I recently read the book "Les Miserables," by Victor Hugo. The gist of it is, an ex-criminal called Jean Valjean does many good deeds that more than atone for his past crimes and current rulebreaking. However, a police officer known as Inspector Javert relentlessly hunts him- he is paid, after all, to bring criminals to justice. Through a series of unusual events, Javert finds himself as a prisoner of war, and Valjean is the one ordered to execute him. However, Valjean lets him go free, and soon after, Javert has Valjean captured. Javert, knowing that the legal punishment for Valjean's crimes is death, has no idea what to do. Which is correct- the law or human judgement? Is this always true?
Are laws one size fits all, as in "Don't use violence?" But then, wouldn't there be exceptions? In this example, should violence be permitted in self defense? Then again, if only both parties had followed the rule, there would be no need for self defense.
But human judgement, also, can be flawed or biased. No matter how many surveys you give, a jury will always be biased. However, in cases of such little bias as this, you would call that bias "experience." Judgement can be flawed depending even on such little things on whether or not someone is tired and their reasoning is impaired. In addition, what human trusts himself to deliver completely fair punishments? Do you want to be the one to assign a death sentence?
Laws are just human judgement on paper. They are the judgements of people we presumably trust and respect, but they are still theirs. Since every human is biased (if you weren't, would you even be human?), their laws are often imperceptibly biased as well.
Should a justice system be as clear cut as, for example "Stealing is a crime and the penalty is a $100 fine. Since you stole something, be it a candy bar or nuclear warhead, that is your punishment. End of story"? Or would it work better if someone sat down with all involved parties and got their story: their motives and past and personalities? Couldn't the person calling the shots be hoodwinked somehow, by a clever lie or personal feelings?
Please, give me your input. In a perfect world, how would punishments be decided: on a case-by-case basis or a clear-cut law?
That is a very tough Question. When you think about the world in an actual way, the saying 'life isn't fair' seems to really fit. To make everyone feel better, making a clear-cut law seems to be best. But, sometimes the "Clear-cut laws" are cut with a Very dull knife. People are Biased, and I don't know a way around that. (Obviously, I would rather convict my rude neighbor than my nice one.) And sometimes the scenario needs dealt with, but there is no law stating the boundaries. DO you let them go and get the next group, or do you punish them even though it wasn't a rule that they couln't do whatever they did?
ReplyDeleteHowever, you ask, "In A Perfect World". BY that I substitute "Utopia". There too, you make a clean cut, and everyone follows those guid lines, making no need to enforce the rules created. I feel that if you had to enforse any of the rules it would be a bad day for someone and therefore not a perfect world. We learned about Utopias in World History, and if it was a perfect world, noone would need to be a policeman because everyone watches out for everyone else, so if you did something bad, someone would see you.
That also leads to problems though because friendly competitions and striving to be better (get more power)is what drives most of us and in the Utopia I have mentally created, there isn't a spot for that. It sort of makes me think that Utopias cannot exist because no group will take the first step together. After the first group it should be easy, because the children will grow up with noncompetitive values.
So, with todays imperfect world becoming the perfect world, I think there need to be acceptions, but with reasons. If you can provide a great explaination for why the person/people should be let go or held in captivity (jail) that persuades atleast 7/10 random people it is good, if not, too bad, the law stands.
i agree, on an other note
ReplyDeleteGuess what? Our dumb ass government banned candy cigarettes and "sugar sticks" because they are a bad influence. Why don't you pass a law that states watching Barney and drinking Root Beer is illegal. Most kids below the age of 6 have see 2 million murders and drug deals on TV and the gov. is not stopping it. Sure they think that the parent is in control of it but the parent is also in control of what you eat and wear. so why ban a harmless candy.
anyways I find that your gov dos not have a since of ratio and proportion because you get a 10000 fine for parking by a stop sign but you get away with stealing who knows what and get a 100 dollar fine and maybe a poke on the records.
That is very illogical.
I could go on for days but I don't want to get a carpal tunnel infection or something.
Basically what I am trying to say is our gov. is run by dumb asses and retards who are biased in an illogical way.
