Retribution

This arose from something me and another member discussed in another thread; however, as it was rather off-topic, it is probably better suited here, in its own thread. So, in the spirit of a similar "retribution vs. rehabilitation" thread posted here long ago, let us begin.

From my understanding of the other member's argument, he argued that when someone commits a crime, he should be punished with the intention of distributing retribution.

I disagree with that; it's nonsensical, and, worst of all, a waste of a perfectly good resource: a human being. Why mindlessly make someone suffer when you could attempt to rehabilitate that person and introduce him back in to the world as a functioning member of society? It's far better than just throwing him away, as I see it, and is a far better use of our efforts than just mindlessly giving them "retribution."

Well, discuss. What is your opinion on retribution versus. rehabilitation?

Well, if a person intentionally killed someone, I think that proves that they seriously aren't right in the head and it would be impossible to teach them to become normal. Anyway, for retribution, while I don't agree with the death penalty, if a person commits a crime as serious as killing someone, they need to be punished. Severely. If they aren't, then they'll probably just do it again. Its their fault for killing someone in the first place. They knew it was the worse crime a human could commit, but they still did it. How can they not be punished? Again, I don't like the death penalty, unless they are like a serial killer or something, but they do need to be put in jail for a very, very long time.

Now, if its a lesser crime, like stealing or something, they still would be punished, but to a lesser extent. Punishment teaches people the error of their ways. It needs to be done. It shows them that they should never do it again. Then, hopefully, they'll become a better person.

How does punishment for a crime equal murder for murder?

While rehabilitation should be the first goal, a criminal should still pay for their crimes and face the consequences of their actions. Punishment helps to keep them in line. The death penalty is too harsh and should be banned, but serving time in jail and/or being forced to do community service are humane punishments.

I'll move this over.

Originally Posted by Andross

There is a huge difference between making a person "go to prison" for rehabilitation and making a person go to prison to "suffer."

And like I said, they don't go to suffer. They go to be isolated from normal functioning society.

The present day prison systems are terrible when it comes to rehabilitation.

Since you like to go on about this, let me ask you. How do you know? Have you been in prison? Do you work in a prison? Have you had extensive involvement with the rehabilitation systems in prisons? Stop going on about it if you don't even know. And no, you don't know just because you've read a couple of articles online.

How do you know where and when to draw the line, especially given the circumstances mentioned (As in quality rehabilitation being near-nonexistant to begin with, as well as people who committed the more "dastardly" crimes, such as murder, not being given a chance at rehabilitation to begin with in present-day society?)

Laws. Laws draw the lines. And I'd like to know what premises you're going on.

"I killed because blood makes me happy."
"I killed because I needed their food and money to support my family."

Stop being so black and white. I'm not saying all crimes are the same. Yes, they all should be punished, and yes, the second man can rehabilitate and re-enter society to hopefully find a way to get by without resorting to murder.

But the bulk of killers/rapiests/ect can't rehabilitate. Thus, death row.

Why not? I'm simply pointing out what is "progressive" and what isn't, and I'd assume you would agree that the more progressive path is what we should be heading down.

Because we don't need to get into political terms. And you may think it's progressive, but society as a whole doesn't. I find it progessive to eliminate the percentage of humans that can't function within ethical and lawful boundaries.

Originally Posted by Halcyon Hero

I'll move this over.

And like I said, they don't go to suffer. They go to be isolated from normal functioning society.




Since you like to go on about this, let me ask you. How do you know? Have you been in prison? Do you work in a prison? Have you had extensive involvement with the rehabilitation systems in prisons? Stop going on about it if you don't even know. And no, you don't know just because you've read a couple of articles online.



Laws. Laws draw the lines. And I'd like to know what premises you're going on.

"I killed because blood makes me happy."
"I killed because I needed their food and money to support my family."

Stop being so black and white. I'm not saying all crimes are the same. Yes, they all should be punished, and yes, the second man can rehabilitate and re-enter society to hopefully find a way to get by without resorting to murder.

But the bulk of killers/rapiests/ect can't rehabilitate. Thus, death row.


Because we don't need to get into political terms. And you may think it's progressive, but society as a whole doesn't. I find it progessive to eliminate the percentage of humans that can't function within ethical and lawful boundaries.

I agree mostly with this, but instead of death, the punisment should just be jail for life.

Rather than responding to the comments already present in this thread (I might do this later) I'm going to instead post a personal message correspondence I had with Flames of Valor which outlines my position fairly clearly.

