Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Purpose of law

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 10:13:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Is it to punish the guilty or to protect the innocent? How should it be designed and interpreted?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 11:16:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 10:13:23 AM, Indophile wrote:
Is it to punish the guilty or to protect the innocent? How should it be designed and interpreted?

why not both?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 11:16:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 10:13:23 AM, Indophile wrote:
Is it to punish the guilty or to protect the innocent? How should it be designed and interpreted?

Ultimately it ought to be to protect the innocent.. (albeit Through punishing the guilty)

punishment for punishment's sake is sadism (which is usually caused by power-trip psychological problems/ NOT what the law should be based upon)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
tigg13
Posts: 302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 11:55:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If we had laws that everyone agreed to follow and everyone followed them, there wouldn't be any guilty people to punish.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 1:05:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It has 3 functions, as best I can tell.

1. Protect the innocent
2. Punish the guilty
3. Rehabilitate the guilty, so that they can re-enter society peaceably
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 1:16:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 1:05:00 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It has 3 functions, as best I can tell.

1. Protect the innocent
2. Punish the guilty
3. Rehabilitate the guilty, so that they can re-enter society peaceably

Yes. But some countries have laws stressing more on the punishment part. Reasoning being harsh punishment deters crime. Rehabilitation is more on the part of the society than the law, I'd guess.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 1:16:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 1:05:00 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It has 3 functions, as best I can tell.

1. Protect the innocent
yes.

2. Punish the guilty
sadistic

3. Rehabilitate the guilty, so that they can re-enter society peaceably
if they need to be "rehabilitated" they are those who became uncharacteristically psychologically messed up during the time of their crime... and are less "guilty"

those who are actually "guilty" don't need to be rehabilitated.. as their previous/normal state was that which carried out the crime..

Rehabilitation implies bringing them back as they had been before... if they chose in their normal/right mind to commit certain crimes.. "rehab" isn't gonna serve any purpose.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 1:18:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The purpose of law?

When it comes right down to it, control.

Law can not be abolished. Something doesn't have to be written on paper to be a law.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 1:26:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 1:18:47 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
When it comes right down to it, control.

Yep.

Keep people from acting how I wouldn't have them act... and maybe sometimes force some action too.

if the law didn't do that.. It'd be pointless.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 1:28:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Define "guilty."

Is a weed dealer guilty or innocent? I say innocent, the government says guilty. There's a huge problem there.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 1:40:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 1:16:56 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/11/2011 1:05:00 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It has 3 functions, as best I can tell.

1. Protect the innocent
yes.

2. Punish the guilty
sadistic

3. Rehabilitate the guilty, so that they can re-enter society peaceably
if they need to be "rehabilitated" they are those who became uncharacteristically psychologically messed up during the time of their crime... and are less "guilty"

those who are actually "guilty" don't need to be rehabilitated.. as their previous/normal state was that which carried out the crime..

Rehabilitation implies bringing them back as they had been before... if they chose in their normal/right mind to commit certain crimes.. "rehab" isn't gonna serve any purpose.:

So if punishing crime is sadistic and rehabilitation is pointless, what's your solution?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 1:42:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 1:40:08 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/11/2011 1:16:56 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/11/2011 1:05:00 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It has 3 functions, as best I can tell.

1. Protect the innocent
yes.

2. Punish the guilty
sadistic

3. Rehabilitate the guilty, so that they can re-enter society peaceably
if they need to be "rehabilitated" they are those who became uncharacteristically psychologically messed up during the time of their crime... and are less "guilty"

those who are actually "guilty" don't need to be rehabilitated.. as their previous/normal state was that which carried out the crime..

Rehabilitation implies bringing them back as they had been before... if they chose in their normal/right mind to commit certain crimes.. "rehab" isn't gonna serve any purpose.:

So if punishing crime is sadistic and rehabilitation is pointless, what's your solution?