And no I am not being partiest or biased or whatever you want to call it. the republican party is just as much to blame for the irrational behavior of the leading party. and the average persons mind is too diluted to see the begining factors of a war or socialism or whatever and the scientists are like "I am staying out of this" because polotics in thier mind is an unknown field that needs to be left to the people who dont have enough brain to get a degree in engeneering or other sciences and so they go into polotics because it is an easy way to feed there craving of power and money without useing there brain to figure out how to rob someone. in my opinionif you have the mental capabilities to steal without getting cought then good for you. if you get caught then you have to face the punushment of the trapper. however brutal it might be. but no our gov. steps in and tries to liberate them which makes them even more pissed off. but they probably whould not steal because with the higher defenses in place it would make it more difficult and they would find an easier way to get money.
of course if we had not tried to make other countries as technologically advances as ours the raggies would not know how to build airplanes of nukes which is great HAHA.
I could go on but i am hungery so "squadala we are off "
Aaron, as moderator, I am going to politely ask you to please watch your language and stay reasonably on topic. This is a philosophy blog, not a discussion of our opinions of the current government. If you continue to call names and be rude, I will be forced to delete your comments.
ReplyDeletePlease understand that I am not out to get you, I just want to keep this blog respectful and constructive. These rules go for everyone else as well. Please feel free to comment on the topic; I value your opinions.
So, Shannon, you're saying a "guilty until proven innocent" philosophy would work? And to be aquitted, a jury would need only a 7/10 vote? I could see the usefulness of that. It would be harder for actual criminals to go free. But then again, what about the man who is innocent but has no alibi? I guess it's all a fine balance.
ReplyDeleteI think that there should be a clear law based on certain but not all circumstances. Here's why.
ReplyDeleteIf you allow punishments to be decided on case by case basis and let the circumstances take too much hold on the decision, it puts much more pressure on the judges.
If you have a very sympathetic judicial system, then those who committed crime could play to the emotions of the judge and waver their sentence in their favor. Now court becomes a dangerous game, in which you try to play to the judge's emotions in hopes to lower your sentence. Criminals can lie, cheat, and do whatever they have to in order to win a shorter sentence.
I don't like that option. I think there should be clear cut laws for each circumstance, but not too detailed. Here's what I mean-
If you stole something from someone, and it is proven you did it due to the evidence, then there should be a grading scale based on an object's value-
1-99 cents= a fine
1 dollar- 9.99 dollars= a larger fine
10 dollars- 99.99 dollars = a larger fine and some jail time.
And so on.
If you steal a personal item that does not have a certain monetary value, that means a different punishment for invading someone's property.
The point is that there should be a clear cut method so that emotion doesn't get in the way of judging fairly.
In the case of Jean Valjean, he shouldn't have done his crimes in the first place. No matter how many good deeds he does after, he still needs to pay up for his crime and not get away with it.
If you allow good deeds to make up for bad ones, you take the risk that criminals take advantage of the situation. However, there probably should not be a death penalty unless the crime is extremely horrible. I mean like taking numerous lives. Where exactly to draw the line I am not sure.
I don't know if I want to let humans play too much part in the rulings of crime. Let's have set laws, and if these laws prove to be not so good, then they can be amended until they prove to be reasonable enough.
What about, instead of stealing, violence? How should that be handled by a judicial system?
ReplyDeleteI personally think crimes should be punished not by what actually happened, but by the intent with which they were performed. If you only intended to break a person's arm but he died from surgical complications, you should only be punished for breaking his arm. In the same way, if you intended to kill him but only managed to break his arm, you should be punished for murder.
The problem is, a judge and jury can't read minds. If this system were enacted, the accused could lie about his intentions. Then what about a polygraph or sodium pentathol? That might work.
How should violence be punished? Does one human have the right to harm another, ever?
Sorry about the rampage
ReplyDeleteI figure that dans rule would work well for violence. to a point. its like an ear for an eye consept. if you just picK a fight then I find there should be a money fine unless you injured the opponent then you should pay.
the person that didn't start the fight has the right to , well to put it politely, clense the gene pool.
without being charged
this would cleanse the community of those who are genetically or mentally troubled and lower the population, expand the value of the dollar and therefore make a better place. and with the innocent people felling like they can defent themselves they in turn are more incliend to protect themselves without feeling the arm of the law. unfortunatly they would have to prove that you didn't start the violence.
thats where your pentathol and veritacerum comes into play.