FoV: Well, I am pretty sure you agree with determinism, so I have a question to ask you if you don't mind.

I was recently asked, if everything is caused by preexisting conditions, then how can we blame people for criminal actions?


Me: We can't.


FoV: Does it excuse criminals and murderers and the like?


Me: Yes.

Hence, I don't agree with retribution.


FoV: So then why wouldn't any behavior be acceptable if it can't be helped?


Me: Because some behaviors are harmful to other individuals, and harmful to the greater collective.


FoV: But if they can't be helped, then how can we rightly or justly punish them?


Me: Punishment is only 'justified' in the case that it is beneficial to the collective and to the individual being punished, however. Essentially, punishment should only be used to rehabilitate, however, I don't believe that punishment is nearly as central to rehabilitation as people tends to make it out to be. Meeting a criminals needs, for example, (Using Maslow's hierarchy as a model for need, not just their immediate needs) seems much more important than instilling a sense of 'justice' through punishment.

Even in the case where the individual needs to understand the difference between socially correct and socially incorrect action, traditional punishment may actually cause them to regress, rather than progress. (See Piaget's scale of cognitive development in relationship to corporal punishment.)

And, if you look at nations where efforts are more focused on rehabilitation rather than justice-driven retribution, crime rates tend to be lower. (Take Sweden or Portugal, for example.)


FoV: Alright, so it is more just to act to the benefit of society, rather than to the sympathy of the determined actions of the criminal, yes? Either way, it's logical to act for the benefit of society. I think I'll ask Lord Zero about how it pertains to justice...


Me: Yes, though the criminal is a member of society, so he must be taken in to account, however, it seems that, in most cases, rehabilitation is beneficial to both the criminal and society as a whole.


FoV: Also, can people take responsibility for their actions?


Me: I suppose it depends on how you define responsibility.


FoV: Of ones own doing, or lack thereof.


Me: I guess not, then. This doesn't seem very relevant, however. 'Responsibility' has always simply seemed like a social buzzword to me.


FoV: So then if it's not of ones own doing, how can we even rehabilitate them?


Me: What a silly question.

If it's our doing rather than their own then rehabilitating them should be easier, as we can simply change what we're doing, no?


FoV: But would it be of anyones doing? Since no one can have responsibility that is. Therefore, how can we place blame on this person for anything or rightfully take action against someone who technically has done nothing wrong purposely?


Me: We can't. No one said anything about doing what is 'rightful' or 'just', just what is most beneficial for society and the individual.


FoV: Okay, so what you are saying is, what is best for society is all that matters, as it is the logical choice, blame and responsibility doesn't really matter?


Me: Partially. Blame and responsibility are illogical concepts in and of themselves.


FoV: You don't think they work to the benefits of society? I'd say they are useful in keeping order.


Me: They work to both the benefit and the detriment of society. These concepts are crutches which we use to keep individuals in line with social norms without dealing with the reason they do not respect these norms. Religion once served a similar purpose. Religion allowed law which was beneficial to the greater majority to become accepted without providing reasoning for said law. At one point, this was appropriate, however, it's very apparent why we would want to move on to a new understanding of law.

The concept of justice is beneficial in comparison, as it strips the church of the ability to exert control over the state, and provides context to the restriction, but still lacks meaningfulness of the consequence of violating the restriction. As religion fed into our natural urge to seek understanding, justice plays into our natural urge to create equality.

The issue is that this eye for an eye mentality breeds more social mistrust and inequality. Rather, we should turn justice on its head. Rather than punish individuals in an equal manner, we should induce the consequence which is most beneficial to society. This may seem entirely strategic, however, it plays into human philosophy as well. We are naturally collectivists, and thus, the 'it takes a village' expression is one which we can instantly relate to. We can also understand determinism now, thus, Justice is really the philosophically depraved option.


FoV: Hmm, I suppose it's a bit odd to get used to the concept, but I suppose I understand, as the benefit of society is logically the best option in most instances, including crime and sentencing.

It's hard to think that people cannot 'be blamed' for their actions. And I am curious as to how this would operate when no laws are being broken, for example in some personal dilemma.

I suppose the other side of responsibility still works, that being duty.

It's just a very odd, and slightly troubling implication of a very logical way of thinking.


Me: It is odd, of course. In the same way that someone transitioning out of a religion would find life odd without religious law. How would you do the right thing without a god and a book dictating what that 'right thing' is?

