State versus Individual Justice

[Blind groper]

The following is quoted from Dr. Michael Shermer's book "The Moral Arc." Anyone care to comment?

"In the long history of civilisation, self-help justice conducted by individuals has been replaced with criminal justice conducted by the state. The former leads to higher rates of violence than the latter, due to the lack of objective third party to oversee the process. States, for all their faults, have more checks and balances than individuals. That is why Justicia - the Roman goddess of justice - is often depicted wearing a blindfold, symbolising blind justice and impartiality; in her left hand she carries a scale on which to weigh the evidence, a symbol for a balanced outcome, and in her right hand she wields the double-edged sword of reason and justice, symbolising her power to enforce the law."

[Svartalf]

Yeah, justice is blind, she does not properly repair the damage that is done, and only the powerful, who could afford to conduct a vendetta anyway, really benefit from the new system, the weak and downtrodden are left by whatever the system

[Seth]

The following is quoted from Dr. Michael Shermer's book "The Moral Arc." Anyone care to comment?

"In the long history of civilisation, self-help justice conducted by individuals has been replaced with criminal justice conducted by the state. The former leads to higher rates of violence than the latter, due to the lack of objective third party to oversee the process. States, for all their faults, have more checks and balances than individuals. That is why Justicia - the Roman goddess of justice - is often depicted wearing a blindfold, symbolising blind justice and impartiality; in her left hand she carries a scale on which to weigh the evidence, a symbol for a balanced outcome, and in her right hand she wields the double-edged sword of reason and justice, symbolising her power to enforce the law."

Just don't continue to conflate self-defense with "self-help justice" and we won't have to do this again.

For your edification, self-defense is something one does in response to an imminent attack by another, whereas "self-help justice" otherwise known as "vigilante justice" is the process of individually declaring the other guilty of committing a crime and dispensing punishment or retribution for that wrong, perceived or actual.

Justice is always best served by allowing due process and neutral administration to rule, as any of the killings in Muslim countries perpetrated by mobs against persons merely accused by a single individual of some blasphemy, as in the recent case of the young woman beaten to death and burned by a mob after a storekeeper falsely stated she had desecrated a copy of the Koran because he didn't like the way she spoke to him.

The term "vigilante" and "vigilante justice" originated in the old west, where in the absence of any law enforcement or courts on the frontier often resulted in the forming of "vigilance committees" in individual communities and mining camps who declared themselves to be authorized to dispense summary justice to malefactors. The frontier hanging of someone found in illegal possession of someone else's cattle or horses is a classic example of vigilante justice. It was thought at the time that because stealing horses or cows was a hanging offense anyway, if a rustler was found in possession of stolen livestock by the owners, there was no point in dragging things out for months until a circuit judge happened by. The costs of incarcerating rustlers were considered to be far too high to justify not hanging the obviously guilty party right then and there. Of course, this reasoning was all too often misused by cattle barons to lynch innocent "sodbusters" or sheepherders for "stealing" their land and/or forage.

But there is a serious distinction between "vigilante justice" and "vigilance." There's nothing wrong with being vigilant, and there's nothing wrong with reasonable and appropriate self-defense. There's also absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with the private individual "policing" his property or community, so long as the individual abides by the same theoretical requirements that apply to police officers, which is that upon witnessing a crime, one uses reasonable and appropriate force to apprehend (or stop) the lawbreaker and bring that person before a judge, where justice can then be administered in accordance with due process and constitutional constraints.

The basis of this universal right to enforce the law is found in the way in which power flows here in the US. All power belongs to the people, who are governed only by their consent, and who may, at their discretion, grant certain powers to "the government" in order to secure the benefits of liberty. But these grants originate in the people, not from the government, and not only can those grants be revoked at will by the People, the People reserve the right to exercise those powers themselves when they deem necessary. This is particularly true of law enforcement because when the Constitution was written, peace and order in a community were primarily preserved by the people themselves, not by a paid law enforcement agency, and therefore the citizenry had both the right and the duty to act in defense of the community and it's individual members in the face of crime or disorder.

Americans did not abdicate their inherent right to keep the peace in their communities by granting the government authority to act on their behalf, and therefore in the absence of an official law enforcement officer, any citizen has the right to prevent, obstruct or foil the commission of a crime and the power to take one who has committed a crime in his presence into custody, using all reasonable and appropriate physical force, provided that the accused be placed in the custody of the police or physically brought before a judge in a reasonable manner.

So, in this discussion I'd appreciate if if you could keep the distinction between "vigilante justice" or "self-help justice" and both self-defense and law enforcement by citizens firmly in mind. This I think will dispense with a good deal of otherwise useless rhetoric.