Punish criminals to protect the innocent.. Not in order to punish the criminal..

and.. "re-habilitate" mentally incompetents
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 1:42:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 1:28:39 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Define "guilty."

Is a weed dealer guilty or innocent? I say innocent, the government says guilty. There's a huge problem there.

*Reports Geo to THE MAN for admitting to being a dealer of the reefah*

>.>

<.<

To the government, guilty means that YOU DID IT, FOOOOL.

To the average person, guilty means that you feel bad about doing it.

The government enforces it's verdict of guilt by MAKING you feel bad about it. It does this via taking your money or sending you to the place with the butt rape.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 1:48:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So if punishing crime is sadistic and rehabilitation is pointless, what's your solution?

Punish criminals to protect the innocent.. Not in order to punish the criminal..:

LOL! What's the difference if the result is exactly the same?

and.. "re-habilitate" mentally incompetents:

How about social incompetents? People who commit these acts are likely to have themselves been victims of it at one point in time. Beat a dog long enough, it's going to turn violent.

Wouldn't society be interested in helping to change pathological behaviors so that it doesn't happen again and again?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 1:49:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 1:48:00 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

Wouldn't society be interested in helping to change pathological behaviors so that it doesn't happen again and again?

This.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 2:39:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 1:48:00 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
So if punishing crime is sadistic and rehabilitation is pointless, what's your solution?

Punish criminals to protect the innocent.. Not in order to punish the criminal..:

LOL! What's the difference if the result is exactly the same?

If you look to my first post I said the Ultimate purpose of law ought to be to protect the innocent NOT to punish the guilty... Though punishing the guilty is a useful way of protecting the innocent.

The purpose of laws to punish the guilty... is NOT to punish the guilty... it's Not a good in itself... the purpose of such laws are to protect others from being victimized through discouraging criminal behavior.

the Law is the same... but the Purpose behind the law was being asked for. Punishment for punishment's sake is sadistic.

and.. "re-habilitate" mentally incompetents:

How about social incompetents? People who commit these acts are likely to have themselves been victims of it at one point in time. Beat a dog long enough, it's going to turn violent.

I think that most people who commit Really not-nice acts are beyond changing...

you twist a tree into odd contortions as it's develops... and you're not gonna be able to coax it to look like a normal/pleasant tree...

it's different now... and it's not going back.

also there are some trees that just grow Fcked up in the first place.

Wouldn't society be interested in helping to change pathological behaviors so that it doesn't happen again and again?

such behaviors usually result from the person not giving a Fck about other people...

How would you suggest we make them give a fck??
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 6:18:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 1:48:00 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
So if punishing crime is sadistic and rehabilitation is pointless, what's your solution?

Punish criminals to protect the innocent.. Not in order to punish the criminal..:

LOL! What's the difference if the result is exactly the same?

Intent.

Is killing in self defense the same as pre-meditated killing of someone? Both end up with one person dead.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 6:48:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 1:49:26 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/11/2011 1:48:00 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

Wouldn't society be interested in helping to change pathological behaviors so that it doesn't happen again and again?

This.

me this also :) how'd you think they should go about doing it? this law business is complicated isn't it.. i'd love if we could just grant total power to some infinitely wise fella who made a decision on every case.. but that'd be fairly impossible i suppose.. unless santa's lookin' for a job..like there are a lot of people who should just be detained, made legally useful, and helped career wise if you know what i mean.. but then i suppose why take pity on them? maybe i'm soft heated that way.. and that might actually encourage some people to commit crimes... so... i'm not the infinitely wise fella i was on about :)

but to be fair, with murderers and the like, they belong behind bars :) if that's the sort of thing you're looking for then where better to find it than behind bars, amirite?

then there're a few things that i think people should die for...
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 6:50:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
well i'm not saying we should just jail all murderers forever.. that's where the infinitely wise dude would come into it again... but some people are just twisted that way, ya know..

we could separate them from the poor, desperate people you'd feel sorry for...

hell, i'll take over if ye want...
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 6:53:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
i'm fairly drunk now..and stoned.. and i just ate a snackbox.. and i'm a bit dozy.. thought before i posted that time :)
signature
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 7:44:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 10:13:23 AM, Indophile wrote:
Is it to punish the guilty or to protect the innocent? How should it be designed and interpreted?