Similarly, how would people act in a socially respectable manner without some concept, such as responsibility or justice, to motivate us? Surely society would breakdown and pure chaos would ensue when people realize, "Hey, nothing I do is my fault!"


FoV: Do you think this would benefit, or hurt society if taken as what it is?


Me: Luckily, We are hardwired to act in a socially constructive manner, and this is no coincidence. When we put the benefit of the collective before retribution of the individual what is the most logical and beneficial action of the individual is usually one which conforms with the social norms of the collective.

The evolutionary process saw this, and it said, "let there be social beings who use the power of their community to dominate." And it was good. (By the way, don't tell the crazies I'm using their religion to describe evolution. They'll froth at the mouth.)

To say that realizing determinism would cause society to fall to pieces is denying what allowed us to create society in the first place.


FoV: That is true, but do you think it is necessary to embrace this way of thinking in the ethical aspect?


Me: I'm not sure what you mean.


FoV: As in, applying it to how we do things in society, which would replace blame, responsibility (in one sense) and justice.


Me: I don't think it's necessary, just as it's not necessary to democracy or technology, though I do think it would be greatly beneficial.


FoV: In what ways for example?


Me: Crime would drop significantly, and individuals would likely be more productive. This would be another nail in the religion's coffin, where justice is a central aspect of most religious philosophies. The way we treat and think of criminals would improve greatly. (It's no longer their fault exclusively, but ours, so why are we torturing and killing them?) If the common mentality was to think of think of what is best for society, rather than what is most just democracy becomes a more viable option.


FoV: Those seem like things that can be brought about without recognizing determinism though, I mean, rehab exists and it's benefits exist outside of the realization of determinism. I also don't consider justice a part of the religious philosophies, not in regard to logically demonstrable justice. Most of their justice is just, God will with the label justice slapped on it, you know?

Anyway, these things can exist without the acceptance of determinism, is there anything exclusive to determinism that is beneficial and worthy of being pursued?


Me: No. It's just a logical basis which likely leads to focus on rehab, and does not demonize the criminal. It's possible to use justice as a motivator for a system focused on rehabilitation rather than retribution- in other words, an entirely unjust system, though it doesn't follow logically from it.

You could, for example, have a completely Lord Zeroean system where you have a single, omnipotent dictator and a social-democratic system. Zero emphasizes justice through a slave state, and promises rehabilitation and relative freedom. While it is possible, neither of these aspects logically follow from his synthesis. Logically, a dictatorship should reduce freedoms, and a focus on justice should focus the criminal treatment system on retribution.


FoV: Okay, thanks, that's basically what I wanted to know

How dare you share our deeply personal conversations 8bit! jking.

Originally Posted by Halcyon Hero

Since you like to go on about this, let me ask you. How do you know? Have you been in prison? Do you work in a prison? Have you had extensive involvement with the rehabilitation systems in prisons? Stop going on about it if you don't even know. And no, you don't know just because you've read a couple of articles online.

Well then let's just shut down the SD forum buddy, none of us have been to Iraq, we just, 'read a few articles online', don't be so presumptuous.

My position is similar to Andross' make them useful, it's a waste on the tax payer and society to remove them completely from society. Chain Gangs, extremely cheap labor, you name it, there should be gang bangers and cons doing it.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

How dare you share our deeply personal conversations 8bit! jking.

Yeah, I was actually thinking about that just after I posted that. Normally I would ask permission to post any information shared with me in any sort of closed door setting, however, I figured you wouldn't mind.

My position is similar to Andross' make them useful, it's a waste on the tax payer and society to remove them completely from society. Chain Gangs, extremely cheap labor, you name it, there should be gang bangers and cons doing it.

Labor can actually be very beneficial to rehabilitation of the criminal, however, emphasis should not be on getting a pay off for the tax payer. Instead, focus should still be on rehabilitation, and any gains the tax payer makes off of rehabilitary labor is simply a bonus.

Since you like to go on about this, let me ask you. How do you know? Have you been in prison? Do you work in a prison? Have you had extensive involvement with the rehabilitation systems in prisons? Stop going on about it if you don't even know. And no, you don't know just because you've read a couple of articles online.

I've watched every episode of Locked Up on MSNBC, and that episode of 30 Days where the guy spent a month in a prison. ♥♥♥♥ was raw, yo.