[Blind groper]

What do you think of false individual justice? It has been said, and I think correctly, that most murders are carried out with the perpetrator believing he is in the right. So you get cases like road rage, in which after a car accident, one person kills another in the firm personal belief that the other person deserves death.

A big advantage of state conducted justice is that there are clear cut standards, which are inflexible. You do not get someone inflicting serious punishment on someone else for subjective and arbitrary judgements.

Another thing is the consequence of vendetta. In many cultures, an individual act leads to a stronger retribution, which leads to an even more serious act, and so on. The old story of "my grandfather had his donkey stolen by your grandfather, so I am killing you now." That sort of escalation of retribution cannot happen with the state delivering justice according to clear cut rules.

[pErvinalia]

The following is quoted from Dr. Michael Shermer's book "The Moral Arc." Anyone care to comment?

"In the long history of civilisation, self-help justice conducted by individuals has been replaced with criminal justice conducted by the state. The former leads to higher rates of violence than the latter, due to the lack of objective third party to oversee the process. States, for all their faults, have more checks and balances than individuals. That is why Justicia - the Roman goddess of justice - is often depicted wearing a blindfold, symbolising blind justice and impartiality; in her left hand she carries a scale on which to weigh the evidence, a symbol for a balanced outcome, and in her right hand she wields the double-edged sword of reason and justice, symbolising her power to enforce the law."

Yeah, I'd more or less agree with that, while ever the state is open and accountable. Increasingly our western states are growing less open and less accountable (i.e. moving towards a fascistic position), so it's a worrying point in time at present.

[pErvinalia]

Justice is always best served by allowing due process

That's not what you've said in recent threads. You've advocated only a short (like a week or thereabouts) process to appeal, then electrocute the death row fuckers. More changing of your story to suit your particular argument.

[Seth]

What do you think of false individual justice? It has been said, and I think correctly, that most murders are carried out with the perpetrator believing he is in the right. So you get cases like road rage, in which after a car accident, one person kills another in the firm personal belief that the other person deserves death.

A crime is a crime. That's what judges and juries are for. A recent example was the man who accidentally killed a two year old child who ran out into the street, by all appearances an unavoidable accident. He waited as he was required to do and was shot to death by someone from the home adjacent. That's not self-defense, that's murder.

A big advantage of state conducted justice is that there are clear cut standards, which are inflexible. You do not get someone inflicting serious punishment on someone else for subjective and arbitrary judgements.

I agree.

Another thing is the consequence of vendetta. In many cultures, an individual act leads to a stronger retribution, which leads to an even more serious act, and so on. The old story of "my grandfather had his donkey stolen by your grandfather, so I am killing you now." That sort of escalation of retribution cannot happen with the state delivering justice according to clear cut rules.

Yes and no. In cultures where ancestral guilt is part of the social structure, even the courts cannot assuage the anger of the family and the feud continues generation after generation. That's why I eschew ancestral guilt (blood libel) in every form and firmly believe that once the principles to the dispute are dead, no one has cause to raise the dispute again against others with no involvement other than the happenstance of relation.

But courts do help to reduce the urge for self-justice in cultures where courts are strong, fair, and just. Where courts are weak, corrupt and unjust, then sometimes resort to self-justice becomes the only avenue of redress for the aggrieved, and as you suggest, things easily spiral out of control. Which is a good reason to make sure courts dispense true justice.

[Seth]

The following is quoted from Dr. Michael Shermer's book "The Moral Arc." Anyone care to comment?

"In the long history of civilisation, self-help justice conducted by individuals has been replaced with criminal justice conducted by the state. The former leads to higher rates of violence than the latter, due to the lack of objective third party to oversee the process. States, for all their faults, have more checks and balances than individuals. That is why Justicia - the Roman goddess of justice - is often depicted wearing a blindfold, symbolising blind justice and impartiality; in her left hand she carries a scale on which to weigh the evidence, a symbol for a balanced outcome, and in her right hand she wields the double-edged sword of reason and justice, symbolising her power to enforce the law."

Yeah, I'd more or less agree with that, while ever the state is open and accountable. Increasingly our western states are growing less open and less accountable (i.e. moving towards a fascistic position), so it's a worrying point in time at present.

I agree with this point as well. One of the artifacts we are facing here is the rise of the Progressive regulatory state in which Congress becomes increasingly irrelevant and laws are made and enforced by unelected bureaucrats, like the EPA and the INS, who make things up as they go.

[Seth]

Justice is always best served by allowing due process

That's not what you've said in recent threads. You've advocated only a short (like a week or thereabouts) process to appeal, then electrocute the death row fuckers. More changing of your story to suit your particular argument.

Different thread, different argument. Here we're discussing self-justice versus state justice. That doesn't mean that due process cannot be served in a timely manner, for justice delayed is justice denied, either way.