The nature of justice, not law (they're two quite distinct things), is not punishment for the sake of moralistically chastising the naughty or satisfying the "good people" of society's mean desire for vengeance; rather, the nature of justice is the actualization of everyone's and everything's full potential within the interdependence of life, and thus the enrichment of life and existence. Punishment only comes into the picture and is at all legitimate when it's genuinely corrective and rehabilitative and helps reorient the offender's life in the direction of realizing his full promise and making his greatest contribution to society and the world.

As for the nature of law, alas the real nature or function of the law is to protect and preserve the socio-economic-political status quo and order of dominance, and the privileged and powerful status of those who by hook and crook have been able to place themselves at the top of it.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 9:57:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 7:44:32 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/11/2011 10:13:23 AM, Indophile wrote:
Is it to punish the guilty or to protect the innocent? How should it be designed and interpreted?

The nature of justice, not law (they're two quite distinct things), is not punishment for the sake of moralistically chastising the naughty or satisfying the "good people" of society's mean desire for vengeance;
Ok till there.

rather, the nature of justice is the actualization of everyone's and everything's full potential within the interdependence of life, and thus the enrichment of life and existence.
What? Person A murders person B. What's justice for B? Given nothing can be done for poor B, how will you "actualize the full potential within the interdependence of the life" of B's relatives/friends and enrich their life and existence?

Punishment only comes into the picture and is at all legitimate when it's genuinely corrective and rehabilitative and helps reorient the offender's life in the direction of realizing his full promise and making his greatest contribution to society and the world.
Hmm. Ok. I see. By rehabilitating the murderer so that he then goes and invents an alternate fuel that is cheaper and environmentally harmless. That should take care of family B's grievances :)


As for the nature of law, alas the real nature or function of the law is to protect and preserve the socio-economic-political status quo and order of dominance, and the privileged and powerful status of those who by hook and crook have been able to place themselves at the top of it.
So there's no place for protection of the innocent in your view of the real nature of law? Also no place for deterring crime?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 10:00:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 11:55:01 AM, tigg13 wrote:
If we had laws that everyone agreed to follow and everyone followed them, there wouldn't be any guilty people to punish.

Unfortunately, that'll never happen. You'll always have people who disagree.
resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 10:13:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 10:13:23 AM, Indophile wrote:
Is it to punish the guilty or to protect the innocent? How should it be designed and interpreted?

All men share a tendency to do evil, and only refrain from its commision because it does not provide for their best interests. This is what I believe. Thus the purpose of government is to make evil against the best interests of people. By doing so, reasonable people refrain from committing evil and thus peace is preserved and positive moral value in a society is attained. This will result in the preservation of the innocent.

Furthermore, the purpose of punishment is to demonstrate the result of the afore mentioned evils and how that is against the interests of the populace. This demonstration prevents future evil, albeit, not entirely, but enough for the result to be desirable, thus by valuing a proper punishment for evil, one inherently values the preservation of the innocent. They are one and the same. Thus one cannot be valued above another without the total result being less.

Fin
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 10:38:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 10:13:49 PM, resolutionsmasher wrote:
At 2/11/2011 10:13:23 AM, Indophile wrote:
Is it to punish the guilty or to protect the innocent? How should it be designed and interpreted?

All men share a tendency to do evil, and only refrain from its commision because it does not provide for their best interests. This is what I believe. Thus the purpose of government is to make evil against the best interests of people. By doing so, reasonable people refrain from committing evil and thus peace is preserved and positive moral value in a society is attained. This will result in the preservation of the innocent.

