-[ Quoting David Martorana , to Dennis Menard ]-
 DM> Read through your many "paragraph-to-question"s on the
 DM> sprawling subject of punishment notions ("ethics" would
 DM> confuse the issue). Would it be hard for you to accept
 DM> that most people just want problems to go away (motives less
 DM> noble). That is why we employ institutions supposedly trained
 DM> and skilled in such areas. Naturally, things seem ner' so
 DM> simple...!
It is not at all difficult for me to accept what you propose, David.  It is
just that I feel compelled to ask what constitutes "justice" and to draw
some distinction, between it and a combination of expediency, practicality,
and economics.  I don't think the two are interchangeable concepts.
 DM> What we call justice on the surface is largely overridden just
 DM> beneath it, by a "greater" desire to be rid of problems that
 DM> might effect us. This "doublespeak"  (even doublethink) allows
 DM> a society to veil itself in high-minded public concerns, while
 DM> getting on with the actual business of a more perceived safe-
 DM> comfortable everyday life. There be always the reason and the
 DM> REASONS.
I agree.  However, as this is the "philosophy" echo, I rather thought it
might be appropriate to draw such distinctions here and really seek a "more
singlespeaking and singlethinking" view of "justice."  In my opinion, I
suspect that "justice" is (or should be) somewhat removed from desire, even
if that desire reflects the general attitude of the public (ie, the general
desire of a local public can/has resulted in lynchings).
 DM> A population disturbed ENOUGH with crime will find a way to
 DM> address it that is emotionally satisfying. Whether it be at
 DM> state, local collective (vigilante) or personal levels. Public
 DM> opinion will eventually win out so it is up to the state to rid
 DM> the environment of crime that disturbs people in a "QUIET"
 DM> effective way. Public opinion, unless temporarily diverted by
 DM> rhetoric, just wants the problems to "go way". If they don't
 DM> go away, those perceived to be the source grow to become a
 DM> population wide acceptable target.
I agree with everything you have said here.  Still, what I am asking is: "Is
this what we call "justice" or is this what we call "expediency"?  If we're
going to filter "justice" through expedience, practicality and economics, do
you not feel it would be more appropriate to use those terms directly - and
seek to justify "their" use - rather than, pervert the meaning of "justice"?
You know, "justice" (ie, what's fair and right and equable, etc.)?
 DM> At the state level some semblance of justice is attempted. If it
 DM> was up to the man on the street, we would go back to Western
 DM> justice-- a quick trial for murder with a hangin in the back yard.
 DM> If you cannot hang them, the next best is to MAKE THEM DISAPPEAR
 DM> (as is presently growing popular).
Given a choice between evils, the lesser one's always preferable, I guess;
so, why are we afraid to say "to hell with justice," give us expediency and
practical results and an affordable bottom line?  Would the public object?
If they would, why would they?  If they wouldn't, where's the problem?
 DM> If the symptoms can be made to vanish, most are satisfied.
 DM> If the public had their way, releasing inmates would be more
 DM> rare. Like feeding the thousands that die every night from
 DM> starvation, the public is only interested in the causes of crime
 DM> if handled quietly and cheap. The world hunger plague is handled
 DM> "most quiet" ....not even mentioned in the news media (hardly)!
:)  I hate to keep harping on this, David; can we consider that "public
satisfaction" is an appropriate measure of "justice"?  Public satisfaction
might demand public lynchings, or, a firing squad in the town square; will
we call this "justice"?
 DB> I am not arguing that execution reduced the murder rate among the
 DB> general public in any detectable fashion. I say that it reduced
 DB> the rate of *murder among the prison population*, which has had a
 DB> salutatory effect on the death rate for guards.
 DM> Its a matter of practicality, execution would be the least
 DM> costly if the appeals process was not so expensively dragged
 DM> out...
You are actually responding to Day Brown here, David.  However, I don't
question the practicality here; or the issue of cost.  Although, I 
question whether this is how we define "justice" or not?
 DM> In history's years of penal experience, not much seems to have
 DM> been more effective than jailing or execution with the latter
 DM> most effective. Other methods would only be considered if they
 DM> were cheap and proven effective. No one trusts any other methods-
 DM> (would appreciate a list of them ???). From what I read, most
 DM> inmates follow criminal patterns and are pretty immune to "other
 DM> methods". Like with dugs, 90% return to the habit after very
 DM> expensive rehab! I think we have to live with a +/- 5%
 DM> criminality factor (regardless of what is done).
All good points.  Shall we then, redefine the term "justice," or simply
be honest with ourselves, and admit "justice" is of secondary importance to
us and that our primary concerns are expedience, practicality, economics?
