Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I'm trying: a stairway to heaven?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 144 of 303 (256295)
11-02-2005 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by iano
11-02-2005 3:55 PM


Re: Jesus gave directions
The fine must be paid. When it is paid, justice has been served.
I don't see how there's any legal basis for seeing it that way. The purpose of a fine is not for the justice system to get money for itself (although, pragmatically, that's often the result); the nominal purpose is a financial punishment of an offender.
You don't get out of paying a fine just because someone else makes a donation in the same amount in your name. You can, of course, give the offender a monetary gift in exactly the amount of the fine, but then it's their choice to use that gift to pay the fine or not; the money still comes out of their pocket.
Justice is not perverted so long as the ticket is issued and the fine is paid. Justice is over at that point.
I'm sorry, but there's no legal or ethical basis for seeing it that way. Justice is the punishment of offenders. When another is punished in the place of the offender, there's no legal basis for considering that justice - that's always a perversion of justice. It's the same as executing an innocent man - forcing him to "stand in" for the punishment that should be meted out to the murderer.
And indeed, if an innocent man is executed, but the murderer is later caught, the fact that someone was executed for the crime the murderer committed has no weight as a defense. The murderer doesn't get to escape his punishment just because another was mistakenly punished in his place. Justice is not merely the meteing out of punishment; it's when punishments are meted out to those who deserve them.
There's no legal basis for any other conclusion. What you're calling "justice" in this post is a fiction and a perversion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by iano, posted 11-02-2005 3:55 PM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by purpledawn, posted 11-02-2005 4:46 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 149 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 11-03-2005 1:50 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 153 of 303 (256448)
11-03-2005 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
11-03-2005 1:50 AM


Re: Jesus gave directions
If the innocent man willingly takes the place of the murderer, then there is some distinction that should be made.
I don't think that's justice, though. Justice is when the offender is punished; not simply that punishment occurs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 11-03-2005 1:50 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by iano, posted 11-03-2005 8:54 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 160 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 11-03-2005 1:38 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 156 of 303 (256461)
11-03-2005 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by iano
11-03-2005 8:54 AM


Re: Jesus gave directions
Justice is defined by what the people responsible for determining, enforcing and executing the justice, not you.
No, that's not true. Justice is defined not only by a legal construct called "natural law", but by the codification of a body of legal precident and explicit legislative action.
Your opinion has no bearing.
There's no legal basis for such an opinion. The legal system recognizes justice not as the capricious opinion of lawgivers, but as an innate sense that the people possess. The legal framework exists not to create and define justice, but to administer and pursue it.
If these people decided that justice is served by the issuing of a ticket and payment of a fine and they don't proscribe who coughs up the cash, then when the cash is coughed up, justice is done.
Boy, you're pretty much a moral empty shell, aren't you? If it weren't for a strict authoritarian framework dictating your ethical conclusions, you wouldn't be able to tell right from wrong, would you?
It matters not who pays the fine in this case
But "these people" have not decided that this is appropriate. As I said there's no legal basis for your assertion. Our legal system, contrary to your assertion, does not recognize justice merely as the paying of fines, but of the paying of fines by the guilty party.
Your assertion is neither true in principle nor true under its own merits.
Justice is defined by the justice maker, not you.
There's no basis for such an opinion. You've offered the "justice" of the bully, the psychopath, the vigilante. The justice of "might makes right." Civilization is not founded on such a presumption; thank goodness that the majority of human beings have an instinctive knowledge of what is just and are not moral black holes, absolutely devoid of any internalized moral code, like you.
Your entire argument is swept away with the simple observation that, despite your assertion that the lawmakers define justice, we regularly prosecute lawmakers for unjust actions. How is that even possible under your model?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by iano, posted 11-03-2005 8:54 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by iano, posted 11-03-2005 9:43 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 163 of 303 (256523)
11-03-2005 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by iano
11-03-2005 9:43 AM


Re: Jesus gave directions
You, even if you are a lawmaker, are subject to the fruits of their efforts.
Certainly. But that doesn't mean that their fruits are always just. As I asked, and as you failed to answer, if justice is whatever lawmakers decide that it is, how is it that we're able to prosecute lawmakers for injustice? How is it that we're able to have unjust laws stricken down? How is it that we're able to peacefully decline to follow unjust mandates?
Your argument is the argument of the bully, of the dictator, of the vigilante. Like I've said, and like you've been unable to dispute, every legal structure in our society - in every functional society - recognizes justice not as the whim of the powerful, but as an internal directive that we all recognize. A "natural law", as the legal term would have it. Justice is not defined by the powerful; its recognized by the people.
That's what happens in real life Crash.
In your imagination, and in your religion, yes. Not in real life. I've already proved that.
I'm not sure I'll be able to get along with your tone.
I'm sorry you don't like my tone, and I should have been more patient. But when people advance arguments that make themselves out to be moral monsters, how am I supposed to react? You're promulgating the reasoning of bullies and dictators. Might does not make right, in our society or in any other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by iano, posted 11-03-2005 9:43 AM iano has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024