State versus Individual Justice

[Hermit]

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...

Wasn't a bloke who was condemned to death in 1985 released a couple of months ago, and a woman earlier this week after she finished up on death row in 1989?

And don't give me the "nowadays wrongful convictions cannot happen on account of DNA tests". Wrongful convictions will continue to happen.

[Svartalf]

the accusatory driven trial style of the US, where the idea is to get a conviction rather than get at the truth is inherently conducive to judicial errors.

[laklak]

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.

There's a distinct difference in vigilante justice and self-defense. No individual is allowed to determine that another deserves death, that would be the instigation of force against another which is directly opposed to the first principle of libertarianism. Self-defense is completely different. You have the right to defend yourself by whatever means are necessary, but once the threat is neutralized there is no justification for continued violence. That would be retribution, not self-defense. Retribution, punishment, and compensation are the bailiwick of the courts.

[Seth]

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.

The transparency is not the issue, the time granted to deal with the evidence on appeal is the problem. Shit or get off the pot. Defense attorneys are taught to delay, delay, delay as much as is possible precisely because the longer the evidence sits, the more likely it is to be lost, destroyed or unobtainable.

Yeah, like you're going to be able to keep that resolution...But, as you like, doesn't bother me if you want to stick your head up your ass because you have nothing interesting to say.

[Brian Peacock]

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."

This so-called 'self-help justice' or 'individual justice' is still Justice, so are we really bothered who dishes it out as long as there's a just outcome?

I think the question should really be about what Justice really is, or should be, and not about whether this or that set of circumstances justifies this or that response by this or that person, persons, institution or state.

[Seth]

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...

Wasn't a bloke who was condemned to death in 1985 released a couple of months ago, and a woman earlier this week after she finished up on death row in 1989?

And don't give me the "nowadays wrongful convictions cannot happen on account of DNA tests". Wrongful convictions will continue to happen.

Yes, they will, but that potential cannot be allowed to paralyze the justice system, which then cannot dispense justice to anyone. If one is wrongfully convicted then it is in their interests to bring the challenge as quickly as possible, before witnesses forget and evidence is lost. Most of the people released on DNA evidence were wrongfully convicted through prosecutorial and police misconduct where evidence was not collected, concealed, willfully destroyed or otherwise tampered with deliberately in order to obtain a conviction using a system which places high value on eyewitness identifications, which have subsequently been scientifically proven to be highly UNreliable, often coerced and often flatly false. And most of the defendants involved were black, and were convicted by racists because the prosecutor needed a conviction of someone, it didn't really matter who it was, to keep their record unblemished.

Adding the penalty for deliberate prosecutorial misconduct will help reduce that particular problem, as would not making District Attorney an elected position where the incumbent needs convictions in order to stay in office.

[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."

This so-called 'self-help justice' or 'individual justice' is still Justice, so are we really bothered who dishes it out as long as there's a just outcome?

I think the question should really be about what Justice really is, or should be, and not about whether this or that set of circumstances justifies this or that response by this or that person, persons, institution or state.

That's a very good point. The reason we don't do it that way, or at least shouldn't, is that what is justice to one is not always justice to another, and the potential for manipulating the evidence to justify self-help justice improperly is quite high.

[Hermit]

If one is wrongfully convicted then it is in their interests to bring the challenge as quickly as possible...

Do you think that those who are wrongfully convicted are dragging their heels, taking their time or sleeping on what next to do?

[Brian Peacock]

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."

This so-called 'self-help justice' or 'individual justice' is still Justice, so are we really bothered who dishes it out as long as there's a just outcome?

I think the question should really be about what Justice really is, or should be, and not about whether this or that set of circumstances justifies this or that response by this or that person, persons, institution or state.

That's a very good point. The reason we don't do it that way, or at least shouldn't, is that what is justice to one is not always justice to another, and the potential for manipulating the evidence to justify self-help justice improperly is quite high.

Hmm. Thinking and opinion on this seems rather heavy on Law and rather light on Justice. I suppose this is hardly surprising, as many people across many social traditions view Justice as that which follows from an effective application of laws. And it's fair to say that many people (perhaps most) are satisfied with this, and for the most part it seems to serve it's purpose well - for if the law is administered efficiently and without fear, favour, or falsehood, then, so it goes, Justice is not only done but it is also seen to be done.

Personally I find this view of Justice inadequate in the main, even as it makes for an seemingly effective first principle, because ultimately it makes Justice entirely a function of judicial administration, and we can easily see the limit of that if we consider the possibility that laws and their application can themselves be unjust.

In my opinion, we still need to talk about Justice before we talk about it's scope and who or what can rightfully distribute it, and where, and how, and when.

[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."

