No, the people who first moved away from it did it on purpose. Your average random today was forced to comply with it. What it really is, is a compromise. A compromise built on the idea that if you don’t want to go back to old testament justice, you better make sure your alternative keeps working. Throw that out? Stop listening to the victims of crimes? Forget what justice is for? Then you have no right to demand victims stay “civilized”.
In a civilized society we don’t let victims pick the punishment, because we want to apply rational laws that are not based on vengeance. I’m not saying it always works, but it’s the idea we should strive for.
That victim-blaming label is something you pulled out of a dark orifice. I am not blaming anyone. I am just saying that we as a society don’t let victims dole out punishments. No matter how satisfying it sometimes might feel.
And you keep missing the part where “society” isn’t society-ing and has failed someone in the worst way. I’m saying that when this happens, it’s the failure of society to do what it’s meant to do that is to blame, not the victim who got shit on by said society and had no other choice for their own health and safety but to do something very uncivilized.
Please get it this time because I’m not going to circle back and explain it again.
Edit: What’s all this “we” shit anyway? You live in Germany, not the US, and you got plenty of societal issues of your own right now, so this high horse bullshit isn’t gonna fly here.
Oh fuck off with your what aboutism. I commented on the text in the image, which made it sound like someone murdered their rapist after a court let him go. And I will disagree with that kind of vigilante justice on principle. It might be understandable, I might not even be sad, but it’s not something a civilized society can tolerate. I hope you finally understand that.
Why can a civilized society release a rapist out in to the streets, but can’t grant clemency to the person to made said streets safer? Does that sound civilized to you?
I commented on the text in the image, which made it sound like someone murdered their rapist after a court let him go.
That is what happened.
And I will disagree with that kind of vigilante justice on principle.
On that we can agree. But your principles, and actual realistic expectations do not agree on this. I understand this and you don’t seem to.
It might be understandable, I might not even be sad, but it’s not something a civilized society can tolerate.
There you go, circling back again. So we can tolerate the rapist going free, but not the woman he raped making up for society having already failed to stop him? This convo is over.
Yes, if you apply this to rape, why not other crimes?
White collar crimes don’t get the death penalty, but a victim who lost their entire life’s savings might think they should. What if victims take their own vengeance? Or, what about a drug dealer who sells someone a drug that results in an overdose and then death. The courts won’t give that dealer a death penalty, but the family might decide they want to. Then there are religious types who might think that a girl or woman who dishonoured her family by getting pregnant outside wedlock deserved the death penalty for bringing shame to their family. If each victim gets to decide on their own what counts as justice for everything they perceive to be a crime, you get chaos.
It’s true that when you’re born you automatically fall under the authority of some random state that you had no role in selecting. For millennia there weren’t even laws. There were just the whims of the rulers. In a modern system with laws, you’re subject to that state’s justice system from the moment you’re born even if your moral code is completely different from the state’s legal code. If you’re lucky enough to have been born in a democracy, you can do what Greta Thunberg has done, and start advocating for the laws being changed before you’re even old enough to vote on those laws. On the other hand, if you were born in the 1700s you might have been born to slaves and the law would say that you were the property of someone else.
For the most part, we do listen to the victims of crimes in modern western democracies. Too often that means ramping up punishments more and more and forgetting about rehabilitation. That just costs society more and more as people are locked up forever. Occasionally it goes the other direction, as when a lot of countries got rid of capital punishment.
Laws are always going to be a compromise. The rich and powerful have the greatest ability to influence laws, and as a result the laws tend to benefit them over other people. Men have also historically had more power than women, so crimes involving sex are often biased in favour of men. In democracies, the people have some say and if enough people care enough it’s possible to change laws. But, that process is slow and sometimes doesn’t work. It’s sometimes morally the right thing to break or ignore laws, especially when doing so doesn’t result in anybody else getting hurt. If you’re the victim of a crime and you don’t think the punishment was enough, so you take matters into your own hands and mete out vigilante justice and kill someone, that’s just going to cause chaos. And, who’s going to come out on top in that chaos? It’s the rich and powerful, mostly men.
When it works, democracy is about slowly passing laws that bit by bit strip power away from the rich and powerful and hand it to everyday people. The rich and powerful are willing to put up with that because it results in stability which they appreciate too. If someone feels that the punishment for their rape wasn’t sufficient and takes justice into their own hands and kills their rapist, I’m going to hope that they are tried for that murder. Depending on the circumstances, I might hope that they get acquitted at that trial. Fundamentally though, I want to live in a place where laws exist and are enforced, rather than one where we get vigilantes and vendettas.
The image made it sound like she killed him after the court let him go. That’s what I commented on. If she killed him in self defense, that’s fine. Everybody is entitled to defend themselves.
I mean, that’s very biblical justice and we moved away from that on purpose.
No, the people who first moved away from it did it on purpose. Your average random today was forced to comply with it. What it really is, is a compromise. A compromise built on the idea that if you don’t want to go back to old testament justice, you better make sure your alternative keeps working. Throw that out? Stop listening to the victims of crimes? Forget what justice is for? Then you have no right to demand victims stay “civilized”.