Originally Posted by 8bit

Yeah, I was actually thinking about that just after I posted that. Normally I would ask permission to post any information shared with me in any sort of closed door setting, however, I figured you wouldn't mind.

Yeah, it's just politics after all.

Labor can actually be very beneficial to rehabilitation of the criminal, however, emphasis should not be on getting a pay off for the tax payer. Instead, focus should still be on rehabilitation, and any gains the tax payer makes off of rehabilitary labor is simply a bonus.

And if the rehab is successful, it benefits the taxpayer even more.

Originally Posted by Ty

How does punishment for a crime equal murder for murder?

It doesn't, since murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought (intention). Obviously all the elements are there, but unlawful is the key point when it comes to state murder. That's the British common law definition anyway.

Originally Posted by 8bit

No. It's just a logical basis which likely leads to focus on rehab, and does not demonize the criminal. It's possible to use justice as a motivator for a system focused on rehabilitation rather than retribution- in other words, an entirely unjust system, though it doesn't follow logically from it.

You could, for example, have a completely Lord Zeroean system where you have a single, omnipotent dictator and a social-democratic system. Zero emphasizes justice through a slave state, and promises rehabilitation and relative freedom. While it is possible, neither of these aspects logically follow from his synthesis. Logically, a dictatorship should reduce freedoms, and a focus on justice should focus the criminal treatment system on retribution.

I object. A dictatorship is nothing more than a system which is not democratic with a single ruler, and Justice is a concept about "giving each their due", which is only punishment when punishment is one's due (likewise, it is Justice to reward one for going above and beyond the call of his duty). Thus, an authoritarian society governed by the Rule of Law would actually guarantee a degree of protection against the state, for the state could not act without sanction by law which would act as a barrier between citizen and state, a guarantee against illegal activity. And a state with a focus on Justice is not about punishment at all, it is about the five facets of Justice which British courts currently use for sentencing, which I will elaborate upon as my general contribution to this thread. As you should see (since I've explained it to you more than once), this follows perfectly logically.


British courts quite rightly use five principles when sentencing offenders, which are the aims of a court sentence:

1. To punish offenders. As humans, we do attach meaning and value to the actions we take, and as such naturally any action we take to prevent an individual from harming society will take the form of an emotional impact as well as a practical one. This should rarely, if ever (I almost said never but I don't like dealing in absolutes when I haven't contemplated all possible circumstances) be the primary focus of any sentence. The law is not a tool of emotion, and as such lawful punishments should not be fueled by it. As such, punishment is often simply a side-effect of any given sentence.

2. To deter offenders. Not only does this mean to try and deter the offender being sentenced from re-offending and continuing his behaviour, but also to try and deter other offenders by making an example of the offender in question. If we use prison, this is a more solid form of deterrence - taking away their ability to offend to begin with. Naturally this ties in with punishment in that the worse the sentence, the more likely it is to deter others.

3. To protect society. This carries a lot more weight, as this is the consideration of what society needs from the sentence. If the offender is particularly problematic from a social point of view, then society should not have to put up with him. This naturally ties in with the above point, because the more of a deterrence the sentence is, the more society is protected from such offenders in future. This also shows us the usefulness of prisons - if a particularly problematic offender is behind bars, he's not on the streets causing more harm to society. This is where Justice considers not only what the offender deserves, but what society deserves at the same time. This is where Justice flows away from a retributive focus.

4. To reform and rehabilitate offenders. As Andross and 8bit have rightly said, rehabilitation is overall beneficial to society, and it is worth investing in rehabilitative measures in order to turn a problem into a resource, to turn a criminal into a productive member of our society. Our methods are unfortunately imprecise currently, but this is still a consideration of what the offender deserves, what would be Justice in a given case - he may have been malicious, but if we can change him into a productive member of society, take the potential within him and foster it, there's no reason we should not. Likewise he may not have been malicious, his actions simply violated the law because of the position he's been put in socially, and so he does not deserve to be treated as malicious, he should be taught to make the best of what he has. That would be Justice.

5. To make reparations to the victims. Justice not only considers what the offender deserves, but what the victim deserves - there may be a specific victim who had the offence committed against them, or society as a whole may be a victim of their anti-social behaviour. But whatever the crime, we must attempt to restore the victim to the way they were before they were suffering, and give them what they deserve. Unfortunately this isn't always possible, but to the best of our ability we must try, and if we rehabilitate the offender, they might even be able to do it themselves (washing up graffiti, paying for new property that was damaged, having them work off the value of compensation, and so on).


