So long, PIPA... stocking.. something. Long live the internets

Tossrock

Ubik wrote:

Tossrock wrote:

well I wasn't arguing but I'd say the first one, unless it can be conclusively proven that retribution has a positive effect on recidivism rates

this is interesting to me, i'm not trying to be patronizing or anything but i would really like your thoughts on why you think this

like the only thing that matters is the impact on the criminal's future behavior? shouldn't he have to answer for the things he's already done in the past?

does retribution imply punishment not proportional to the crime?

what about other areas of the law? civil law and damages is all about retribution for acts that have been committed in the past

Well, the question is, what does 'answer for' mean? And what is the purpose of a justice system? To me, it should be to reduce incidence unethical behavior. I personally don't see retribution as aiding this, although I guess with evidence I could be convinced.

In civil cases, where you've deprived someone of material value, reversing that is fine, but I don't see that as retribution. The problem is in valuing things which cannot logically be valued; ie, can I be awarded 10 million dollars for emotional damages? What about employer negligence leading to the loss of a limb? It's difficult to say, but again, I don't see that as retribution, I see that as restitution. Retribution would be cutting off your employer's limb.

So no, I don't think retribution has a place in the justice system. But again, it comes down to problems of definition and evidence.

Dead Legend

Edcrab wrote:

Liiya wrote:

Edcrab wrote:

Liiya wrote:

JoeUser wrote:

OK, apparently Australia is full. Moon penal colony?

Pfft there's loads of land in the middle bit!

Right but the outskirts are filled with freakish duck-faced venomous mammals

Called Australians

Ed its not the 1800s anymore, we can't call them that.

And I'm sure the Scots hate being called crazy whisky-swilling mountain men! I'm too set in my ways to change!!

you can always call me a crazy whisky-swilling mountain man

Depressperado

there was no bait there

you were strolling right into that trap just yelling GEE I SURE HOPE THERE'S NO HUNTERS OUT HERE, TRYING TO GET ME TO ARGUE SOME DUMB SHIT WITH THEM

Langly

i am posting so tossrock isn't lost to time

Garlic Bread

Depressperado how'd your shower go

Ubik

who should be punished more (if at all)?

a teenager shoplifting a candy bar
or
a wall street banker embezzling thousands from clients

Tossrock

Langly wrote:

i am posting so tossrock isn't lost to time

where did my post go

Depressperado

Keith wrote:

Depressperado how'd your shower go

crazy bananas

the water temp just could not settle the fuck down

Langly

Tossrock wrote: »

Ubik wrote:

Tossrock wrote:

well I wasn't arguing but I'd say the first one, unless it can be conclusively proven that retribution has a positive effect on recidivism rates

this is interesting to me, i'm not trying to be patronizing or anything but i would really like your thoughts on why you think this

like the only thing that matters is the impact on the criminal's future behavior? shouldn't he have to answer for the things he's already done in the past?

does retribution imply punishment not proportional to the crime?

what about other areas of the law? civil law and damages is all about retribution for acts that have been committed in the past

Well, the question is, what does 'answer for' mean? And what is the purpose of a justice system? To me, it should be to reduce incidence unethical behavior. I personally don't see retribution as aiding this, although I guess with evidence I could be convinced.

In civil cases, where you've deprived someone of material value, reversing that is fine, but I don't see that as retribution. The problem is in valuing things which cannot logically be valued; ie, can I be awarded 10 million dollars for emotional damages? What about employer negligence leading to the loss of a limb? It's difficult to say, but again, I don't see that as retribution, I see that as restitution. Retribution would be cutting off your employer's limb.

So no, I don't think retribution has a place in the justice system. But again, it comes down to problems of definition and evidence.

But often in those sorts of cases, fines will also be levied that is not for the person/plaintiff

Garlic Bread

Depressperado wrote:

Keith wrote:

Depressperado how'd your shower go

crazy bananas

the water temp just could not settle the fuck down

was there anything else that couldn't settle down??

neville

It's ok.
Nobody can take on my bold accusations of a likeness to Nazi Germany.
But the world will know.
Oh yes.
The world will know.

Liiya

Keith you are like the living embodiment of a bloody Carry On film.

Garlic Bread

Liiya wrote:

Keith you are like the living embodiment of a bloody Carry On film.

I don't know what this means, Liiya

Liiya

Keith wrote:

Liiya wrote:

Keith you are like the living embodiment of a bloody Carry On film.

I don't know what this means, Liiya

You are bursting to the seams with double entendres.

Langly

hahahah fuck

Zen Vulgarity

Keith only understands Penis

Garlic Bread

Liiya wrote:

Keith wrote:

Liiya wrote:

Keith you are like the living embodiment of a bloody Carry On film.

I don't know what this means, Liiya

You are bursting to the seams with double entendres.

That's not the only thing I'm bursting at the seams with

Garlic Bread

I've put on a lot of weight!

FAQ

Liiya wrote: »

Keith wrote:

Liiya wrote:

Keith you are like the living embodiment of a bloody Carry On film.

