Six Socratic Questions: Question #1: What is Justice?

[JoshB]

I do feel it pertinent to tell of the origin of justice as described by Glaucon in Plato's Republic:

"...And so when men have both done and suffered injustice and have had the experience of both, not being able to avoid the one and obtain the other, they think they had better agree amongst themselves to have neither; hence there arise laws and mutual covenants; and that which is ordained by law is determined by them lawful and just....justice; it is a mean or compromise...and justice, being at the middle point, is tolerated not as good, but as the lesser evil, and honored by reason of the inability of men to do injustice."

I bring up the question "what is justice". These are questions that need to be answered:

1. Should justice be blind?

2. What is a "just law"?

3. Where lies the balance or "middle point" as described in the excerpt of Plato's Republic? Or, to rephrase, what should supreme justice be like?

4. What is a "just punishment"?

[JoshB]

And I do want feedback on my last hypothetical. Would you charge someone with murder for killing a genocidal war-lord?

Well, thats a difficult question. I don't think that it is permissable for one to take it into their own hands and decide that killing a genocidal war lord is a decision they are capable of doing. There was a House episode that captured this, where Chase killed a patient who was an african genocidal dictator, but as for my opinion, I don't know.

I saw that one too Well then I would think this to be the thing we need to work on. I think its honestly a matter of ends and means...or rather, is it just to do injustice for greater justice? So if the genocidal war-lord

So you would allow it if it was passed under those conditions? Isn't this implying that "just laws" are relative?

Sure, all laws are developed based on their cultural influences.

But if a culture is developed to view to see another culture inferior to the point of seeing them more as animals, would it be just to legalize the enslavement of that culture since it is mutually agreed upon, and doesn't trample any of the citizens rights (remember, the inferior culture is not a citizen of the 'superior' one)?

Your saying that the response should be imprisonment proportional to the crime committed?

Absolutely. Btw, where are the other questions??????

1 - How do we find out what proportional imprisonment is and be correct?

2 - I want at least 15-20 comments on this thread before I start another Socratic one...

[Zzyzx]

.
JoshB,

I have difficulty answering some of these questions, perhaps because I am not particularly philosophical (which also accounts for this being probably my first post in the Philosophy sub-forum).

1. Should justice be blind?
Yes – meaning that ALL must be treated equally under the law. No person’s possession or lack of wealth, status, position, influence, connection, etc must be allowed influence in any way application of a just law.

2. What is a "just law"?
It seems to me as though a just law must treat all people equally, it must avoid violating basic rights of any person (“life, liberty and pursuit of happiness� in the US according to founding documents), it must be in accordance with and consistent with higher ranking laws, it must not allow one to dominate other against their will or to take advantage of others by force, fraud or deception.

All laws limit freedom of someone. If a law accords favorable treatment to one person or group, it necessarily denies equally favorable treatment of others. If it gives money or tax exemption to one, it must take equal amounts from others (plus administrative costs).

A just law, in my opinion, must serve the overall good of society – without unnecessarily limiting basic individual freedom.

3. Where lies the balance or "middle point" as described in the excerpt of Plato's Republic? Or, to rephrase, what should supreme justice be like?
The term “supreme justice� has no meaning to me. Each group of people that enacts “rules� or “laws� designates the highest LEVEL of decision-making. I do not recognize any such thing as “supreme justice�, and thus, the “middle point� has no meaning to me. It seems reasonable to avoid extremes – without attempting to determine or define the “middle�.

4. What is a "just punishment"?
Idealistically, “just punishment� might be barely enough to discourage most (undefined term) infractions, without retribution or revenge. I do not accept the “eye for an eye� concept. However, if a person damages another person or their livelihood or their property, it seems just to require fair compensation. Loss of an eye might disqualify a person from their occupation with resultant reduction in income, which should be compensated fully (in my opinion).

In the case of rape, I am not sure that subjecting a rapist to at least the possibility of homosexual rape while incarcerated wouldn’t be “just�. A person convicted of murder should probably be imprisoned for life without possibility of release, in my opinion. I hesitate to accept the death penalty because there is a very real chance that the person is not guilty, even though convicted (and death is irreversible while release is possible).