[pErvinalia]

The following is quoted from Dr. Michael Shermer's book "The Moral Arc." Anyone care to comment?

"In the long history of civilisation, self-help justice conducted by individuals has been replaced with criminal justice conducted by the state. The former leads to higher rates of violence than the latter, due to the lack of objective third party to oversee the process. States, for all their faults, have more checks and balances than individuals. That is why Justicia - the Roman goddess of justice - is often depicted wearing a blindfold, symbolising blind justice and impartiality; in her left hand she carries a scale on which to weigh the evidence, a symbol for a balanced outcome, and in her right hand she wields the double-edged sword of reason and justice, symbolising her power to enforce the law."

Yeah, I'd more or less agree with that, while ever the state is open and accountable. Increasingly our western states are growing less open and less accountable (i.e. moving towards a fascistic position), so it's a worrying point in time at present.

I agree with this point as well. One of the artifacts we are facing here is the rise of the Progressive regulatory state in which Congress becomes increasingly irrelevant and laws are made and enforced by unelected bureaucrats, like the EPA and the INS, who make things up as they go.

You seem to have entirely missed the reality that we live in corporatocracies. Regulations are regularly being written by those who they are supposed to be constrained via regulation.

[pErvinalia]

Justice is always best served by allowing due process

That's not what you've said in recent threads. You've advocated only a short (like a week or thereabouts) process to appeal, then electrocute the death row fuckers. More changing of your story to suit your particular argument.

Different thread, different argument. Here we're discussing self-justice versus state justice. That doesn't mean that due process cannot be served in a timely manner, for justice delayed is justice denied, either way.

A matter of weeks concerning appeal against a death sentence isn't "due process".

[Seth]

Justice is always best served by allowing due process

That's not what you've said in recent threads. You've advocated only a short (like a week or thereabouts) process to appeal, then electrocute the death row fuckers. More changing of your story to suit your particular argument.

Different thread, different argument. Here we're discussing self-justice versus state justice. That doesn't mean that due process cannot be served in a timely manner, for justice delayed is justice denied, either way.

A matter of weeks concerning appeal against a death sentence isn't "due process".

Why not? If there are errors in the trial, they should be brought out during the trial, and there is no legitimate reason why filing an appeal should take more than 48 hours or more than a week or two to hold another trial on the appeal's merits before another jury of the defendant's peers. If the appeal is rejected by the second jury, then the sentence is executed or imposed immediately, and no further appeals are allowed. If the appeal is upheld, then the jury decides if the defendant is entitled to a new trial or whether the evidence supports a claim of prosecutorial or judicial misconduct. In the case of prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant should be deemed not guilty and the charges dismissed with prejudice. Further, if prosecutorial fraud is shown to exist by a preponderance of the evidence (such as withheld exculpatory evidence) then a trial for the prosecutor and all persons associated with the case is held immediately, and if convicted, the prosecutor and his team are sentenced to the same sentence they recommended for the defendant, with no right of appeal.

That is how you keep prosecutors honest and trials fair.

[pErvinalia]

Justice is always best served by allowing due process

That's not what you've said in recent threads. You've advocated only a short (like a week or thereabouts) process to appeal, then electrocute the death row fuckers. More changing of your story to suit your particular argument.

Different thread, different argument. Here we're discussing self-justice versus state justice. That doesn't mean that due process cannot be served in a timely manner, for justice delayed is justice denied, either way.

A matter of weeks concerning appeal against a death sentence isn't "due process".

Why not? If there are errors in the trial, they should be brought out during the trial, and there is no legitimate reason why filing an appeal should take more than 48 hours or more than a week or two

I can think of plenty of reasons. Most notably, going through the documents of the previous trial (and precedent trials before that) and identifying where procedure might not have been correctly met. A long trial is going to generate a staggering amount of documents.

to hold another trial on the appeal's merits before another jury of the defendant's peers. If the appeal is rejected by the second jury, then the sentence is executed or imposed immediately, and no further appeals are allowed. If the appeal is upheld, then the jury decides if the defendant is entitled to a new trial or whether the evidence supports a claim of prosecutorial or judicial misconduct. In the case of prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant should be deemed not guilty and the charges dismissed with prejudice. Further, if prosecutorial fraud is shown to exist by a preponderance of the evidence (such as withheld exculpatory evidence) then a trial for the prosecutor and all persons associated with the case is held immediately, and if convicted, the prosecutor and his team are sentenced to the same sentence they recommended for the defendant, with no right of appeal.

That is how you keep prosecutors honest and trials fair.

The problem with this is that you will be executing a lot of innocent people, plain and simple. Even with the laborious trials process we have now, there are still too many false positives in the system. Shortening the appeals process to basically "fuck all" is only going to make that problem worse.

