If you don’t mind I am going to pick here and there from your last post. It may be out of order but I will try to supply the needed context.
If we look to history, not a 1000 years ago they tortured people in public, burnt them alive, and executed them for similar offenses. That was certainly an action by the state, would you say that’s just? Furthermore would you say that’s just while condemning the simple taking of justice into ones hand and beating up a pedophile who you know for certain committed a vile and heinous act against a minor?
First of all you are talking about laws that were around 1000 years ago. Admittedly such things still occur in certain parts of the world today, but I would hope not in Miami. I do know such things don’t occur in the UK. I would also hope that our laws today are far more civilised than those of a thousand years ago.
To begin you have mis-understood my point here and that is law itself is arbitrary, and does not constitute any true system of ethics, or morality; or at the very least it does not constitute a system of ethics which can be universally applied. Law is ultimately just the common opinion of the moment what the people of today think is right or wrong, but as I pointed out earlier 1000 years ago actions which were legal and committed by the state would be horrible heinous acts of abuse today. But you missed the point, illegality does not mean immorality nor does legality mean morality. Take the notion of revolution, while we would all say the American revolution was justified, it was most certainly not justified in the minds of the British living at the time. Additionally we would say that the actions of the British were technically legal while we would also say that they were from our perspective immoral/unethical, or unjustified. Furthermore in almost every case revolution is illegal within the country it is being committed for it is the literal act of dissolving the system of laws themselves, and committing rather violent acts in achieving this end. The point of my argument is that illegal acts can be justified, and the can be moral, and that the law is in no way perfect nor is it universally applicable as some grand system of morality or ethics.
On this point going back to the colonists there is a common philosophical/sociological concept that would apply here and that is the classical notion of the social contract. Both John Locke’s and Thomas Hobb’s contract would be applicable here. Locke says that the government exists to protect an individual’s live liberty and property, and that if it fails to do this unilateral action on the part of the individuals living under the contract is necessary. Thomas Hobbs says that the government exists to protect the life of the individuals living under it. Meaning that if the state fails to uphold this end and doesn’t maintain security then it too can be violated on the part of the individual or nation living within the state to ensure that such action is upheld. This is the foundation of the American government. Jefferson plagiarized John Locke nearly word for word.
Furthermore personal morality and ethical systems can be adjusted to fit the current circumstances of a situation for that is the very purpose for the assumption of moral autonomy, and rationality. That we can make on the spot moral decisions and judgments assessing whether or not what we are about to do will be ethical or unethical.
Brining back my original point on this that the people running the government making the laws, and deciding the trials are potentially corrupt, and based on H’s perspective he probably feels the same. Meaning that he may have made the moral judgment on his part that the state wasn’t doing its part to protect the life of this individual (the victim), and thusly it was his prerogative to assert the due punishment upon the criminal who he witnesses, and without a doubt knew was guilty of said crime. That is another aspect to be noted there is no doubt he is not innocent which means that this person convicted or not committed the act and was due retributive punishment the agent whether an individual or state actor is irrelevant.
What does bemuse me though is why you are using history as a quantification of why you appear to feel that the laws of today are failing? Shouldn’t we actually be looking at what transpired in our History and be learning from that, and then actually admit that perhaps with these laws that do govern us now, we are a bit more civilised now than we were back then?
I do not think there is really a sliding scale of civility, we may hold our laws are more civilized than another set, but its ultimately irrelevant to the context of this discussion. Civility is a matter of qualitative, and subjective judgment your own opinion based on that which you have experienced, learned, and deduced. It has no objective bearing or truth its just what we believe to be the case. 100 years from now another society may hold itself to be more civil, or correct than ourselves and that will be their opinion.
Additionally civility may not even be the true goal that we should be trying to reach it is just a system of measurement and a socially constructed way for us to justify our legal system versus other alternatives. Its just something that allows us to say we are better. Perhaps the correct alternative is to be as brutal as possible, or to re-inact the crime exactly as it was committed. Or to simply eliminate all crime, meaning to execute all criminals for any reason. It makes no difference our way of examining such things is as I said earlier arbitrary.