I am opposed to “victimless crimes� and to legislation of morality – and am therefore adamantly opposed to “the war on drugs�. It is atrocious that half of the US prison population (largest in the world in absolute number and percentage of the population) is for infraction of drug prohibition laws. That, in my opinion, is unjust, unwise and a needless waste of lives and resources.

[JoshB]

JoshB,

I have difficulty answering some of these questions, perhaps because I am not particularly philosophical (which also accounts for this being probably my first post in the Philosophy sub-forum).

Im honored to be your first And this really is a cool sub-forum once you get the hang of it.

1. Should justice be blind?

Yes – meaning that ALL must be treated equally under the law. No person’s possession or lack of wealth, status, position, influence, connection, etc must be allowed influence in any way application of a just law.

I personally agree with the idea of blind justice, so it is hard for me to give opposition. I only have this hypothetical: If a man kills another man who is a genocidal war-lord, should we sentence the killer to murder charges? Or should Lady Justice lift her blindfold and see that the man has killed someone who has killed hundreds of thousands?

2. What is a "just law"?

It seems to me as though a just law must treat all people equally, it must avoid violating basic rights of any person (“life, liberty and pursuit of happiness� in the US according to founding documents), it must be in accordance with and consistent with higher ranking laws, it must not allow one to dominate other against their will or to take advantage of others by force, fraud or deception.

All laws limit freedom of someone. If a law accords favorable treatment to one person or group, it necessarily denies equally favorable treatment of others. If it gives money or tax exemption to one, it must take equal amounts from others (plus administrative costs).

A just law, in my opinion, must serve the overall good of society – without unnecessarily limiting basic individual freedom.

Out of this great answer comes a great question: how do we know a law serves the overall good of society? Cars are not a basic right, and kill a large amount of people each year. Would it be a "just law" and "in the service of the overall good of society" if we outlawed cars?

3. Where lies the balance or "middle point" as described in the excerpt of Plato's Republic? Or, to rephrase, what should supreme justice be like?

The term “supreme justice� has no meaning to me. Each group of people that enacts “rules� or “laws� designates the highest LEVEL of decision-making. I do not recognize any such thing as “supreme justice�, and thus, the “middle point� has no meaning to me. It seems reasonable to avoid extremes – without attempting to determine or define the “middle�.

Good point. I have no opposition.

4. What is a "just punishment"?

Idealistically, “just punishment� might be barely enough to discourage most (undefined term) infractions, without retribution or revenge. I do not accept the “eye for an eye� concept. However, if a person damages another person or their livelihood or their property, it seems just to require fair compensation. Loss of an eye might disqualify a person from their occupation with resultant reduction in income, which should be compensated fully (in my opinion).

Should compensation be provided by the crime committer? Say if one man kills another mans sheep; should the crime committer reimburse the victim with another sheep, go to jail, or both?

In the case of rape, I am not sure that subjecting a rapist to at least the possibility of homosexual rape while incarcerated wouldn’t be “just�. A person convicted of murder should probably be imprisoned for life without possibility of release, in my opinion. I hesitate to accept the death penalty because there is a very real chance that the person is not guilty, even though convicted (and death is irreversible while release is possible).

Imprisonment without a chance of release...If it wasn't for appellate courts Id have a counter argument...But what is an equivalent/sufficient punishment if not taking the eye for an eye philosophy? If a rapist is raped, he then knows the discomfort he caused, and will probably be deterred from committing that crime again...then again, that result would depend on the person (the crime committer might be ok with that or just be downright persistent...). So again we are at a wall: What is a just punishment? Does it have to deter a criminal from committing a second crime?

I agree with the victimless crimes opinion, but I think some of it can be argued by my argument in #2.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

And a great OP, I might add...

1. Should justice be blind?

Yes, in that it should not consider issues unrelated. No, in that it should be flexible enough to consider circumstances and individuals. I disagree with certain 'zero tolerance' laws or rules that are unable to accurately reflect the circumstances.

2. What is a "just law"?

One that seeks a proper balance between punishment, rehabilitation, and restitution to those wronged, and society as a whole.

3. Where lies the balance or "middle point" as described in the excerpt of Plato's Republic? Or, to rephrase, what should supreme justice be like?

IMO, 'supreme' need not be included, as long as justice follows the law and even common sense (as difficult as that may be). I would contend the balance is dependent on the crime, where the worse the crime, the worse the punishment.