On violence, it becomes quite complicated when we talk about intent. I think no matter what the intent if you murder someone and it is completely your fault then you should receive full charges.
ReplyDeleteIn your example Dorothea, I don't see how breaking somebody's arm could result in their death unless the doctors mess up. Therefore it is not murder because the culprit did not cause the death, the doctors did. That's not the culprit's fault.
Therefore the culprit should be punished for breaking the arm, although I don't know what that punishment would be.
You should be charged for what you directly cause. If you are trying to kill someone and only break the arm, you didn't commit the crime. Unless you can prove that they were trying to kill that person you can't charge them for murder when they didn't even kill them!
You have right to harm another human when:
You are being physically harmed.
Your personal property is being invaded, stolen, or damaged.
You are being prevented from having your personal rights.
Those three for sure. There aren't too many other situations where you should be allowed to physically harm another human being.
There are always exceptions. If I accidentally directly cause someone's death, it's not always my fault. Try this, for example:
ReplyDeleteBob and I are in art class, working on cutting linoleum tiles with razorblades. The room is mostly silent. As we cut out the tiny lines, Bob is deep in thought. His brow is furrowed and he looks quite worried, as he has for the past few days. Finally it is too much. I lean over. "What is it?" I whisper. But even my quiet voice jars Bob's concentration. He gives a start, and the blade embeds itself in his arm. Quickly, instinctively, he pulls it out. I see the terror dawn on his face as his heart beats faster and faster, pushing out the blood he tries in vain to stop with his shirt. I suddenly remember something he once told me- Bob is a hemophiliac.
Ten minutes later, he dies.
Since Dan is the chief lawmaker in our made-up country, I am charged with murder. It was I, after all, who startled Bob. He would have been safe if not for me, he had made it this far unharmed.
Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture? What exactly did I do that earned me a life sentence? I was being a caring friend, right? (Disclaimer: In case anyone knows someone named Bob, I just picked that as a random name. I'm not about to kill someone.)
What about violence? Am I allowed to fight back if someone is attacking a member of my family? What if the victim is unrelated to me but unconscious? And just how much force am I allowed to use?
I liked Aaron's idea of "cleansing the gene pool" if you were attacked first, but that could get tricky. How do you know who threw the first punch? The person who initially attacked could very well walk away and claim that the now-dead man on the floor hit him first. In addition, if "cleansing the gene pool" were legal, we would see a huge increase in weapons sales. It would be "The Outsiders" all over again.
Here's an idea. Since it's utopic, it probably won't work, but here it is anyway: what if a whole country (continent, whatever) were designated for the innocent, those who had never been convicted of a crime or a very very minor one. If someone committed a crime or used violence AT ALL, he or she would be sent to another area, where they would be allowed to live and make their way with the other citizens, who had committed the same crime. It would be easier to regulate things and distribute resources that way. You would need more DEA officers in the drug-use-convicted area than in the innocent one or the theft one. There would be a community for those who had used violence, however petty. Someone who will slap could very well move on to worse things. Of course, the citizens would be organized by the badness (I know that's not a word, but I can't think of a better word so I'll use it anyway) the badness of their crimes so they hopefully won't rub off on one another. And moving away is motivation not to commit a crime. It's an idea.
THe word you would be looking for is "extent" or "degree". I like your idea but as you said I don't think it is going to work. Also the Cleansing the Gene pool idea would get rid of the weaker on, but what if ther is an unfair advantage. The person picking the fight will most likely be very strong and agile as well as smart enough to deivise the plan. If they were smart, they would go after smaller households (people living in one house), and rich people, especially children. Not that that is a bad thing or anything, but it isn't exactly fair.