So as you see, Justice considers what each deserves, not just the offender in a particular crime, but all those a crime may directly or indirectly affect. Retribution is not Justice, Vengeance is not Justice, and Morality is not Justice either. Only Justice is Justice, accept no substitutes.

Funnily enough, I've been taking part in a debate that's almost identical to this in nature on another forum.


I think that what the OP is basically asking is, is the "eye for an eye" method right? The answer is a complicated one, in my opinion. On the one hand, the laws state that a criminal must be punished. The question is, should 'punishment' always equal a negative act performed upon said criminal? Basically, is it justified to lessen the quality of life of another Human because of what he or she has done?

On the one hand, I'd say no; many punishments are overly harsh and 'wrong'. But on the other hand, the laws are there as a sanction for societal behaviour; they're there to warn potential criminals of the consequences of such acts of anti-social behaviour (i.e., crime). If they were not enforced, there would be no sanction against crime. So in that respect I would say that such punishments are necessary.

Does that mean I advocate all methods of punishment? Absolutely not. But rehabilitation on it's own may not be enough, unless that rehabilitation is aimed at the individual (the criminal) performing pro-societal acts, for instance, community service. In that case, rehabilitation could act as both reform and repayment for the crime.

However, in some cases rehabilitation can never ratify the crime, and in such extreme cases and crimes punishment is absolutely required. The problem with this entire scenario is that each case must be evaluated and reviewed to discern the course of action required, and all too often there is neither resources nor care (sadly) to perform such actions; there are simply too many cases of crime to sentence each one via an individual case-by-case method. This is fact.

Originally Posted by Stryder Aedernis

On the one hand, the laws state that a criminal must be punished.

Generally laws say something along the lines of "A person found guilty of X shall be liable for a term not exceeding X years", and I've never seen a law that actually uses words specifically relating to a "punishment" rather than "sentence", at least any that are still in force. While it might be dangerous to get caught up in the semantics, here it's very important - retribution means punishment for punishment's sake, and punishment is generally thought of as an act that, were it not state-sanctioned, would otherwise be considered morally wrong to inflict on another. A sentence however is not solely punitive in nature.

Does that mean I advocate all methods of punishment? Absolutely not. But rehabilitation on it's own may not be enough, unless that rehabilitation is aimed at the individual (the criminal) performing pro-societal acts, for instance, community service. In that case, rehabilitation could act as both reform and repayment for the crime.

That's basically points four and five of my post.

However, in some cases rehabilitation can never ratify the crime, and in such extreme cases and crimes punishment is absolutely required. The problem with this entire scenario is that each case must be evaluated and reviewed to discern the course of action required, and all too often there is neither resources nor care (sadly) to perform such actions; there are simply too many cases of crime to sentence each one via an individual case-by-case method. This is fact.

If we are going to deal with each case in a courtroom, there's no reason we shouldn't deal with each case afterwards. There aren't too many cases for our courts, and though there may be too many cases to have a criminal psychologist deal with each inmate on a one-to-one basis, the court is there to determine what kind of sentence would be adequate in a given case. This is what pre-sentence reports are for, a report to present the case to the judge that a particular type of sentence would be best for particular reasons - for example, why it wouldn't be justified to send a man to prison because he has a family that are dependent on him. I actually watched a sentence being given once, we all thought the defendant was almost definitely going to go to jail despite the fact that he had a family, but the fact that the pre-sentence report being given told the judge that he had a family to look after and had held down a decent job for a while that they were dependent on were the only things that saved him from imprisonment.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

Generally laws say something along the lines of "A person found guilty of X shall be liable for a term not exceeding X years", and I've never seen a law that actually uses words specifically relating to a "punishment" rather than "sentence", at least any that are still in force. While it might be dangerous to get caught up in the semantics, here it's very important - retribution means punishment for punishment's sake, and punishment is generally thought of as an act that, were it not state-sanctioned, would otherwise be considered morally wrong to inflict on another. A sentence however is not solely punitive in nature.