So what you’re saying is that you prefer vendettas over a civilized society?
I get it, I get her anger, I also get that if we allow this, that our civil society will turn into a shitshow
Yes, fine, criticize the current system, we always will need it to be better, but we can’t allow victims to exact revenge themselves
No, they’re saying a justice system has to stay just for the people to continue to support it over stuff like vendettas.
Member when black folks used to get lynched for false rape claims? I member.
In a civilized society we don’t let victims pick the punishment, because we want to apply rational laws that are not based on vengeance. I’m not saying it always works, but it’s the idea we should strive for.
Correct. So if you don’t properly apply those rational laws, you get vengeance. That’s the deal. None of this victim-blaming nonsense.
That victim-blaming label is something you pulled out of a dark orifice. I am not blaming anyone. I am just saying that we as a society don’t let victims dole out punishments. No matter how satisfying it sometimes might feel.
And you keep missing the part where “society” isn’t society-ing and has failed someone in the worst way. I’m saying that when this happens, it’s the failure of society to do what it’s meant to do that is to blame, not the victim who got shit on by said society and had no other choice for their own health and safety but to do something very uncivilized.
Please get it this time because I’m not going to circle back and explain it again.
Edit: What’s all this “we” shit anyway? You live in Germany, not the US, and you got plenty of societal issues of your own right now, so this high horse bullshit isn’t gonna fly here.
Oh fuck off with your what aboutism. I commented on the text in the image, which made it sound like someone murdered their rapist after a court let him go. And I will disagree with that kind of vigilante justice on principle. It might be understandable, I might not even be sad, but it’s not something a civilized society can tolerate. I hope you finally understand that.
Why can a civilized society release a rapist out in to the streets, but can’t grant clemency to the person to made said streets safer? Does that sound civilized to you?
That is what happened.
On that we can agree. But your principles, and actual realistic expectations do not agree on this. I understand this and you don’t seem to.
There you go, circling back again. So we can tolerate the rapist going free, but not the woman he raped making up for society having already failed to stop him? This convo is over.
Yes, if you apply this to rape, why not other crimes?
White collar crimes don’t get the death penalty, but a victim who lost their entire life’s savings might think they should. What if victims take their own vengeance? Or, what about a drug dealer who sells someone a drug that results in an overdose and then death. The courts won’t give that dealer a death penalty, but the family might decide they want to. Then there are religious types who might think that a girl or woman who dishonoured her family by getting pregnant outside wedlock deserved the death penalty for bringing shame to their family. If each victim gets to decide on their own what counts as justice for everything they perceive to be a crime, you get chaos.
It’s true that when you’re born you automatically fall under the authority of some random state that you had no role in selecting. For millennia there weren’t even laws. There were just the whims of the rulers. In a modern system with laws, you’re subject to that state’s justice system from the moment you’re born even if your moral code is completely different from the state’s legal code. If you’re lucky enough to have been born in a democracy, you can do what Greta Thunberg has done, and start advocating for the laws being changed before you’re even old enough to vote on those laws. On the other hand, if you were born in the 1700s you might have been born to slaves and the law would say that you were the property of someone else.
For the most part, we do listen to the victims of crimes in modern western democracies. Too often that means ramping up punishments more and more and forgetting about rehabilitation. That just costs society more and more as people are locked up forever. Occasionally it goes the other direction, as when a lot of countries got rid of capital punishment.
Laws are always going to be a compromise. The rich and powerful have the greatest ability to influence laws, and as a result the laws tend to benefit them over other people. Men have also historically had more power than women, so crimes involving sex are often biased in favour of men. In democracies, the people have some say and if enough people care enough it’s possible to change laws. But, that process is slow and sometimes doesn’t work. It’s sometimes morally the right thing to break or ignore laws, especially when doing so doesn’t result in anybody else getting hurt. If you’re the victim of a crime and you don’t think the punishment was enough, so you take matters into your own hands and mete out vigilante justice and kill someone, that’s just going to cause chaos. And, who’s going to come out on top in that chaos? It’s the rich and powerful, mostly men.
When it works, democracy is about slowly passing laws that bit by bit strip power away from the rich and powerful and hand it to everyday people. The rich and powerful are willing to put up with that because it results in stability which they appreciate too. If someone feels that the punishment for their rape wasn’t sufficient and takes justice into their own hands and kills their rapist, I’m going to hope that they are tried for that murder. Depending on the circumstances, I might hope that they get acquitted at that trial. Fundamentally though, I want to live in a place where laws exist and are enforced, rather than one where we get vigilantes and vendettas.
Bible has nothing to do with it. She defended herself from his attack and if he wasn’t ok with dying he never should have attacked someone, period.
The image made it sound like she killed him after the court let him go. That’s what I commented on. If she killed him in self defense, that’s fine. Everybody is entitled to defend themselves.