ReplyDeleteWith dan having the idea of emotion bending towards judges, I figured my plan would work. Get anyone that knows anything about either people, and the victim (if living) and the criminals side of the story. Present this information with nothing put together to 10 random well doing people. (no criminal record themselves, and a drug and alcohol test before and after contemplation) and if 7 of them let the person go then that is geat. Keep in mind that these 10 people didn't meet either person or anyone who knew them except for the secratary of the case and were only given information, no flattering comments.
What you say makes sense and is a great idea. I think that's how a jury in our real, current court system is supposed to work. However, there are always other factors. The jury could be disgruntled, grumpy and tired at having to wake up early, navigate the city traffic and use up a vacation day. Often they just want to get this over with.
ReplyDeleteAlso, despite your best efforts, they could be skewed by appearances or accents. I took a mock trial class once and it really opened my eyes to what really goes on. For example, people in my class were more likely to believe the guy with the British accent because that made him sound more intelligent, even though he was using my own arguments almost verbatim. It's interesting how easily it is to sway humans.
Dorothea, with Bob the hemophiliac we have a few very interesting complications. Number one Bob did the stabbing, not you. Number two are you a juvenile or an adult at this point? Number three you two shouldn't have been sitting so close together working with dangerous tools anyway. Number four where is the medical staff? Number five if he is a hemophiliac, why is he working with tools that could easily cause him to bleed without any medical staff in the area?
ReplyDeleteIn a perfect world there would be absolutely no opportunity for this to happen.
But it did. This is a very strange case.
This is when I start to lean towards a jury. However the laws that the jury decide on should still be clear cut. Dorothea if the jury decides that you are not at fault for killing Bob, then you receive no punishment. Why isn't there medical staff helping him? You get away with no charge. No partial punishments.
Therefore we now have a jury of judges with an absolutely clean criminal record and a specified education in laws. The laws are very basic. Either you followed the law or you didn't. You are either at fault or not. No partial punishments or wavering fines. Clear cut fines for certain ranges of situations like the stealing fines table I made above.
Now we have a compromise and balance that I think with a bit of amending and work will please everyone.
You know that continent thing you were talking about Dorothea? We already have something like that. It's called prison.
I'm not trying to be mean with that statement. I'm just saying we already have something like that in place. Criminals don't deserve to have somewhere nice to live. They need to learn that what they did is wrong. We shouldn't deprive the good people of good land. The criminals can live in the dumpy prisons. Well secured, but low resources. No TVs or luxuries. It's a prison!
If you deserve to go to jail, then that's what you do. The continents idea sounds sort of Communist. Also if you are born on the criminal island you are either separated from your family or stuck with felons.
About Bob: How does the distance we are sitting make any difference? We're at a table in art class, no one's worried about safety. That's why there isn't a team of paramedics just waiting there for something to happen. There's a school nurse and 911, like in a normal school. The teacher trusted him with the blade (which was silly if you ask me. Doing that project I focused completely and still nicked myself at least twice. Aaron can attest to that, he sat next to me.) But the teacher trusted him, and I am a teenager at this point.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly enough, in our current legal system, a teen can be certified as an adult if he seems as intelligent and emotionally developed as one, even if he is young. Does anyone else find it appalling that are fourteen-year-old can be punished as an adult if he cannot drive and isn't even shaving yet? I think we are adults and understand the world on an adult level quite young, maybe twelve or thirteen, far before the government and adults tell us.
How is the continents idea communist? Also in prison, people aren't really grouped, just by the intensity of their crimes. Someone should learn to try to live with their decisions, not to be squashed but provided for in a prison. If you were shipped off to a different community but made to fend for and decide your life for yourself, the person would see that their actions have consequences. For example, a drug user would see the consequences of their addiction more clearly through the downward spiral of health and financial problems than through sitting in a reasonably clean cell, provided with food and medical care. What I'm saying is, you should be allowed to take the fall for your own poor decisions.
And those born on criminal islands would be taken as infants before they can pick up baggage. It's not so much a lifestyle and homeland as a place to wait until you die and ruminate on your past. The child would be taken as an infant and given to someone willing to adopt it on the mainland. If there are birth defects like fetal alcohol syndrome from the parents' crimes... I don't know what should happen to them. What child should have to spend their life in agony because of something their parents did?