Confining an example to adults that all here agree should know better...

In stealing, I would consider the circumstances. Did someone steal a TV left in a parking lot, or did they steal a TV from the back of a truck parked in that lot? In the case of the truck I consider it worse, in that it is reasonably assumed that truck has an owner who put that TV there, but not so clear in the case of a TV left in the lot - where it could be that someone left it there, otherwise abandoned.

4. What is a "just punishment"?

A just punishment would be one based on the law, the circumstances, the victim, and the perpetrator. This punishment would not seek vengeance so much as deterence and restitution to the victim / society, and of course to correct the future behavior of the perpetrator.

[JoshB]

Yes, in that it should not consider issues unrelated. No, in that it should be flexible enough to consider circumstances and individuals. I disagree with certain 'zero tolerance' laws or rules that are unable to accurately reflect the circumstances.

This gives a good answer to my hypothetical of a man killing a genocidal war lord. This also defines American Blind Justice, in that murder and killing in self defense have two separate sentences that are reduced/increased dependent on scenario. I applaud your answer, sir.

One that seeks a proper balance between punishment, rehabilitation, and restitution to those wronged, and society as a whole.

This balance is defined by the consensus of citizens, correct?

IMO, 'supreme' need not be included, as long as justice follows the law and even common sense (as difficult as that may be). I would contend the balance is dependent on the crime, where the worse the crime, the worse the punishment.

Confining an example to adults that all here agree should know better...

In stealing, I would consider the circumstances. Did someone steal a TV left in a parking lot, or did they steal a TV from the back of a truck parked in that lot? In the case of the truck I consider it worse, in that it is reasonably assumed that truck has an owner who put that TV there, but not so clear in the case of a TV left in the lot - where it could be that someone left it there, otherwise abandoned.

I think that circumstances are key to determining any punishment by the law. Did the man kill the genocidal war lord because of his atrocities, or because he was a murderous psychopath who just wanted to kill? If the latter, punish severely. If the former, not so much.

What Im wondering is if there is any sort of...equation for punishment. Something like crime + effects x circumstance...but thats just a thought...

A just punishment would be one based on the law, the circumstances, the victim, and the perpetrator. This punishment would not seek vengeance so much as deterence and restitution to the victim / society, and of course to correct the future behavior of the perpetrator.

I think there are still some questions left on this that were posed in my last post...

How do we know a law serves the overall good of society?

Does a punishment have to deter a criminal from committing a second crime?

What I mean by the last one is this: is the intent of punishment to deter from future crimes or to penalize someone for the crime committed? It seems that the latter would be true, with the former as a side-effect. Though you state deterrence to be in punishments intent, I do want to look into this more to see if that is actually true. Though this might be too much of a semantical argument...

Should compensation be provided by the crime committer? Say if one man kills another mans sheep; should the crime committer reimburse the victim with another sheep, go to jail, or both?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 15:

This balance is defined by the consensus of citizens, correct?

Hopefully. I consider it defined by the citizens through their representatives, while realizing those representatives may be beholden to other interests.

I think that circumstances are key to determining any punishment by the law. Did the man kill the genocidal war lord because of his atrocities, or because he was a murderous psychopath who just wanted to kill? If the latter, punish severely. If the former, not so much.

Determining motive can be quite difficult. If the perpetrator admits to one or the other motive, then there ya go. If he doesn't, then I'd propose the lesser punishment as still offering punishment while not potentially overstepping.

What Im wondering is if there is any sort of...equation for punishment. Something like crime + effects x circumstance...but thats just a thought...

In a perfect world, perhaps. As I see it, there are just too many competing notions from too many competing quarters - from "off with their heads", to "life without parole" to "justice demands a release date". All three have their valid arguments.

How do we know a law serves the overall good of society?

We really don't. It's the squeaky wheel theory - where those who holler the most are liable to have their take as the result.

Does a punishment have to deter a criminal from committing a second crime?

I would say it should, while realizing it may not. I for one, after several stints, have avowed to never again get caught breaking the law in Gwinnett County.

What I mean by the last one is this: is the intent of punishment to deter from future crimes or to penalize someone for the crime committed? It seems that the latter would be true, with the former as a side-effect. Though you state deterrence to be in punishments intent, I do want to look into this more to see if that is actually true. Though this might be too much of a semantical argument...