I don't know what this means, Liiya

You are bursting to the seams with double entendres.

incoming

Depressperado

Keith wrote:

Depressperado wrote:

Keith wrote:

Depressperado how'd your shower go

crazy bananas

the water temp just could not settle the fuck down

was there anything else that couldn't settle down??

my



weiner

Fyndir

Keith wrote:

Liiya wrote:

Keith you are like the living embodiment of a bloody Carry On film.

I don't know what this means, Liiya

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HLatYsE-78

Depressperado

hahahaha oh man when i was looking for that picture I found this

Tossrock

Langly wrote:

Tossrock wrote: »

Ubik wrote:

Tossrock wrote:

well I wasn't arguing but I'd say the first one, unless it can be conclusively proven that retribution has a positive effect on recidivism rates

this is interesting to me, i'm not trying to be patronizing or anything but i would really like your thoughts on why you think this

like the only thing that matters is the impact on the criminal's future behavior? shouldn't he have to answer for the things he's already done in the past?

does retribution imply punishment not proportional to the crime?

what about other areas of the law? civil law and damages is all about retribution for acts that have been committed in the past

Well, the question is, what does 'answer for' mean? And what is the purpose of a justice system? To me, it should be to reduce incidence unethical behavior. I personally don't see retribution as aiding this, although I guess with evidence I could be convinced.

In civil cases, where you've deprived someone of material value, reversing that is fine, but I don't see that as retribution. The problem is in valuing things which cannot logically be valued; ie, can I be awarded 10 million dollars for emotional damages? What about employer negligence leading to the loss of a limb? It's difficult to say, but again, I don't see that as retribution, I see that as restitution. Retribution would be cutting off your employer's limb.

So no, I don't think retribution has a place in the justice system. But again, it comes down to problems of definition and evidence.

But often in those sorts of cases, fines will also be levied that is not for the person/plaintiff

First, thank you for saving my post!

To address your point, I'm fine with the concept of owing a debt to society. If an employer fails to do safety regulations and an employee is grievously injured, they've not only failed their employee (who has suffered a material loss) but also society, with whom they've broken contract (ie to provide a safe workplace)

Liiya

I almost put "innuendo" but that was too obvious even I could see the response.

Depressperado

innuendo? more like in my end oh

Zen Vulgarity

in keith's end oh

Garlic Bread

Guys I'm a real person

Depressperado

you're just a tiny sexy homunculus

Homo-culus

Ho-moan-culus

Buttlord

Keith wrote:

Guys I'm a real person

Nah

Ubik

Tossrock wrote:

Langly wrote:

Tossrock wrote: »

Ubik wrote:

Tossrock wrote:

well I wasn't arguing but I'd say the first one, unless it can be conclusively proven that retribution has a positive effect on recidivism rates

this is interesting to me, i'm not trying to be patronizing or anything but i would really like your thoughts on why you think this

like the only thing that matters is the impact on the criminal's future behavior? shouldn't he have to answer for the things he's already done in the past?

does retribution imply punishment not proportional to the crime?

what about other areas of the law? civil law and damages is all about retribution for acts that have been committed in the past

Well, the question is, what does 'answer for' mean? And what is the purpose of a justice system? To me, it should be to reduce incidence unethical behavior. I personally don't see retribution as aiding this, although I guess with evidence I could be convinced.

In civil cases, where you've deprived someone of material value, reversing that is fine, but I don't see that as retribution. The problem is in valuing things which cannot logically be valued; ie, can I be awarded 10 million dollars for emotional damages? What about employer negligence leading to the loss of a limb? It's difficult to say, but again, I don't see that as retribution, I see that as restitution. Retribution would be cutting off your employer's limb.

So no, I don't think retribution has a place in the justice system. But again, it comes down to problems of definition and evidence.

But often in those sorts of cases, fines will also be levied that is not for the person/plaintiff

First, thank you for saving my post!

To address your point, I'm fine with the concept of owing a debt to society. If an employer fails to do safety regulations and an employee is grievously injured, they've not only failed their employee (who has suffered a material loss) but also society, with whom they've broken contract (ie to provide a safe workplace)

restitution is a form of retributive justice
the amount you are punished (forced to pay) is proportional to the amount of damage you did (wrongdoing)

retribution punishment isn't identical to the crime, it is proportional

of course the justice system should prevent future crimes but it should also redress wrongs
our whole legal system is built around wrongs and redressing them

when you murder someone, you harm society, your debt to society should be greater than someone guilty of petty theft

if you take out retribution, all crimes are treated the same, all criminals get the same treatment and their punishment ends when they are "reformed"

now, i'm in no way saying that the punishments we have now are properly proportional, or that the prison system isn't fucked, or that mitigating circumstances like mental health shouldn't be alter the punishment, or that the current statutory restraints on sentencing doesn't interfere with judicial consideration of all factors

but the severity of the crime and what a criminal did in the past has to be taken into account when formulating their punishment