This so-called 'self-help justice' or 'individual justice' is still Justice, so are we really bothered who dishes it out as long as there's a just outcome?

I think the question should really be about what Justice really is, or should be, and not about whether this or that set of circumstances justifies this or that response by this or that person, persons, institution or state.

That's a very good point. The reason we don't do it that way, or at least shouldn't, is that what is justice to one is not always justice to another, and the potential for manipulating the evidence to justify self-help justice improperly is quite high.

Hmm. Thinking and opinion on this seems rather heavy on Law and rather light on Justice. I suppose this is hardly surprising, as many people across many social traditions view Justice as that which follows from an effective application of laws. And it's fair to say that many people (perhaps most) are satisfied with this, and for the most part it seems to serve it's purpose well - for if the law is administered efficiently and without fear, favour, or falsehood, then, so it goes, Justice is not only done but it is also seen to be done.

Personally I find this view of Justice inadequate in the main, even as it makes for an seemingly effective first principle, because ultimately it makes Justice entirely a function of judicial administration, and we can easily see the limit of that if we consider the possibility that laws and their application can themselves be unjust.

In my opinion, we still need to talk about Justice before we talk about it's scope and who or what can rightfully distribute it, and where, and how, and when.

Another good point. What is justice? Is "an eye for an eye" just? Is a prison sentence justice for a murderer? Don't have time to say more right now, but I'll check back in later.

[Brian Peacock]

... What is justice? Is "an eye for an eye" just? Is a prison sentence justice for a murderer? Don't have time to say more right now, but I'll check back in later.

In your own time.

[Blind groper]

Couple of points.

First, on self help justice.
The people doling out death because the victim 'deserves' it are more often wrong about the person deserving it. For example : if someone is a drug pusher and murders someone else because the victim is selling drugs on what he considers his turf, is that justice? Obviously not, but the pusher thinks it is. State justice works to firm definitions and is consistent.

On the death penalty.
Shermer quotes a person who has studied this form of state justice. The estimate given is that 10% of those on death row are innocent of the crime they were convicted for. Rather a lot!

Add to that two more facts.
1. Executing someone in the USA costs 250% of the cost of locking them up for life, due to the many legal appeals.
2. There is no proven deterrent effect from executions. Criminals commit murders either in the belief they will not get caught, hence making the penalty irrelevant, or in the heat of passion in which they are not thinking of penalties anyway.

My view is simple. Forget punishment, which is irrelevant and unnecessary, achieving nothing. Simply remove murderers from society so they cannot do any further harm. I would like to see prisons designed with each cell like a small apartment, with exercise room, TV, en suite shower and toilet, and with grills between cells so that criminals can talk to each other but not touch. Give the criminals such luxuries as is reasonable, but leave them locked up for life (or at least till they are too old to reoffend).

I know some people will say that this will cost too much, but in fact, the extra money will be a very small percentage of the total cost of locking them up for life.

[Brian Peacock]

Thinking that we're justified to act according to our own beliefs or emotional responses is different to actually being justified to act in that manner within a social context. IF thinking that we are justified to act in any way we see fit was an adequate and acceptable justification for action then we would be living in a state of anarchy.

[Seth]

Couple of points.

First, on self help justice.
The people doling out death because the victim 'deserves' it are more often wrong about the person deserving it. For example : if someone is a drug pusher and murders someone else because the victim is selling drugs on what he considers his turf, is that justice? Obviously not, but the pusher thinks it is. State justice works to firm definitions and is consistent.

Agreed. Even if we disagree with the fundamental premises of the laws upon which any particular state administers justice, it is useful to have a society-wide definition so that people can know what is proscribed and what is permitted.

On the death penalty.
Shermer quotes a person who has studied this form of state justice. The estimate given is that 10% of those on death row are innocent of the crime they were convicted for. Rather a lot!

I'd be interested to know how many people that 10 percent comprises. In other words, how many people are on death row at any given time.

Add to that two more facts.
1. Executing someone in the USA costs 250% of the cost of locking them up for life, due to the many legal appeals.

Is, or should cost be a factor in dispensing justice? If justice demands a particular punishment, should the cost be considered as a part of the judgment? This works both ways. If the cost of administering justice is too high, then the chances of justice being denied go up because a prosecution may be foregone due to the cost. On the other hand, if the cost of justice is given consideration, it can also lead to injustice because, by way of example, it is far cheaper for China to take criminals out back and shoot them in the head than it is to incarcerate them for any time at all, including for petty crimes.

For these reasons, I feel that the cost of administering justice is a very dangerous premise upon which to base justice.

2. There is no proven deterrent effect from executions. Criminals commit murders either in the belief they will not get caught, hence making the penalty irrelevant, or in the heat of passion in which they are not thinking of penalties anyway.

