dimreepr

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/justice

What goalposts are you aiming at?

Are you sure you know what you're arguing about? You seem to agree on this... But you don't seem to know what rehabilitation is, nor the role of the police in its execution, i.e. none... Now you're just talking bollox... Look, a cops interactions with a civilian has to start with respect (just like any other civil interaction); being a cop is not a get out of jail free card, this isn't monopoly...

That's a good idea, because at least one more person would get behind the need for a solution; I'm assuming you agree with your slogan. I don't think it's counter-intuitive at all; it's clearly a minority of police officers expressing their personal (state aided) bigotry on a minority of a minority, ergo the majority of the minority never tastes that bitter pill. Most people just want to feel safe and be respected.

Why does it matter? Other than perhaps a clue, for a small percentage of prisoners, as to what is needed to aid his/her rehabilition, but why waste money on machines? When a well designed rehabilitation program will aid a high percentage of prisoners.

And they're tackled by different departments, the police have nothing to do with rehabilitation.

Free will is irrelevant in this context, but the premise of your OP is interesting although you seem to doubt the concept. There have been many studies that point to a correlation, as presented by Ten oz; how is that not a tool? Ultimately the question posed in the OP is, what is justice?

From your link:

That question goes to the heart of the matter; it all depends on the political spin, as to the perps repentance. It's all to easy to paint a gay person/murderer as unapologetic (because he/she didn't cry,well enough) while a good actor not only, gets off, but is paid....

You've gotta drop the bad guy inference, when talking about justice; it's politics that muddies the water's of mitigation, for instance, repentance can be spun to be either/neither depending on the political will of the time... Crocodile tears, comes to mind...

Irony intended? 😊

I doubt the politicians will ever accept such a subtle distinction.

A society has no choice but to accept that we all have free will, to a greater or lesser extent. Therefore society has to design a means to assess an individual's culpability, the mechanism we use for this is a court (a body of people presided over by a judge, judges, or magistrate, and acting as a tribunal in civil and criminal cases). It's not pefect but it's the closest we can get to justice. While the police and the prison service's should treat everyone in the same way, as if they aren't culpable.

Well, the Decepticons don't seem to learn.

Free will has to be a given in any society, other than a philosophical salon. In a well balanced society, things like poverty, up-bringing, mental state etc... is adressed in the courts via mitigation, and ignored by the other two branches of justice.

The very definition of a non-sequitur and trivially wrong, since I did/didn't... Indeed, but first we must agree what an axiom is; for instance 2+2 could equall 22, where as an object that has four equal side's and 90 degrees in one, is a square...

That's just broken my irony meter, unless I'm mistaken, you've just accused scientists of being square... 😆

I think you have mistaken astrology with astronomy, not the first time you've gotten confused in this thread.

So it's not applicable to good or bad/evil.

That's like saying, hay-fever is due to the number of people wantonly breathing in pollen.

Was the A-bomb beneficial? It did end one war (with much suffering), but inspired another (with much suffering). An axiom is always true, so not really applicable here... No, I'm suggesting enough fruit was shared to ensure next year's harvest.

Show me a story that's not relevant to the real world. Perhaps the "good" was in that there was not enough fruit for all and no means to assure equitable distribution; do you know what comes next???

I've never been hungry enough to eat from a bin, but I have been thirsty enough to drink from a horse-trough; so I know that if ever I am hungry enough, bin food will deserve a Michelin star.

My interpretation is, knowledge it self led to the banishment of Adam and Eve from paradise (as in the sermon on the mount), it's a variation of "ignorance is bliss" that's not to say knowledge in and of itself is bad. It's where we place it's importance in our daily lives, a sparrow, for instance, uses it's knowledge to catch enough to eat for today, it doesn't worry if there will be enough to eat tomorrow; even if he knows he didn't eat yesterday. We know there is no paradise and tomorrow may bring disaster, because one of our yesterday's did, and with that knowledge we tend to forget about today and so miss, all those little slices of paradise.

If we take politics from the equation, isn't that the point of rehabilitation?