But conservatives like you don't care about facts. You need to satisfy your fear gland and kill people you've prejudged as guilty.

[Seth]

Justice is always best served by allowing due process

That's not what you've said in recent threads. You've advocated only a short (like a week or thereabouts) process to appeal, then electrocute the death row fuckers. More changing of your story to suit your particular argument.

Different thread, different argument. Here we're discussing self-justice versus state justice. That doesn't mean that due process cannot be served in a timely manner, for justice delayed is justice denied, either way.

A matter of weeks concerning appeal against a death sentence isn't "due process".

Why not? If there are errors in the trial, they should be brought out during the trial, and there is no legitimate reason why filing an appeal should take more than 48 hours or more than a week or two

I can think of plenty of reasons. Most notably, going through the documents of the previous trial (and precedent trials before that) and identifying where procedure might not have been correctly met. A long trial is going to generate a staggering amount of documents.

That's exactly what needs to be avoided. We pay lawyers a lot of money to do their jobs. They should do them, which means making note of irregularities in a trial at the time the trial is being held. The trick to making it work is to simplify the procedures so that any mistake becomes obvious at the time and the judge can declare a mistrial, rather than giving some law student a decade to sift through every court case ever held in an attempt to find something amiss. The defendant is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial, otherwise the entire system grinds to a halt, very much like what it is doing right now, here in Colorado, where it's take more than two years to empanel a jury in the Aurora theater shooting, a trial that should have been held within two weeks of the crime with a jury picked at random from the community and seated immediately. It's costing millions of dollars to "build a case" against someone that nobody, including the defendant's lawyers, denies committed the murders.

It's all about "insanity" now. What needed to happen was he needed to be tried immediately, and if found guilty, then, and only then could the potential of insanity as a mitigation factor in the sentencing be considered, which can take as long as it takes while he cools his heels in prison while the judge and the lawyers haggle about how long he should stay there.

He either did the crime or he did not do the crime, and in this case there is absolutely no doubt he did the crime, as they pretty much caught him with a smoking gun. He should be tried for that without any delay at all.

The same is true of most cases. If the police can't present a case the prosecutor thinks has a reasonable probability of conviction with a thorough crime scene investigation within a couple of weeks, then the defendant shouldn't even be arrested. The police can take as long as they need to build a good case, or exonerate the suspect with exculpatory evidence, in which no case is ever filed against that suspect. But once they submit the case to the prosecutor the clock should start ticking and the trial held within a few weeks, or maybe a month, while the evidence is fresh. If the police screw it up, then he's acquitted and they are done. Period.

Likewise, if he's convicted, absent some prosecutorial or police misconduct, which puts the police and prosecutors at risk of being sentenced to the same sentence sought against the defendant...whenever such malfeasance is discovered, he gets a few weeks to file an appeal and argue the merits of his appeal before another jury. And then he lives or dies with the result.

The key is to keep the prosecutors and cops honest and forthright by making them personally liable for prison time if they deliberately perpetrate a miscarriage of justice, even if that malfeasance is not discovered until many years later, perhaps even after the defendant is dead.

No police officer or prosecutor should fear being indicted so long as they are completely honest and obedient to the law and their duties at the time. If they are scrupulous in giving the defendant a fair trial, and they are scrupulous about providing the defense with ALL the evidence collected, inculpatory and exculpatory, then they have nothing to fear.

But let either or both conceal evidence or do something else deliberately to convict the defendant even if he is actually guilty then they go to prison too...perhaps in the same cell.

With streamlining and checks and balances that ensure a fair trial, there's no reason for years-long delays in trying people.

[pErvinalia]

Justice is always best served by allowing due process

That's not what you've said in recent threads. You've advocated only a short (like a week or thereabouts) process to appeal, then electrocute the death row fuckers. More changing of your story to suit your particular argument.

Different thread, different argument. Here we're discussing self-justice versus state justice. That doesn't mean that due process cannot be served in a timely manner, for justice delayed is justice denied, either way.

A matter of weeks concerning appeal against a death sentence isn't "due process".

Why not? If there are errors in the trial, they should be brought out during the trial, and there is no legitimate reason why filing an appeal should take more than 48 hours or more than a week or two

I can think of plenty of reasons. Most notably, going through the documents of the previous trial (and precedent trials before that) and identifying where procedure might not have been correctly met. A long trial is going to generate a staggering amount of documents.

That's exactly what needs to be avoided.

Oh ok. Even if it means killing more innocent people. Didn't read the rest of your nonsense.

I mean, ffs, you really have no understanding of the most basic concepts. How the fuck is "due process" going to be served by cutting back on the transparency and record keeping of a trial?!? Fuck it, you are going on ignore. I've had about as much of your stupid as I can take. First time in my life I've ever needed to put someone on ignore. Good riddance.