Then my apologies for being so vague on the case.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

If we are going to deal with each case in a courtroom, there's no reason we shouldn't deal with each case afterwards. There aren't too many cases for our courts, and though there may be too many cases to have a criminal psychologist deal with each inmate on a one-to-one basis, the court is there to determine what kind of sentence would be adequate in a given case. This is what pre-sentence reports are for, a report to present the case to the judge that a particular type of sentence would be best for particular reasons - for example, why it wouldn't be justified to send a man to prison because he has a family that are dependent on him. I actually watched a sentence being given once, we all thought the defendant was almost definitely going to go to jail despite the fact that he had a family, but the fact that the pre-sentence report being given told the judge that he had a family to look after and had held down a decent job for a while that they were dependent on were the only things that saved him from imprisonment.

While that's certainly an admirable case of sentencing, I think we can safely say that it's not a standard all judges and courts will hold to. It's rather silly to think/hope that every case would be thouroughly reviewed and sentenced as such.

Judges are Human, and are thus biased one way or another. The Human aspect of this process (the judge, jury, etc etc) guarantee that the case itself will be biased one way or another. While I wish this weren't the case, it is, and it means that undoubtedly some cases will be brushed over, read wrong, maybe the judge is in a bad mood; anything can and will impact it. The point I'm making here is, there is no way in the world that each and every case could receive the same treatment, the same standard of review. It's simply not possible to expect or hope for something like that. Each case will be biased, reviewed differently, and sentenced based (indirectly) on that bias.

To ask for the thouroughness in the evaluations of all crimes, everywhere, is somewhat ridiculous. It's an unfortunate fact of life.

(Also, my apologies for the rushed post, I can smell my food burning. )

Originally Posted by Stryder Aedernis

While that's certainly an admirable case of sentencing, I think we can safely say that it's not a standard all judges and courts will hold to. It's rather silly to think/hope that every case would be thouroughly reviewed and sentenced as such.

Every case is thoroughly reviewed and sentenced, and it's practically illegal not to thoroughly review and sentence a case. It's not about the fact that the judge did something admirable, since I couldn't care one way or the other, all I was doing is giving an example of how thoroughly each case has to be reviewed before a sentence is passed.

Judges are Human, and are thus biased one way or another. The Human aspect of this process (the judge, jury, etc etc) guarantee that the case itself will be biased one way or another. While I wish this weren't the case, it is, and it means that undoubtedly some cases will be brushed over, read wrong, maybe the judge is in a bad mood; anything can and will impact it. The point I'm making here is, there is no way in the world that each and every case could receive the same treatment, the same standard of review. It's simply not possible to expect or hope for something like that. Each case will be biased, reviewed differently, and sentenced based (indirectly) on that bias.

The fact that a judge is biased because he's human has little relevance. I mean in a case there's only two stances, the case that the defendant is innocent, or the case that the defendant is guilty. If it were such a blatant case of bias that it actually matters (such as the judge having a vested interest in the case rather than simply having a bad day), or if the law really was read wrong, then the case would more than likely be appealed and/or the judge asked to resign, which is a further example of cases being treated on a case-by-case basis (since we're actually bothering to allow appeals). The fact that there are minimum and maximum sentences, while I'm not a huge fan of them, is another safeguard against a dynamic judiciary.

Basically you seem to think it important to point out that all humans are biased one way or another, but you really do have to consider whether or not such a bias is actually relevant given all the other factors at play, and especially whether or not it's a factor in this thread (since in saying that, you are indirectly arguing against any form of sentencing whatsoever, or indeed any system of court). A judge cannot for example go so grossly against a statute that it actually contradicts what the statute says - he can only stretch the law to fit his purpose so far. A judge cannot have a vested interest, since no man can be a judge in his own case. If it's simply a matter that the judge has an opinion on a particular subject, then as long as that opinion doesn't conflict with his job (interpreting and applying the law), it's not a huge consideration.

To ask for the thouroughness in the evaluations of all crimes, everywhere, is somewhat ridiculous. It's an unfortunate fact of life.

And yet, we do it. The courts get clogged up, but we do it, because under the Rule of Law the least any citizen can expect is that they will be treated fairly under the due process of Law.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

Every case is thoroughly reviewed and sentenced, and it's practically illegal not to thoroughly review and sentence a case. It's not about the fact that the judge did something admirable, since I couldn't care one way or the other, all I was doing is giving an example of how thoroughly each case has to be reviewed before a sentence is passed.

Hm. Interesting. You don't think it's beneficial to have judges who can look at a case and judge it for what it is, see the bigger picture?

Most interesting indeed.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

The fact that a judge is biased because he's human has little relevance.

