I'm not sure justice is about buying suffering off, in some transaction of rewriting history to try and remove the pain and right the wrong. I think its more realistic to see justice as about the system of social law and order (ie society within State) recognizing the crime and its perpetrator, and removing them from society so they cannot do it again. The duration of which depends on the severity of crime.
People often use the language of getting justice as if it were getting damages... which I think is wrong, and I doubt is the Doctrinal meaning here of the inherent 'worth' of each individual :silly:
Why do I suggest this, namely because suffering is entirely a subjective personal experience - what is suffering for one person might be pleasure for another, but more saliently is the problem of measuring suffering in some context which is transposable across persons, such that it can be balanced by punishment. Pain is hard to measure, it can be expressed but ones ability to express pain does not necessarily directly equate to their experience of suffering pain, or what amount of that experience was directly a result of the crime. So IMO the legal system doesn't seem to try 'punish' people anymore, but protect everyone else. Part of the evolving of humanity, otherwise we'd still be using punishment as amusement and being lost to intergroup violence as self identity ie somewhere between savagery and barbarianism. I'd like to think we've come a long way from that, even if our language hasn't really recognised it. So if its not about punishment as justice, but rather recognition and penalties on the freedoms of the perp as justice, the question falls more on what is appropriate legal remedy for the victim. Organizations can more easily be made to remedy in material terms so that does serve as an indirect mechanism to reduce the incentive for organizations to commit crime, because if they are caught they can be punished within some objective framework (albeit there will still be some subjective interpretation by the Court but this is to the favor of the victim obviously). At an individual level it becomes less of a disincentive because a small organization, group or individual has less capacity to remediate damages.... but I guess the Court's can use their power to incarcerate to compel the perp to meet their obligations to the Court order in this regard.
So to me just represents solidity or sturdiness of a system, and that system is the State's legal framework and enforcement mechanisms. At different levels of analysis that can represent different things, like a just system must serve the people by striking a balance between the 'rights' of an individual and the 'rights' of the rest of the individuals, in any action. At the level of a crime, then it's more about the balance between known and unknown to find truth between the parties involved. If the balance is striven for to the realistic extents, then it can be said to just, IMO. That is fairness AFAIK. But, all just IMO #pun
So the death penalty, IMO, is a poor punishment, but powerful token of remediation. Unfortunately it might not be just if it were to be prone to error in anyway. I'm personally not into tokenism so much, and it's probably not a perfect system enough to serve such finality, even though there are plenty of crimes which seem to clearly deserve some 'full extent of punishment' - but I don't think that exists in reality beyond the desire of the victim to return the favor ie an eye for an eye.
Knight ~ introverted extropian, mechatronic neurothealogizing, technogaian buddhist. Likes integration, visualization, elucidation and transformation.
Jou
~
Deg
~
Vlo
~
Sem
~
Mod
~
Med
~
Dis
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu
|
