Peterkin

I know.

I'll accept lazy - particularly in linguistic effort. It's easier to be sloppy; nothing depends on your correct grammar. You might be surprised how lazy some authors are and how much of the slack editors have to take up. (gripe, gripe, gripe... I can't leave a badly-phrased sentence lying around in plain sight, which is why I keep coming back to edit.)

I think you would like it. It's a very good documentary.

I was referring to the movie. The people in it are not 'chasing' anything. Contented is good, too, but that wasn't the title. We all potentially always are. We don't know where they come from or who they are, until after they have done a very bad deed. Keeping repeat car thieves and burglars locked up makes no difference to our level of danger from the unsuspected crazies. And they will repeat, if the second and third chance you offer puts them back in the same, or worse, circumstances than what caused their first crime. Did you not see the charts? Serious crime is lower in countries with a relatively mild justice system (of which yours and mine are examples btw), and higher in some countries with a very harsh system. We were already on the way to do something right by not "throwing away the key". (Now, we're facing a whole new wave of madness, racism, paranoia and violence that our justice system is not equipped to handle. I fear they will react in the American way and escalate it. The Americans intended to build a good, fair system, but the situation got away from the good guys; that could happen to Australia and Canada, too). All I'm proposing is that we should prevent more crime than we punish. How's that unreasonable? Must go! Back later.

Preventing crime might improve things. Deliberately ruining the lives of thousands of people who made a stupid decision, and turning thousands of wayward boy into life-long criminals, in order to support a resource-gobbling edifice like the prison system, just to contain a tiny handful of monsters doesn't sound like a bargain. However, "my approach", whatever that is, won't prevail, so you're quite safe.

Aside from death, taxes and wildfires, what is? What percent security does the present justice system offer the average citizen? If we could raise the security level by 10%, would you consider change?

If we live in the same community, you do care what I do, and what happens to me; you count on me to care about you. In communities where a level of mutual trust, tolerance and interdependence has been achieved, you get very little or no crime. It's not just because these people are well off materially: it happens in very poor communities, too. Not because those people are all the same tradition, language and faith; it happens in mixed communities, too - though it's harder to achieve. It's because they understand that they have a common interest in safeguarding one another's welfare. Part of what makes that happen is local leadership -- yes, that alpha pair of wolves whom all the rest follow, not because they're tough or mean, but because they're smart and reliable. Every successful project has such leaders - an individual or core group who can envision a plan, organize and inspire others. If you watch the documentary movie Happy, you see what all good communities have in common. And guess what! Happy people don't hurt or steal from each other. If most of us were safe, reasonably well fed and surrounded by friends, the only justice we'd ever need to worry about is what to do with the 0.001% who can't manage social animalhood. But we'd have the leisure, manpower and other resources to deal with them case by case, thoughtfully.

I'll look at the other responses and maybe learn something or add something, after I toss in my spontaneous one. That seems to me typical of an inquisitive mind and active imagination. Thoughts are hard to discipline; even after you find the right method that works for you, it takes years of practice to apply consistently. It's also possible that your mode of ideation is not primarily verbal, so you have to keep translating into grammatical format, and when your mind gets bored with that, it just kind of slides off the words; they become difficult to grasp and put into place. (That's a bit fanciful, but if it applies, you'll recognize it.) In its extreme form, I suppose ADHD comes closest. But I don't think you have the other symptoms. Almost certainly. But I can't say which would work for you - I'd have to know you very much better even to recommend one. I sometimes find it useful to make lists and notes, before a fleeting notion gets away, or i forget a figure. My desk is littered with pages from a notebook with gibberish scribbled all over them: url's, words i dislike, blog ideas, names, poem fragments, slogans, passwords, calculations. They're useless after a week or so, but in the moment, I find them helpful to draw a series of thoughts into some coherence. BTW, are you synesthetic?

Okay. What percent of all crime do they commit? What societal, parental, environmental, chemical or genetic factors produce these incorrigible sociopaths? Have you looked into means and methods of stopping them before the heinous crimes are committed - prevention? And why are you wasting so many resources on them that could be better used rehabilitating the majority of lawbreakers? On this, I cannot concur. It is what we have done, and it hasn't worked.