Furthermore, the purpose of punishment is to demonstrate the result of the afore mentioned evils and how that is against the interests of the populace. This demonstration prevents future evil, albeit, not entirely, but enough for the result to be desirable, thus by valuing a proper punishment for evil, one inherently values the preservation of the innocent. They are one and the same. Thus one cannot be valued above another without the total result being less.

Fin

Hmm. Everything looks quite properly wrapped up. But often times, one does not really know who is guilty. And I would think punishment of the guilty is something that society might require. Law itself should be concerned with protecting the innocent. And consequently, punishment and protection are not one and the same?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 11:15:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The only purpose of law is to keep the powerful in power. Sure, the meek will agree (as we are seeing) that laws are just and necessary, but with all frankness we are not breaking any limits of intelligence here; we are all highly stupid individuals because our opportunity for growth is choked off in almost every possible way. If we wanted to create the least intelligent society possible then we are doing a bang-up job. I don't believe most of you are speaking from your own minds; you are just broken in like good baseball mitts.

Laws are entirely unnecessary; for every immoral and unjust act carries with it an appropriate punishment intrinsically. If I commit a great injustice like murder, I am going to suffer greatly whether or not we involve police and courts. Similarly, if I commit small injustices like speeding and jaywalking, I will suffer minutely (represented by small chances with my safety). So there is no such thing as the punishment not fitting the crime, provided the capitalistic pigs of society do not take justice into their own, god-like hands.

Laws are actually, then, instruments of the unjust. Creating a life-sentence for a murderor or a small fine and ruined day for a speeder is only a way of artificially throwing off the balance of justice. Once justice is firmly unbalanced and the people adapt to this new scenario, it becomes possible for the rich and powerful to operate. Insurance commercials telling us that we have "way to much faith in [our] fellow man," for instance, allow us to be manipulated. Pictures of happy people on swings in a park show us that the newest pharmaceutical (ruling-class-approved) drugs are going to improve our lives. People aren't naturally stupid enough to fall for this sh*t... It takes laws to force us into this sorry state. Even amongst rather educated people like this website harbors, there will be very few of you who will hear anything I am saying.
no comment
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 4:15:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 11:15:05 PM, Caramel wrote:
Laws are entirely unnecessary; for every immoral and unjust act carries with it an appropriate punishment intrinsically. If I commit a great injustice like murder, I am going to suffer greatly whether or not we involve police and courts.

how? what if you get away with it completely, such that no one knows it was you who did it... ?

Similarly, if I commit small injustices like speeding and jaywalking, I will suffer minutely (represented by small chances with my safety).

lol. you "suffer" due to an increased risk of injury or death regardless of whether or not that harm every occurs? bull.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 8:30:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 11:15:05 PM, Caramel wrote:
The only purpose of law is to keep the powerful in power:

What nonsense. So laws like statutory rape were in the best interests of politicians, not little children? Yeah, that makes a ton of sense.

Laws are entirely unnecessary; for every immoral and unjust act carries with it an appropriate punishment intrinsically. If I commit a great injustice like murder, I am going to suffer greatly whether or not we involve police and courts.:

So in other words, you want an eye for an eye, mob justice rather than codified laws. Good to know that you don't want people to actually have a fair trial, and instead prefer people making snap decisions in the heat of the moment.

Laws are actually, then, instruments of the unjust. Creating a life-sentence for a murderor or a small fine and ruined day for a speeder is only a way of artificially throwing off the balance of justice. Once justice is firmly unbalanced and the people adapt to this new scenario, it becomes possible for the rich and powerful to operate.:

Laws are instruments of the unjust, what nonsense. But somehow you think that doing away with laws will magically make everyone just and balanced. What a horribly deluded grandiosity.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 10:53:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 8:30:33 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
So in other words, you want an eye for an eye, mob justice rather than codified laws. Good to know that you don't want people to actually have a fair trial, and instead prefer people making snap decisions in the heat of the moment.

"an eye for an eye" is usually taken as a reference to the Codified Body of Law of Hammurabi!!!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."