Here are two comments that I have submitted to The Daily Telegraph's website:
***
"I do not want retribution from the justice system I simply want justice"
The illogic of this statement is breathtaking. Justice means each person getting what he is owed, such that good deeds are appropriately rewarded and bad deeds are appropriately punished. So as far as the 'bad deeds' side of the ledger is concerned, justice is retribution.
"i do not think that is what we get today"
You're right about that! We get ham-fisted attempts at deterrence and rehabilitation, but justice is a big non-no. The justice system is now nothing more than an arm of the welfare system.
"There's nothing wrong with the current system which also provides relatively instant closure for the friends and family of the victims."
Every time Bryant attempts suicide or makes some protest and it's reported in the media the horrors of that day are brought back for the families of his victims. There will be no closure till he dies.
"There's also something intuitively wrong to me in taking away somebody's entire existence for a single act, no matter how wrong"
The illogic of this statement is breathtaking. Justice means each person getting what he is owed, such that good deeds are appropriately rewarded and bad deeds are appropriately punished. So as far as the 'bad deeds' side of the ledger is concerned, justice is retribution.
"i do not think that is what we get today"
You're right about that! We get ham-fisted attempts at deterrence and rehabilitation, but justice is a big non-no. The justice system is now nothing more than an arm of the welfare system.
"There's nothing wrong with the current system which also provides relatively instant closure for the friends and family of the victims."
Every time Bryant attempts suicide or makes some protest and it's reported in the media the horrors of that day are brought back for the families of his victims. There will be no closure till he dies.
"There's also something intuitively wrong to me in taking away somebody's entire existence for a single act, no matter how wrong"
Please explain this intuition. And you aren't taking away the person's whole existence, just the earthly existence of which he deprived another.
***
What paid maternity leave advocates have failed to demonstrate is why it is that taxpayers should pay mothers to take time off to be with their children. Let me put it this way: I agree with the proposition ‘that mothers should have time off from work in order to be with their children’, but there is a step missing in the logical sequence from this proposition to the proposition ‘that taxpayers should pay mothers to have time off from work in order to be with their children’. I have only ever seen pro-paid leave commentators assert that mothers should have time off from work and then assert, as though it followed from this, that this time off should be taxpayer-funded. You do this throughout your article, Ms Dunlevy. But this is a non sequitur. Is it not the father’s duty to earn the money to cover this time off from work? If it is about love, not economics, then why is any additional financial support necessary?
Or, to look at the matter from another angle: Sex Discrimination Commissioner Ms Elizabeth Broderick asserted recently that “There is no question that legislated paid maternity leave is a basic human right” and we know that she is of the opinion that this leave should be taxpayer-funded (source). Presumably you would agree with this, Ms Dunlevy (please correct me if I am wrong). Now a human right is something that someone is owed in justice. I agree that a mother has a right to financial support while she is out of paid work caring from her children. I think that this right should be fulfilled by the husband. The paid maternity leave advocates think that it should be fulfilled by the taxpayer. But since taxation is the expropriation of resources, how can a mother be considered to have a right to other citizens’ property?
Furthermore, a right is implied by and dependent on a duty. A right to paid leave implies a duty of taxpayers to fund this leave. Certainly a mother without an husband to support her is entitled to expect that the community will support her, but this is an obligation pertaining to the virtue of charity, not a duty pertaining to justice.
Reginaldvs Cantvar
Or, to look at the matter from another angle: Sex Discrimination Commissioner Ms Elizabeth Broderick asserted recently that “There is no question that legislated paid maternity leave is a basic human right” and we know that she is of the opinion that this leave should be taxpayer-funded (source). Presumably you would agree with this, Ms Dunlevy (please correct me if I am wrong). Now a human right is something that someone is owed in justice. I agree that a mother has a right to financial support while she is out of paid work caring from her children. I think that this right should be fulfilled by the husband. The paid maternity leave advocates think that it should be fulfilled by the taxpayer. But since taxation is the expropriation of resources, how can a mother be considered to have a right to other citizens’ property?
Furthermore, a right is implied by and dependent on a duty. A right to paid leave implies a duty of taxpayers to fund this leave. Certainly a mother without an husband to support her is entitled to expect that the community will support her, but this is an obligation pertaining to the virtue of charity, not a duty pertaining to justice.
Reginaldvs Cantvar
7 comments:
Justice means each person getting what he is owed, such that good deeds are appropriately rewarded and bad deeds are appropriately punished. So as far as the 'bad deeds' side of the ledger is concerned, justice is retribution.
Your logic only makes sense in an era long past. In the modern era - especially in countries with a history derived from Britain - you have to remember that criminal prosecutions are always the state prosecuting the criminal, not the victim.