That's a victim's POV. Of course you feel like extracting vengeance for your grief and restitution for your loss. Everyone who is wronged in some way by a fellow citizen feels that way. But what happens to the community around people who act on those feelings? Escalating personal violence, vendettas, family feuds and society breakdown. That's exactly why state instituted law is impersonal. In turn, that very impartiality can lead to a new set of problems: indiscriminate punishment of the wicked, the hapless, the stupid, the desperate, the insane and the wrongly convicted. The fact of institution itself is prone to problems: corruption, political bias, religious and ethnic prejudice, poor selection of personnel, increasing cost to the public, etc. So, a justice system is only an approximation (or travesty, or something in between) of a collective sense of personal justice. A fair and effective court of justice would consist of a council of elders, who personally know the individuals and circumstances in each instance of rule-breaking and figure out what course of action is least damaging to the community. We can't do that with millions of people - but I believe it should be the model we try to emulate. Did you check the crime statistic I cited above? A whopping 46% of incarcerations in the US are directly drug-related; this doesn't even account for crimes such as weapons possession and tax evasion incidental to the drug trade, and crimes committed indirectly due to drug use. One would almost suspect there was something unhealthy going on in that society.

I'm sure he does. To what? Possibly. But I can also see other possibilities. In any case, the thieves I sentenced to restitution instead of incarceration have not continued "re-offend, again and again and again". You just assume they're going to. No alternative to incarceration has been tried. The recidivism rate of incarcerated burglars, car thieves and cheque-kiters is fairly high (around 50% in Canada) - after prison sentences. For drug dealers and smugglers, it's even higher. (Obviously, if you killed them all, the same ones would never do it again, on which point MigL is absolutely correct.) Why? Is there more profit in burglary with assault than a quiet, efficient burglary, or just more risk? Is there any reason to escalate fraud to murder? Criminals are not necessarily stupid. That would be lovely! Any national one does, yes. And they all have crime. It would be logical to suppose that the ones with the least crime have the best law-enforcement. Or maybe that the ones with the most severe punishments have the least crime. If both were true, I'd take it as proof that a harsh criminal justice system is effective. But.... Is that condition met? High crime rates can coexist with harsh punishments, and low crime rates can coexist with progressive correction methods. So maybe crime isn't caused or prevented by prisons. Maybe justice is not that simple. Care to mark your country's record in each of those categories?

So? I just answered the questions. That is not what the prison system - at least in the US - is doing, however. It is not what most prisons do, or ever have done. I'm not sure what you mean by "see the need". The rate of recidivism is dependent on several factors. I should think sitting in a prison cell is easier than working off one's debt. Give them the opportunity and see what happens. See, yes; agree, no. We'll never know, because there is no such society. I thought I was participating in dimreepr's thread about the meaning of justice. I have no other agenda here.

Because both poverty and high birth-rate and high petty crime rate among the poor are historical facts - most prevalent in nations with harsh criminal justice systems. Of course, my example was about restitution: i.e., that in certain instances, it's not possible. Restitution wouldn't work there, either. An excellent example where restitution with interest, plus a hefty fine for the public coffers would work admirably. Some do, certainly. Not the burglars, embezzlers, shoplifters and fraudsters so much: they would be much better put to work, repaying their debts. Which would save a whole lot of tax-money and cage-space for the mass murderers. That's doesn't deter all those who believe that they won't be caught.

No, I don't forget them; I just have a different perspective from yours - bold print notwithstanding. In the instance you cited, I was talking about theft, which is a very common crime, and which can, in practical fact, be compensated. Do you assume that all or most citizens desire to commit crimes and refrain only out of fear of retribution? It's not an uncommon assumption, but it doesn't go very far toward explaining why most people support law and order in the first place. If you have proof of the deterrent value of severe sentences, as compared to rehabilitation, I would like to see statistics to support it.

Very informative!

Amazing! Did Arthur have a sword in that unification?

Inflated imperial ego? I know the question wasn't meant for me, but I couldn't resist. Great is one of those flexible words with no absolute limit. Most adjectives are POV dependent, but those pertaining to magnitude [eg] are especially hard to define.