There is also no proven non-deterrent effect from the death penalty. In other words, it is impossible to quantify the numbers of murders which have NOT been committed because the potential perpetrator was afraid of getting caught and being put to death. This is why that particular argument is something of a fallacy. You assume that criminals either don't believe they will be caught or simply don't care, which in many cases is true. But it's only true for those who actually commit murder. You cannot say that the penalties associated with violating any particular law are not effective in deterring crime generally simply because it may not deter all crime or any specific crime. Obviously laws have deterrent effect, else we would not have them. So it is therefore true that the threat of the death penalty being imposed for certain crimes has just as much potential for deterring a crime as any other law, at a minimum. It is of course impossible to quantify what the deterrent effect of any law is because it is impossible to quantify how many people do not commit a particular crime because of the penalty associated with it. The number of people who do commit a crime in spite of or in ignorance of the penalty provides no valid or useful information on the deterrent effects of the penalty because, quite obviously, they are the exceptions to the rule.

The other consideration in the effectiveness of imposing the death penalty is that it is a one-hundred percent absolute and perfect cure against recidivism of any kind by that particular criminal.

My view is simple. Forget punishment, which is irrelevant and unnecessary, achieving nothing. Simply remove murderers from society so they cannot do any further harm. I would like to see prisons designed with each cell like a small apartment, with exercise room, TV, en suite shower and toilet, and with grills between cells so that criminals can talk to each other but not touch. Give the criminals such luxuries as is reasonable, but leave them locked up for life (or at least till they are too old to reoffend).

And how do you insure, absolutely, that any particular criminal will never escape or be released? You should understand that there are cases where the individual indisputably murdered another but manages to either escape or, worse, get released because of some technical error in the process of administering justice. This happens from time to time for a variety of reasons, including changing social mores. Mumia Abu Jamal, the cop killer, has been playing the system for years by trying to enlist supporters in a campaign to get him released by claiming that he was unjustly convicted and/or that he has become a "different person" during his years in prison and is no longer a threat to anyone. But writing a book or learning to speak eruditely does not cause the events that got him convicted to disappear. A respected police officer was murdered by Jamal, and he doesn't get to be released from that sentence imposed upon him unilaterally by Jamal, nor does his family get to have him in their lives.

So is it justice for Jamal to manipulate the system and appeal to the ignorant and racist individuals who refuse to believe he was properly and justly convicted and imprisoned? Would it be justice if he was able to convince some judge that he was wronged and get released? Should the opinion of one judge, decades after the crime, control whether or not a killer remains in prison?

Quite frankly, Mumia Abu Jamal is one of the best poster boys for imposition of the death penalty in a timely manner that exists today. Only by executing him will society, and his victims, be absolutely certain he will never be set free.

Since you cannot guarantee that violent criminals like Jamal will never escape or be set free sometime in the future under your plan, to me justice is not therefore served by it.

Sometimes justice demands that the individual forfeit his life for the crimes he has committed.

I know some people will say that this will cost too much, but in fact, the extra money will be a very small percentage of the total cost of locking them up for life.

As I said, cost is not really a consideration in the administration of justice because either way it can easily lead to miscarriages of justice based on economic concerns rather than on matters of justice.

[Blind groper]

Seth

Nothing in this world is perfect. The fact that one in a thousand murderers may escape from prison is no reason to kill them.

Unlike some here, I do not see justice as revenge. I see it as a means of making society safer. To kill a murderer as revenge for the fact that he killed someone is an ignoble and ultimately non constructive motive. However, to take measures to ensure that he, and possibly others, do not cause more killings, is a constructive thing to do.

With respect to that, locking him up and executing him achieve the same end. Locking him up, though, demonstrates a civilised, rather than barbaric approach, and ensures that you are not killing someone innocent.

It is worth noting that even in the USA, executions are getting less and less common. Eventually, with a bit of luck, even the American justice system will move totally in the direction of the more humane and civilised system.

Let me also mention the effect of age on Violent offences. Violent crimes are age and gender affected. By far the greater number of violent crimes are committed by young men, with a peak incidence between 18 and 24 years of age. It is also true that, after age 30, reoffending drops markedly.

So my suggestion is that a first offender for crimes other than murder be treated reasonably leniently, and a restorative justice approach be used. However, after that, the offender be removed from society till he is of an age less likely to reoffend, say 35 years plus. Then he be released under supervision.

If an offender shows he is still repeating those offences, then the second time he gets locked up till he is a candidate for an old folks home.

However, I see no point in 'punishing' him. If he is to be locked up to remove him from society, then make it comfortable, as I described in my earlier post. In fact, a Swedish study showed that prisoners treated better, with more comfortable cells, reoffended less often than those treated harshly.