And I must most respectfully disagree. I think it holds one of the most important aspects of sentencing, since the judge is the one setting said punishment.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

I mean in a case there's only two stances, the case that the defendant is innocent, or the case that the defendant is guilty.

Once again, I must disagree. Certainly, there are typically but two outcomes of sentencing, but the case is far more in-depth than a mere "guilty" and "not-guilty". What of the matter of sentencing? The punishment served, the time sentenced, the impact on the individual's entire life?

To say it is as black and white as a "yes" or "no" is rather foolish, in my mind, because there are always shades of grey. Not in the sentencing itself but the variation of sentencing.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

Basically you seem to think it important to point out that all humans are biased one way or another, but you really do have to consider whether or not such a bias is actually relevant given all the other factors at play, and especially whether or not it's a factor in this thread (since in saying that, you are indirectly arguing against any form of sentencing whatsoever, or indeed any system of court). A judge cannot for example go so grossly against a statute that it actually contradicts what the statute says - he can only stretch the law to fit his purpose so far. A judge cannot have a vested interest, since no man can be a judge in his own case. If it's simply a matter that the judge has an opinion on a particular subject, then as long as that opinion doesn't conflict with his job (interpreting and applying the law), it's not a huge consideration.

I'm neither arguing for or against the investment of bias in a court case; such a thing would be pointless. Instead I'm simply showing it for what it is, proof that not every case can be said to be of an equal standard.

It is not so much a fallacy of the legal system as an inevitability. I believe it's a key aspect of this thread, since it is a follow-on from my point that there isn't enough time, money, or care for each case to receive individual treatment. To say otherwise would be pointless. While I'm not silly enough to believe that it is true of all cases, I'm also not foolish enough to believe that it could. It's an entirely realistic statement to make, given that crime happens all over the world. That's a lot of crime.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

And yet, we do it. The courts get clogged up, but we do it, because under the Rule of Law the least any citizen can expect is that they will be treated fairly under the due process of Law.

Yes, because we must, not necessarily because we believe it can. If we did not, the entire legal system would be pointless and of no use; hell, the entire basis of society would be at risk of collapse. Just because we strive for equality, does not mean it is achieved, yet we must strive for it regardless.

Originally Posted by Stryder Aedernis

Hm. Interesting. You don't think it's beneficial to have judges who can look at a case and judge it for what it is, see the bigger picture?

Most interesting indeed.

I think it's beneficial to have a judge who keeps his duty to the law in mind.

And I must most respectfully disagree. I think it holds one of the most important aspects of sentencing, since the judge is the one setting said punishment.

Once again, I must disagree. Certainly, there are typically but two outcomes of sentencing, but the case is far more in-depth than a mere "guilty" and "not-guilty". What of the matter of sentencing? The punishment served, the time sentenced, the impact on the individual's entire life?

To say it is as black and white as a "yes" or "no" is rather foolish, in my mind, because there are always shades of grey. Not in the sentencing itself but the variation of sentencing.

As far as judicial bias is concerned, he's either biased in favour of the defendant, or against the defendant. I can see how this works out in terms of sentencing, since rarely is it that the judge decides whether or not they're guilty to begin with, but this is what sentencing guidelines are for - if they give the maximum sentence to a burglar when the guidelines hardly demand it, there would be some suspicious activity there worthy of appeal. There are mitigating and aggravating circumstances they have to look at, and a lot of the time it would be immediately obvious if these were disregarded.

I'm neither arguing for or against the investment of bias in a court case; such a thing would be pointless. Instead I'm simply showing it for what it is, proof that not every case can be said to be of an equal standard.

It is not so much a fallacy of the legal system as an inevitability. I believe it's a key aspect of this thread, since it is a follow-on from my point that there isn't enough time, money, or care for each case to receive individual treatment. To say otherwise would be pointless. While I'm not silly enough to believe that it is true of all cases, I'm also not foolish enough to believe that it could. It's an entirely realistic statement to make, given that crime happens all over the world. That's a lot of crime.

But every case is dealt with one way or another, and sentencing guidelines are put down for every judge. I still don't understand where your belief that any bias other than "the judge has a vested interest in the defendant's success/failure" is so relevant that it will radically affect the justice or injustice of a given sentence, and if there were such a vested interest, chances are an appeal would be held and the judge dismissed for not making this interest known, meaning his career is on the line. Meaning we have enough countermeasures to deal with it. You just seem to be wanting to get the point across that humans are imperfect.

