly.

[GJB]

The way I think of it, is that society should be an opt-out system based on rules.

If you choose to live in our society and benefit from it, then you need to play within the agreed rules.

If you don't want to adhere to the rules, then you shouldn't be a part of it. Just like a nightclub or sport, you should be free to leave.

We should take rights and privileges off those who don't accept others rights. Not half-arsed bail conditions or ASBOs, not a couple of weeks in a holiday camp, but real personal penalties. For example, refuse criminals the privilege of using public transport, visiting pubs/clubs/cinemas, attending sports games etc.

Ultimately, we should enable (and even encourage) anarchists and people like Charlie Veitch to leave the country if they don't want to be part of our system. If they choose to stay, they need to play by the rules, else they'll lose their freedoms.

This may sound a bit '1984' for some, but at the moment criminality is an acceptable career path with similar risks and identical rights to anyone else. Many people see prison as a perfectly acceptable lifestyle and standard of living. It should not be that way.

[Radman]

Let's put it simply:

"A court sentence should be proportionate to the crime committed"

Does anyone here honestly believe the current system is proportionate? If you do can you say it is with a straight face? My bet is you can't, at the moment, from a frontline view the system is a joke.

Why do we have prolific burglars wandering around on community sentences who repeatedly flout the law and the conditions on them?

Why do we have a large number of people who fail to take responsibility for themselves or their actions?

[David]

sentencing , doesn't act as a deterrent as , as soon as one offender is locked up another one appears

How do we know though? I work with youth albeit non-directly. Nonetheless I have now heard many of those I work with say, after the riots, after the sentencing, that 'it wasn't worth it' - ie, they'd heard the sentences handed down and were thinking twice about committing the crime. I've heard others laugh at the pitiful sentences they do get: seriously, I've heard some say a month for theft is worth the risk. Whichever way we look at it though, how do we know sentencing doesn't act as a deterrent for many?

it most certainly doesnt work for rehabilitation as the re offending rates show

In broad terms I agree but I don't think we can be prescriptive and say it most certainly doesn't work - how many don't re-offend after a sentence?

so whats left ?, punishment i think

Depends what you mean there. I think we'd all like to see 'punishment' for justice, but what does it take the form of?

As to jail, well I'd imagine we'd all think of that initially, although I think for those who have been victims of crime it must be pretty galling, once there, to see their offender enjoying better facilities than some schools.

Good original question by the way. Is justice revenge, a punishment, a lesson to be learned/taught (ie society will not tolerate that behaviour and this is how we show our displeasure)? Is it a combination of all of that?

[bensonby]

Where is the victim in all of this? I think one of the central tenants
Of "justice" should be that the offender "rights the wrong" as far as possible: by compensating the victim, repairing the damage and (being forced to) working to make amends.

Sadly this does not seem to be the case.

The other considerations should come after (and in addition to) this...

[Kaonashi]

Where is the victim in all of this? I think one of the central tenants
Of "justice" should be that the offender "rights the wrong" as far as possible: by compensating the victim, repairing the damage and (being forced to) working to make amends.

Sadly this does not seem to be the case.

The other considerations should come after (and in addition to) this...

That is a very good point actually.

But surely reparations can only redress the physical and not the psychological state of the victim. Perhaps making amends, repairing the damage and so forth are also essential to the rehabilitation of offenders.

It might be argued that a dialogue between victim and offender (in some cases, clearly not suitable for all) could repair the psychological damage caused to the victim, while at the same time it could be part of rehabilitation for the offender.

I said in some cases because clearly with the most serious crimes like murder and rape this approach is unsuitable. So the questions stands - How can the damage caused by a rape or murder truly be "repaired" without conceding to the vengeful instincts of many relatives and victims? The answer to that question is very often "make the offender suffer". As I said in my original post, the reason we have an independent judicial system is exactly to avoid vengence, so revenge cannot be the answer.

[Numpty]

This is quite a weird discussion and wades massively into politics. But let's start with some fundamentals:

In civil law the courts will attempt to correct a wrong by either putting the claimant back into the position that they would have been in had the wrong not been committed or, if that is not possible, compensate the claimant for their loss.

In criminal law the underlying idea is that it is not only the victim who is damaged by a particular act but the community as a whole. This is because an old lady who gets robbed at the bus stop is not the only person affected because, even if she gets her purse back and the offender makes amends in some way, other people will be worried about themselves or other people being attacked in the same way.

So the starting point in criminal law is that the community as a whole gets compensated for the criminal act. How that compensation can and should be delivered is the main question that is asked these days i.e. should it be by punishment or community service or some other thing.

Added to this we now in our modern liberal society have the idea that if, while we are getting compensation for the crime, we can also try and get the offender to learn something about the error of his ways we will not only have improved the offender's life by making it more productive and constructive but we will also have reduced the chance of that offender committing another crime later on.

At the same time the state does a deal with the community and individuals. The state takes a monopoly on the administration of "justice" and in return people don't go around harassing people who are thought to have committed crimes and their friends/family.

Of course all of this relies on trust. If people stop trusting the authorities to properly investigate crime and administer justice then they are less likely to hold back from doing the harassment bit or give information to the police, especially if after giving information to the police the authorities then do not protect them from being harassed.

And perhaps most importantly of all, the system has to reflect the values of all the people who take part in it. We no longer put people in stocks or hang and flog them. We don't torture them to get information or confessions out of them. We assume that people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Etc.. The values change over time and within any society there will be strong disagreements as to what the right way of dealing with things are.

It's extremely complicated!