Then, we can also stop wasting our time and energies, telling other nations
they'd better clean up their human rights act if they expect any truck with
us ... etc.  It would make life easier for everyone, wouldn't it?  :-)
 DM> You know it is *not*  that simple!!!! but, Yes, I believe that is
 DM> historically true from the earliest records...the rich a bit more
 DM> equal under the law than the poor. Our society accepts that as
 DM> natural. Rven when guilt heavy, Money attracts the best legal
 DM> defence.
Now that we know what our primary "real" concerns are, David, surely we can
dispense with such notions as "equality under the law."  Now, being honest,
we can say, "Societal forgiveness can be bought; you can't pay, you swing."
This greatly simplifies such thorny issues as innocence vs guilt, no?  :)
 DM> It is not possible to manage such an effort, even if funded.
 DM> America tried it with some best efforts and only succeeded in
 DM> producing more criminals and dilemmas. There comes a time when
 DM> one must realize that either the resources are expended at the
 DM> wrong end of the problem or the problem cannot be solved by
 DM> resources thrown at it .....or, most likely, we are not smart
 DM> enough or willing enough to pull it off. There are SO many things
 DM> in this world that WOULD-BE-NICE, IF! .....if profitable in terms
 DM> of the prime human motivator .....the GREED instinct buried in
 DM> our genes like sex!
The "have-nots" look toward the "haves" and say: "I have nothing; you have
everything; I want what you have!!"  When the "have-nots" look toward other
"have-nots," what do they say?  Perhaps 1 of 2 possibilities: 1) "If I can
HAVE nothing, maybe I can BE somebody in MY circle by crushing you!" or, 2)
"Let's ally ourselves against the "haves!"
I suggest that disparity promotes greed, by both sides (ie, desire of the
"haves" to distance themselves from the level of the "have-nots," while the
"have-nots" desire to approach the level of the "haves."  And, by providing
inequable opportunities, those "have-nots" seem almost biblical, thus ...
For they have sown the wind (disparity) and they shall reap the whirlwind:
it hath no stalk; the bud shall yield no meal (discontent, despair and the
products thereof ): ...
Now, who has done the sowing?  And who is doing the reaping?  None of the
conditions I've mentioned happen by accident or "just because," David.  :(
Increase the disparity (ie, sow more wind) and what will happen?
Just my opinion, of course.  :)
 DMe> Can the U.S. conceive of itself WITHOUT capital punishment?
 DM> NO!
 DMe> Does it want to?
 DM> NO!
Succinct.  Capitalized.  Emphasized.  Categorical.
Ah!  Necessity is said to provide innovation (ie, paraphrasing).  IF, of
course, no necessity is seen ... then the solutions one employs will be of
the simplistic, non-innovative, typical sort (ie, ineffective?).  But, you
know, necessity has a way of manifesting itself over and over and over -
until someone stops long enough to listen.
 DB> If I have to kill one of them to prevent a hundred guards and
 DB> non-violent prisoners from being killed, who is to say that it
 DB> is not worth it?
 DM> yes! the reality of practical truth is
 DM> appreciated even when not "good sounding"!
You are responding to Day here, David.  However, so long as one does not
confuse this exercise for "justice," I have no quarrel with it.
 DM> I believe there are overwhelmingly far more errors made that
 DM> set the guilty free..... Questions
David, you can only count what is countable.  How many criminals have been
deterred by the thought of prison (or even the threat of the death penalty)
is not only unknown, but unknowable.  But, for every single individual that
has been put to death or that has been imprisoned, you can count 1 failure
for the effectiveness of that threat as a deterrent to crime.  And as these
figures climb, it is a measure of a society's failures, not successes.
Further, it is both unknown and unknowable how many guilty people may have
been freed but the number of innocent people discovered to have been wrong-
fully convicted and imprisoned (sometimes executed) is growing.  Every one
of those numbers represents an innocent destroyed, not by some nasty person
plagued by his own demons, but by a righteous society seeking vengeance.
 DM> The USA has the unique problem of having a minority generated
 DM> crime problem and too many lawyers to defend them ......and
 DM> all this within a growing Romanish media game atmosphere-
 DM> ....to say nothing of a mixed in complex drug problem!
Perhaps the problem is not so much with the lawyers as with the laws they
are constrained to uphold, defend, work by.  No judicial system is perfect,
but attacking the practitioners of a system won't change that system, any
more than treating the symptoms of a disease will address its causes.
 DM> .......a good recipe to bake this cake is
 DM> hard to come by...........yes?
Yes.  A good recipe is hard to come by.  If "justice" is not what we want,
David, then let us not pretend that "our" society's any more concerned with
issues of human rights than any other nation ruled by a tinpot dictator.
--
... Earth is 98% full ... Please delete anyone you can.
-=- Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- SLMAIL v4.5a  (#0185)
---------------