Yes, because we must, not necessarily because we believe it can. If we did not, the entire legal system would be pointless and of no use; hell, the entire basis of society would be at risk of collapse. Just because we strive for equality, does not mean it is achieved, yet we must strive for it regardless.

In all honesty you are more at danger of biased decisions from any given jury than you are of getting a biased sentence from any given judge. The thing you don't seem to understand is that we can and do judge every case that is brought before courts on a case by case basis. This is not a hypothetical scenario, we're not talking about how this should be, this is what actually happens.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

But every case is dealt with one way or another, and sentencing guidelines are put down for every judge. I still don't understand where your belief that any bias other than "the judge has a vested interest in the defendant's success/failure" is so relevant that it will radically affect the justice or injustice of a given sentence, and if there were such a vested interest, chances are an appeal would be held and the judge dismissed for not making this interest known, meaning his career is on the line. Meaning we have enough countermeasures to deal with it. You just seem to be wanting to get the point across that humans are imperfect.

My personal beliefs about Humanity aside (), I think where you're misunderstanding me is that I'm not trying to show that any kind of bias makes any kind of massive impact on the case, but simply that it does make an impact. I'm merely proving my original point that the majority of cases, if not all, are not held to perfect standards, as such a thing is impossible.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

In all honesty you are more at danger of biased decisions from any given jury than you are of getting a biased sentence from any given judge. The thing you don't seem to understand is that we can and do judge every case that is brought before courts on a case by case basis. This is not a hypothetical scenario, we're not talking about how this should be, this is what actually happens.

Do you truthfully believe that every case of distribution of punishment and sentencing (rehabiliation or no), from start to finish, in all the world, get's the same amount of evaluation, thought, effort, and action? That each is held to a specific standard of perfection?

If so then I won't try and convince you otherwise, but I would say that this particular back and forth between the two of us is over, since it would seem to be a disagreement of personal opinion more than anything.

Originally Posted by Stryder Aedernis

My personal beliefs about Humanity aside (), I think where you're misunderstanding me is that I'm not trying to show that any kind of bias makes any kind of massive impact on the case, but simply that it does make an impact. I'm merely proving my original point that the majority of cases, if not all, are not held to perfect standards, as such a thing is impossible.

Any impact it does make is negligible, which is why I say it's irrelevant - there are so many safeguards in place that any instance of bias in the judiciary is either so obvious that it even gets reported in the media, or so negligible that even the defence agree with what the judge has said.

Do you truthfully believe that every case of distribution of punishment and sentencing (rehabiliation or no), from start to finish, in all the world, get's the same amount of evaluation, thought, effort, and action? That each is held to a specific standard of perfection?

If so then I won't try and convince you otherwise, but I would say that this particular back and forth between the two of us is over, since it would seem to be a disagreement of personal opinion more than anything.

I'm not talking about all the world, hell there are probably some parts of the world that don't even have courts. I'm talking about Western civilization, any civilization with a legal system worth speaking of, has a system of due process. Any civilization without such a legal system has a lot more to think about than sentencing guidelines and as such are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.

In the UK and I should think in America, as well as in many countries in Europe, there exists a thorough and exhaustive legal system that pulls few, if any, punches. Though there have been miscarriages of justice, the simple fact of the matter is that we don't just throw people in jail without any thought whatsoever, we don't have show trials, and we don't cut peoples' hands off for pickpocketing. We have the due process of law.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

I'm not talking about all the world, hell there are probably some parts of the world that don't even have courts. I'm talking about Western civilization, any civilization with a legal system worth speaking of, has a system of due process. Any civilization without such a legal system has a lot more to think about than sentencing guidelines and as such are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.

In the UK and I should think in America, as well as in many countries in Europe, there exists a thorough and exhaustive legal system that pulls few, if any, punches. Though there have been miscarriages of justice, the simple fact of the matter is that we don't just throw people in jail without any thought whatsoever, we don't have show trials, and we don't cut peoples' hands off for pickpocketing. We have the due process of law.

Even in the Western part of the world alone the sheer amount of crime requiring analysis and review is simply too much for any exhaustive evaluation. It's just too much to ask, and it is the natural, inevitable result that not every case receives the same specific detail. I'm not denying that the legal system is there for a reason, and that it does what it can - I wouldn't dream of suggesting otherwise; but that's exactly my point. There is a limit to what that system can do, it's not all-powerful and limitless in it's resources. Nothing ever is.