The state is, reasonably a dispassionate creature as a result, no matter the crime. While I might (and it's a long reach) agree with you if the prosecution was in fact the aggrieved party in some form, your reasoning might almost serve a personalized notion of justice. However, the detachment between state and victim breaks that immediacy, and creates a situation of 'two wrongs'.
And you aren't taking away the person's whole existence, just the earthly existence of which he deprived another.
An assertion, and one that at best cannot be proven in any reasonable sense. There is no proof of an afterlife, merely the belief in it. (and, I might add, the same assertion was badly abused in the context of 'witch hunting' to justify murderous torture - which resulted in an equally dead suspect regardless of 'guilt')
Given the standards of proof and reasonability required in law, I would argue that before such a tenet should be subject to rigorous proof before it is accepted as a foundation upon which law is conducted.
MgS,
Clearly we can only disagree as to my latter assertion, but as to your response to my first assertion, you are incorrect. See Mr. Sharp's comments regarding the distinction between revenge (pertaining to the individual) and retribution (pertaining to the State) in the combox to this post:
http://cardinalpole.blogspot.com/2008/09/mr-linnell-on-death-penalty.html
I also allude to it in the post itself when I mention forgiveness as something that the individual, but not necessarily the State, ought to do.
Essentially you appear to be asserting that Justice is a synonym for revenge.
In my view it is not. Revenge is personal - between the offender and aggrieved.
Justice in today's world is a different thing altogether, as it quite discretely involves the intervention of the state.
The state cannot be an agent of revenge. As soon as it does that, it takes on an emotional role that it is unable to actually fulfill. To put it in terms of human experience, the State as an entity is fundamentally sociopathic - it has no sense of conscience per se, only a set of rules (laws) which guide its behaviour.
On that basis (among others), I hold that in fact a fundamentally revenge based approach to justice (which includes the Death Penalty) is doomed to failure, and worse perpetuates a wrong with further wrongs.
Further, the probability of a miscarriage of justice is sufficiently high that killing a 'perpetrator' may well result in nothing more than another victim of record. In light of the fundamental absence of a conscience within the state itself such a miscarriage of justice is not only irrevocable, but is unrecognizable in any meaningful way.
"Essentially you appear to be asserting that Justice is a synonym for revenge."
I think you meant to say that I "appear to be asserting that retribution is a synonym for revenge", since justice encompasses both the rewards for good deeds and the punishment for bad deeds.
Now as far as I knew, retribution and revenge are etymologically equivalent. But today (and for some time) there has been a distinction between retribution (State) and revenge (personal), and I agree with you that revenge is a private, personal matter. Personal revenge should, and must, be eschewed in favour of forgiveness, as Our Lord demands. But justice, and retribution, are objective and metaphysical, not merely private and subjective, concepts.
"[The State] has no sense of conscience per se, only a set of rules (laws) which guide its behaviour."
But the State is both a juridical and a moral person i.e. it can judge (or if you prefer, attempt to judge) the morality of its actions.
I must ask you again: what, in a nutshell, is your idea of justice? My thumbnail sketch of a definition is in the original post. And why do you think that it has changed from the idea that Aristotle, St. Thomas and Kant held to? I am curious as to who would be the major figures in 'restorative justice' thought.
As to the possibility of a miscarriage of justice, in America, no innocents appear to have been executed since 1900. Not one. See Mr. Sharp's comments in an earlier post of mine.
I'm sure no innocents were ever executed at any time - since we're all sinners.
However, DNA tests have shown a number of people could not have committed the crimes they were executed for.
I think you meant to say that I "appear to be asserting that retribution is a synonym for revenge",
No - I meant what I wrote. Your approach to the concept of justice itself equates revenge, retribution and justice as fundamentally synonymous - especially your advocacy WRT the death penalty.
But the State is both a juridical and a moral person i.e. it can judge (or if you prefer, attempt to judge) the morality of its actions.
I disagree entirely here. The state is juridical, but bound by written law and written guideline. It has no conscience in a human sense of the term. At best humans have crafted boundaries in writing that are based upon their own conscience in an attempt to bound the otherwise amoral entity of the state.
As to the possibility of a miscarriage of justice, in America, no innocents appear to have been executed since 1900. Not one. See Mr. Sharp's comments in an earlier post of mine.
Given the known problems with the US judicial system WRT the application of the Death Penalty, I would argue any such claim is suspect.
In Canada, we have seen several very high profile cases which at one time would have carried the death penalty which have - 20+ years after conviction - been shown to be dramatic miscarriages of justice.
Vis your repeated question as to my "definition of justice" - I've answered it before - you just don't seem willing to recognize it.
MgS, I have responded to your last comment here:
http://cardinalpole.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-revenge-and-retribution-plus-request.html
Post a Comment