Reverse that: In order for those who dominate to remain dominant, they need to control the population. "We" are not dominant; we are controlled by a small elite minority. Devoutly to be wished; seldom attained. There's a little list. If you know what's good for you, don't get on his list!

I'd be perfectly content with a tied score, or no scoring at all. For me, playing is more important than winning - and losing just sucks. But then, what would they do with all those big ugly trophies and medals?

Thanks! Fact is, all complex societies require conformity - which is impossible - and obedience to authority - which is difficult, in some degree, for all citizens and impossible for some. When it requires obedience to more than one authority, such as religious and civil institutions, or sets up contradiction between its stated principles and its practice ("All men are created equal" except the Africans, Indians, indentured servants, prisoners, resident aliens, etc) All complex societies generate inequality, competition, conflict, friction and disparity of interests. There is innate, inescapable injustice in the very structure of such a society. So the main purpose of the legal code is not to maintain peace and good order, but to maintain control. That's why the criminal justice systems are focused on punishment of the disobedient - on the pattern carved into the tablets Moses brought down from the mountain or Hammurabi's stele. Law is primarily concerned with the status quo; secondly, with orderly commerce, thirdly with removing disruptive and dangerous elements from the public realm, fourthly with protection of property and persons (yes, in that order), and somewhere down the line, amends or retribution for the victims and rehabilitation of the lawbreaker. Fair dealing can come into play at any stage, and a fair principle may be constituted into the code, but it can't be legislated or ensured: it's up to the police, jurists and enforcers, the criminals and taxpayers: fairness is in how members of a society regard one another.

If I am going to try to understand something, I shall do so in my own terms of reference, thank you. And if I fail and never understand, that's okay, too. That's one meaning, yes. A spirited horse is one with a volatile temperament; difficult to handle. How do you quantify "feeling", anyway? Ah! Well, that's a big question answered! And there is another. Super-conscious is really un-conscious. I'll just go educate myself on wikipedia... It's not the quantity of information: there is no physical limit on the brain-capacity of computer networks. It would be insane because of the conflicting and contradictory input from all the human users, and because it's not equipped to process all the "feeeeeling".

The penalty kicks don't start until after two additional 15-minute periods still haven't produced a tie-breaker. Another alternative is sudden-death overtime, but in 30 degree heat, that could well turn literal. With penalty kicks, you're sure to get a tie-breaker in a relatively short time.

What about restitution? Even the venegful Old Testament demands restitution with interest, plus an offering to the religious authority. If you lock up a thief, the victims don't get their property back, the incarceration costs society ten times as much as the thief would have in the same amount of time, and he comes even less likely to earn a legitimate income. Of course, if he steals food because his children are hungry, he can't be made either to give it back or to pay a fine - but locking him up or cutting off his hand or hanging him won't do society a damn bit of good in any case. So, what's the point? Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. In theory, incarceration, and particularly death penalties, should deter the citizenry from breaking the law. The simple, obvious fact that it never has seems to be lost on the law-makers. They're determined to be seen to do something about crime, no matter how ineffective. All law-enforcement is ineffective, because it concentrates on the law-breaker, and the law-breaker is just an ordinary citizen - the same ordinary citizen who pays for all the law-enforcement - until he's caught performing an abortion, stealing a car, tossing his wife's lover out the window, protesting against the government, selling dirty movies, carrying a joint in his pocket, holding up a liquor store, painting on somebody's wall, skimming off a client's investment fund.... breaking a law. And then he magically becomes a different species: criminal. What should "we" law-abiding citizens do about "them" criminals? The same response to crimes of passion, crimes of acquisition, crimes of desperation, crimes of happenstance, crimes of aggression and crimes of defiance cannot do justice to any.

I actually watched a replay of the womens' soccer final. Pretty good - the MLS guys could learn something - but a game decided on penalty kicks doesn't really feel like a victory. I'd have been happy to call it a draw. But you can't do that in international competition.

Where did it come from? How does it know what each one deserves? By what standard? I don't think he did, actually. At first he asked a legitimate philosophical question: Then he describes the requirements of society. In neither case was he either defining justice nor equating it with punishment.