The important point is that Bob is a hemophiliac and is working with sharp tools. There probably should be medical staff on call at the school.
ReplyDeleteThe continents idea isn't communist now that I think I better understand the idea. There would be a separate continent in which people who commit major crimes are sent to to live on their own. However, here's the problem. Eventually those criminals will pile up, and since we aren't keeping an eye on them they may eventually form a rebellion!
With that being a problem we would have to have some sort of surveillance on the continent, or else these felons would form a nation that would threaten the continent of those who aren't major criminals! I think that could be a problem.
In prison we don't have to give them much, just what they need to survive. They will have lots of time to think about what they've done while sitting in a form of solitary confinement without having to spend their time searching for food, water, and shelter.
Also there isn't as much chance of rebellion since they are all locked up in cells and under heavy surveillance.
I think that any children born on a criminal island shouldn't live there or else they can be indoctrinated to kill the non-criminal people. Also that means those who live on the island would begin to populate the island all with a hate for those on the mainland.
However to keep track of that also requires surveillance. It basically becomes an outdoor prison or a dangerous enemy nation. If you don't keep a close watch they could sail back to the mainland eventually. Security becomes an even bigger issue. Starting to see what could happen?
I don't have a problem with there being prisons on other islands to keep the criminals away from the mainland, but it would basically be a prison system, not a survive on your own kind of deal.
That's what I think of the island. I think it is probably not the best idea for security reasons.
so for one, there is a difference between "murder" and an "accedent". if Dorthea had jumped up and started stabbing bob then that, well, thats pretty clear ententions. but the senario presented is not logical. if she had wanted to take out bob it would be a lot easier to snipe him with a custom made gun and then destroy the wepon. then the feds can't track you.
ReplyDeleteany ways I like the thought on asking the people who know that person even though there opinions are libal to be biased and not truthful. you of course can get a pretty resonable answer from witness and in an art room there is libal to be plenty.
again you can observe the wounds. if they don't look like an intintional effort to murder they are probably not.
again an art room is not the time of the place to murder someone. if i was Dorthea,and I wanted to kill Bob the hemophiliac I would personally find that a crowded hall a good choice. knowing that bob is a hemophiliac you can provide a leathal wound by bumping into him and maybe "accedenaly" imbeding pencil into his side. then act normal. go to your classes. the key is to blend in. don't be ignorant or make a scene blend in and you will most likeley be charged.
this is where your truth serum comes in. YOU CAN'T LIE TO THE CHEMICALS!!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
thus the truth comes out. unless you mentally condtion yourself clear out the memories and place a false a memory of a normal day. like a neuralyzer in men in black, but mentalally so they can't retreave the info.fortunatly it is a difficult prosses that takes time and consentration something that most humans lack and due to the chemical prosses in the brain an event is phisically stored in an emprint.but anyways the prosses is kind of like turning your computer's time back to a previous date but more so. and then when you wake up you need to have an item that relates a normal school day into your mind. its phisically and mentally demanding not to mention you could be out for several days which is inpractical and illogical for the lifestyle of earthans.
HAhaha, nice. I would like to see the art teacher's (Mr. Ed) reaction to Bobs incedent. And then this continent island deal sounds pretty cool, but would like to remind you that the British have already tried this (Australia) and it didn't quite work out. WIth the advanced technology of today it might prove better. Also, Dan said on Facebook chat that it didn't matter what type of gov. other countries had, all we had to do was accept them and let the people choose in which gov. they want to live. That might help the criminal island thought. Let the criminals have their criminaly values, and do whatever they want to all day without laws, but no inter-continental trading or comunication system should be in place. THat lets us respectable people maintain our morals and feel safe and those that have different values maintain their's.
ReplyDeleteAt the moment there is no way to block your brains decisions. On the show I watched, the guy watching the computer that was reading the others brain knew which decision he was going to make 6 seconds before he pushed the button. THerefore if you had intentions of killing Bob and everyone was hooked up to these computers, someone would have 6 seconds to stop you. Expensive and not very practicle, but effective plan to get rid of criminals, because even if you did manage to kill Bob, the polices computers would know you did it on perpose and you most likely won't get away.