Justice and consequence

[sobrique]

There is no justice, only consequences for you actions.
Every choice you make has it's consequence, every action it's price.

Going to prison for a crime isn't justice, it's just a consequence of getting caught.

The laws exist from a consensus of right and wrong. Many are simply to provide a framework, a baseline of assumptions.
If you operate within the framework, and so does everyone else, then we have a society that works. Conformity is requisite, not because of 'Justice' but because otherwise society breaks apart.

Comments

[karen2205]

Nonsense, we don't convict people without the mental capacity to commit crimes.

If someone doesn't have the mental capacity to intend to the act that they are doing/know that the act is wrong then this is a defence to the charge.

Where someone is so mentally ill as to be unfit to stand trial, a trial of the facts is held - if on the facts it looks like the individual has done the deed, then he is placed under the care of an appropriate Mental Health team/hospital.

Where someone has mental health problems but does have the mental capacity to know when he's doing something that's wrong, then it's quite right that he's convicted of the crime and the mental illness it taken into account purely in mitigation when considering an appropriate sentence.

And using your example - theft is quite a hard thing to prove, since you must show that the item was taken with the intention of permanently depriving its owner of it. Someone who is severely mentally ill and who 'borrows' things probably won't have taken them with the intention of permanently depriving their owners of the items.

[jorune.livejournal.com]

I acknowledge your superior knowledge of the law (2.1 in jurisprudence, etc, etc).

For myself the comment was more driven towards the outcome of the 'case'. If it could be shown to the courts satisfaction that a defendant will not re-commit the crime for which they are accused then should the court pass judgement?

The judgement will act to deprive the defendant of their liberty/property (custodial sentence/fine) and yet this person is not a criminal. I am concerned with the psychological state of defendants and their future actions. If a person has entered into a state of redemption than there is no need to punish a future self for their past actions.

Obviously this statement exists in a philosophical context and the phrase 'to the courts satisfaction' requires maguffin technology to be legally binding.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

The question always comes down to:
Do we imprison someone to punish them, or do we do it to make an example and to remove them from being 'on the street'.

Is there really something that a person can do that cannot be forgiven?

[xarrion.livejournal.com]

Global annihilation. But that gets philosophical - if there's no-one left to forgive, is the act unforgivable?

[the-wood-gnome.livejournal.com]

the thing about forgivness comes down to, who is the one forgiving and does the person being forgiven show remorse.

it's all well and good someone being forgiven by law, but if the family of those killed do not forgive the killer, is that person forgiven?

If the killer shows no remorse, how can they be forgiven anything. with no remorse they do not believe the action to be wrong.

[mavnn.livejournal.com]

But you can choose to forgive someone who shows no remorse - in fact you can still think it wise that they be removed from contact with society.