I'm aware of data that suggests deterence doesn't work, while as I state above, it works for me.

Should compensation be provided by the crime committer? Say if one man kills another mans sheep; should the crime committer reimburse the victim with another sheep, go to jail, or both?

I'd say both. The guy oughta get his goat back, but this alone is unlikely to deter a future offense.

He pays restitution to the immediate victim, and spends time in jail as both an attempt to rehabilitate as well as paying a debt to society. He has violated the victim's rights, as well "our" laws.

[WinePusher]

2 - I want at least 15-20 comments on this thread before I start another Socratic one...

Alright Josh, you got 15 responses and I'm interested in the other questions!

[JoshB]

I will do the next one tomorrow. But remember, these are basic questions. The only reason why this is a good OP is because this is my favorite of the 6, and have though about it often. The next will be (probably) What is Good. Or maybe What is Piety. I have 5 more left, so I have options.

To Post 16 (how do you do that link thing?)

A) So justice is relative?

B) I agree and have no opposition.

Q) And with justice apparently being relative, a standard equation is impossible.

D) Or rather, the lawn competition theory: Whoever has the most green wins.

C) But if its goal is deterrence, then wont it try to get more severe until its totally effective? Thats why I think deterrence is an effect that is different for all. Im glad to hear you have promised to legal behavior

9032) So its relative.

Im doing this randomly for laughs) Yes I agree. No opposition that I can think of.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 18:

To Post 16 (how do you do that link thing?)

The method I use is to copy/paste from the address bar in the browser. When more than one page is generated in an OP, the end of the address will include such as &start=10. The number 10 there actually represents post 11, so any time I reference a particular post I subtract 1 from the post number and use that.

I'll expand the []'s out so you can see how it looks. To make it work just don't put a space between the brackets and the tags...

[ url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 9&start=17 ] Post 18 [ /url ]

Removing the spaces, you end up with...

Post 18.

To reference a post that is on the first page of an OP, you just add the following to what was copy/pasted from the address bar...

&start=

For the first page of this OP, the address is...

h t t p : //debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14169

^notice above I expanded the http out so it wouldn't show as a link

At the end of that you put the post number minus 1...

&start=3

so you end up with...

h t t p : //debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14169&start=3

That would reference Post 4.

Feel free to PM me if you have any questions.
---------------------------------------------

A) So justice is relative?

Certainly. Ever hear a prisoner complain about a sentence being too light? Ever hear of a victim complaining about a sentence being too severe? There are of course exceptions, but for the most part it holds.

Q) And with justice apparently being relative, a standard equation is impossible.

Exactly, and for good reasons when the law considers mitigating circumstances.

D) Or rather, the lawn competition theory: Whoever has the most green wins.

Does the person get found innocent because he has money, or because his lawyer did his job? In a system where the best lawyers command the highest fees, I don't see anything immediately wrong, except to note the poor would be assumed to receive the worst 'lawyering'.

C) But if its goal is deterrence, then wont it try to get more severe until its totally effective? Thats why I think deterrence is an effect that is different for all. Im glad to hear you have promised to legal behavior

Humans being just that, deterrence is likely to never be 100% effective, even if I consider it a legitimate goal. Notice I vowed to not get caught breaking the law I was being a bit tricky with that.

[JoshB]

To Post 19


Sorry. I trailed off into something else when I said lawn competition theory...lobbyism or special interest or something...But anyways, overall I agree with your previous statement.

So:

Justice is relative.

On Justice Being Blind:

Yes, in that it should not consider issues unrelated. No, in that it should be flexible enough to consider circumstances and individuals.

On a just law:

One that seeks a proper balance between punishment, rehabilitation, and restitution to those wronged, and society as a whole.

These laws must be refined and approved by the citizens or by their democratically elected representative, else the law cannot serve the good of the society.

On a Just Punishment: Just Punishments are sentences given to a criminal that are proportional judicial actions reacting to the criminals actions. The punishment should detain the criminal for what the judicial consensus sees as an appropriate time frame. Deterrence from future crimes is a hope, but the primary goal of a Just Punishment is to penalize the crime committer for that crime.

What about corporal punishment?