Now, judging by some of the comments I’ve read in this thread and elsewhere, I think some might opt for the “eye for an eye” and go seek their own form of justice. So, say you go and do that, which will also be taking the law into your own hands, and you go murder a member of their family. Well, once you’ve done that, what’s to stop them from opting for the same option and avenge their family member’s death by murdering another member of your family? ...and so on and so on, until all members of both families are pushing up daisies.
Would you be willing to risk the annihilation of all your family members, or would you rather know that the remaining members of your family are safe from the ones who initially committed a murder because they have been dealt with by the law? I know which one I would prefer.
First of all you do not understand the purpose or the reasoning behind retributive justice. Retributive justice is based on the idea that justice is a matter of balance, contending that within society humans have the capacity to commit actions which have negative and positive value. Value which inherently determines the “worth” of the person who is committing said action. At birth a human is a neutral in value meaning they have not been a positive actor nor a negative actor. So if you want to say that “why don’t we just kill children then they haven’t been a positive help”. The reason we don’t is for A) They haven’t committed an action lowering their value, and B) We already do its called abortion. Moving on though as we live and experience live value is accrued, another important notion to note is that even in death a person still retains value which is a reason why we mourn the dead. However when a crime is committed against a person it is a symbolic act on the part of the criminal actor making the claim or statement that they have more value than the actor they are committing the action against, and an inherent action on their part of taking value from another individual. In order to restore the rightful position of the victim, as well as keep balance it is the place of justice to inflict relative retributive action against the criminal thusly taking away their undue value, and restoring it to the harmed victim. This is done in their name, and for them. That is the notion of retribution. So in instances of the death penalty, and individual by killing another is asserting their holding that they are “worth two people” and thusly deserve that persons life. Therefore the place of the state or the actor of justice is to kill that murder thusly restoring the value of the victim, and removing the undue value of the murder. Not doing this is basically saying that the criminal is more valuable than the victim of the crime, and thusly we can’t kill him because he was rightful in his actions.
Now if your question is what is the point of all that how does it relate? It relates in that the actor of justice doesn’t have to be the state only that they are acting in the place of the victim, and in their name to reattribute against the criminal. H by acting as he did was acting for the victim against the criminal who raped her thusly he can’t be held accountable, and it would be another unjust act on the part of the criminal to reattribute against the victim or H again because the balance has already been restored.
These are important questions you need to ask yourself, what made the government the sole moral actor when it comes to criminal law, and what made them so pure on that matter than any one else compromising that system is just as bad as the criminal they are punishing? Was it not four months ago that a judge if Vermont gave a pedophile twenty days in prison? Was that justice? Everyone has the capacity to be corrupt, especially the government.
As said earlier, this is not an ideal world we live in and that’s because Humans are corruptible, but then not
all humans are corrupt, or corruptible. Besides, in your example, it wasn’t the law that was corrupt, it was the official in Vermont who was. So, in my opinion, to disband the laws of the land, as I think you wish would happen, simply because
a few have been corrupted would, in my opinion, be committing Social suicide.
Ok on your whole “this isn’t an ideal world” point. Yes its not but that is the very purpose of making law my friend should we not strive to make the world the best that it can be (in our own perspective of course). Therefore I would pose that we should have a certain degree of idealism about us, that we should attempt to achieve some level of perfection, because if it is “perfect” why not strive for that goal. I don’t think its that much to ask that politician do their job, or at least serve the higher cause of those who elected them before their own personal greed. Additionally I don’t think its a lot to ask that a judge consider the general reality of the case rather than the inconsequential details and technicalities of the law and the case itself. Wouldn’t you agree?
Furthermore if we are just going to say “the worlds not perfect lets give up” they why the hell do any of this. Why have any justice system, or any law, or any system of ethics or morality. Why not just leave everyone to their brutish, and horrible state of nature?
To begin with the question what makes a judge, jury, or executioner special, what gives them the special privilage to dictate justice. Is a local bystander who is also familiar with the law not capable of judging, and determining fair retribution? Additionally isn't a jury itself just a bunch of citizens unfamiliar with the law.
