Civil death sentences, what do you think of them?

[Scot Dutchy]

Your concept of justice belongs in the shithole where you pulled it from.

[pErvinalia]

Nobody has an argument against my valid point then, that state retribution is there because otherwise, innocent people would be forced to do it themselves.

Here, I'll give you an answer. No one is forcing innocent people to seek retribution. [/thread]

[Hermit]

Nobody has an argument against my valid point then, that state retribution is there because otherwise, innocent people would be forced to do it themselves.

What exactly is valid about the assertion that innocent people would be forced to commit retribution? As far as I am concerned the justice system should be limited to deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restitution. Retribution is too close to the primitive concept of revenge for my liking.

[mistermack]

Nobody has an argument against my valid point then, that state retribution is there because otherwise, innocent people would be forced to do it themselves.

Here, I'll give you an answer. No one is forcing innocent people to seek retribution. [/thread]

No, that's because we have a justice system. You're a master of the bleeding obvious, I will grant you that.

[mistermack]

Nobody has an argument against my valid point then, that state retribution is there because otherwise, innocent people would be forced to do it themselves.

What exactly is valid about the assertion that innocent people would be forced to commit retribution? As far as I am concerned the justice system should be limited to deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restitution. Retribution is too close to the primitive concept of revenge for my liking.

I wasn't talking about you.


I said people with balls.

[pErvinalia]

Nobody has an argument against my valid point then, that state retribution is there because otherwise, innocent people would be forced to do it themselves.

Here, I'll give you an answer. No one is forcing innocent people to seek retribution. [/thread]

No, that's because we have a justice system. You're a master of the bleeding obvious, I will grant you that.

Um ok. So explain how a person would be "forced" to seek retribution. This should be a laff..

[mistermack]

Um ok. So explain how a person would be "forced" to seek retribution. This should be a laff..

Just like Hermit, you wouldn't understand.

[Scot Dutchy]

Go on try us...

[mistermack]

Go on try us...

Point proved.

[Rum]

Um ok. So explain how a person would be "forced" to seek retribution. This should be a laff..

Just like Hermit, you wouldn't understand.

OK - you are proposing that without forceful, perhaps heavy handed legal retribution - I'm assuming that would include the death penalty - in place 'ordinary people' who were the victims of crime would eek out 'revenge' on the perpetrator themselves?

Given that sentencing generally has become far more lenient, civilized and targeted (we no longer chop people's hands off for theft for example), one would expect the instances of these ordinary people doing exactly what you are suggesting would have grown.

Odd how that hasn't happened. I can't think of one murderer who has in turn been murdered by a victim's family in the recent past..just as an example, now that we are civilized enough not to kill people as punishment.

[Svartalf]

@MM: Your "valid point" is that being unnecessarily cruel is achieving retribution, only problem is that the JUsitice system is aimed at producing what it's named for: justice rather than retribution, plus, us civilized Western countries intend to be civilized and to respect the human rights, even of heinous criminals... which is the total reverse of civil death, at that rate we'd be better off killing them in fact as well as in law.

[Svartalf]

Nobody has an argument against my valid point then, that state retribution is there because otherwise, innocent people would be forced to do it themselves.

Here, I'll give you an answer. No one is forcing innocent people to seek retribution. [/thread]

No, that's because we have a justice system. You're a master of the bleeding obvious, I will grant you that.

Private justice, and sheer retribution are not justice, they are usually totally excessive and don't take a lot of important data into the account.

[Hermit]

Nobody has an argument against my valid point then, that state retribution is there because otherwise, innocent people would be forced to do it themselves.

What exactly is valid about the assertion that innocent people would be forced to commit retribution? As far as I am concerned the justice system should be limited to deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restitution. Retribution is too close to the primitive concept of revenge for my liking.

I wasn't talking about you.


I said people with balls.

Oh yes. "Decent people with balls." demand righteous vengeance.

How decent of them. And you. And what balls!

[mistermack]

justice rather than retribution

and sheer retribution are not justice,

You don't say what you think justice is though, do you? I made it clear what I think :

Retribution is justice. All this bollocks about "it achieves nothing" is pathetic. It achieves justice.
It means people pay a price for the shit and heartbreak that they have caused. And that's the very essence of justice.

But all you people can do is condemn excessive cases, which is just attacking straw men.

[Scot Dutchy]

What a primitive mind. Go back to the middle ages.