Isn’t that what we have now? Isn’t a Judge a local bystander who is supposedly knowledgeable of every quarter of the law? Isn’t he the one who determines an appropriate sentencing in accordance to the crime that has been committed?
A member of the jury is not required to know the law, and shouldn’t be required to know the law because they are not there to determine an appropriate sentence according to the laws of the land, they are there to determine whether the man or woman is innocent or guilty of the crime they have been accused of and they are also members of the public who are, or should be, impartial to the crime that has been committed. In other words they are not emotionally involved with the person who may or may not have committed the crime and also the prosecutors.
Two things, First they actually they aren’t; in our society we have elevated these individual above that of a normal individual. These individuals are granted, and given the special power of determining truth, more so in the case of a jury, than in the case of a judge. A jury is a group who determine guilt or innocence meaning they determine history, and what occurred. Additionally this occurs separate and outside of what actually happened. Meaning they don’t really know a thing, yet they are given the authority that should be idealistically given to an individual who witnessed, and was onsite for they are the only ones who really know “beyond a reasonable doubt what happened”. But this is not the case instead they get to decide what “actually happened” and thusly if the government is to take action or not. If a criminal is truly guilty and is made to be innocent then the balance has yet to be restored and anyone would be justified in taking action in the name of the victim. My point with this was that these individual are merely that individuals by nature, and thusly are no more qualified to make the call than you or me. Yet they are given the literal authority to re-write history to be what ever they want if they choose to do that. As for the case of a judge, in the instance where the judge determines guilt or who wins in the case, this is also an arbitrary, and ultimately unqualified decision that is no more just or unjust than my own or your own judgment.
My point was that just because you vest authority, and such significant distinction in these people doesn’t make their decision the just or moral one.
Secondly if you concede that they are just normal people then who cares about law anyway or justice its all just the opinion of normal people making my opinion just as valid as a juror, or a judge. Why can’t I be judge, jury, and in distributor of punishment?
The law should never be deemed as meaningless, especially when it comes to a law Enforcement Officer.
Let me ask you a question, why do you think Horatio chose to become a Law Enforcement Officer?
Clearly because at the time he felt that the law was the correct, moral, and right distribution of justice. However I said earlier that moral conceptions are dynamic, and constantly change based on our experiences, current external stimuli, and in short the circumstances of the situation. H might have changes his ethical system right then and there for this situation in which case he would resume his old system afterward. This means that he wouldn’t be working as a cop under these false pretenses you suggested. Additionally he might not have changed his moral system at all, and simply had that caveat within his system that allowed him to violate law something that would normally be immoral to him, and instead give a pedophile a beating, before hauling him into the station. You are making his moral system too general, and too sweeping. I can be a cop yet still disagree with certain legal actions and opt to have certain instances where I will take the law into my hand rather than go through the normal channels. This doesn’t mean I general don’t agree or want to enforce the law it just means in that one instance I believe I have a moral obligation to violate the law, and enforce what I believe, and hold to be justice. (Note I am not a cop if you were worried about the rest of my analysis of the law lol.)
Additionally I would say that the law hasn’t been rendered meaningless it is still enforce just not in its traditional sense. The intent of law is justice, the end is the same, then intent is righteous the means don’t matter. Furthermore I would say means can’t even be measured without resorting to simple dogmatism (un-warranted claim, and assumption based notions of right or wrong possessing no real bearing in rationality or reason), and that deontology, and consequentially only consider intent, and the ends of an action, so H isn’t acting immoral anyway because there is no way to really measure it determine it.
In my opinion, the laws of the land are a set of standards that prevents the innocent from being persecuted, murdered (such as the Paediatrician), beaten, physically abused, stalked, etc, etc, etc.
Lastly an observation on the innocent until proven guilty point. You can take what I just said about a jury acting on false authority, and add to that, that H witnessed the act, and that there is ultimately no doubt that the individual is guilty. Meaning this argument holds no ground in this debate, and shouldn’t even be part of it.
And by the way, welcome to the Miami forum, Iamthey.
Thank you.
