Philosophy | University of Northern Colorado
Philosophy | University of Northern Colorado
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 The Open Forum
 The Agora
 Future Lawyers--What Do You Think...?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Da5id
Old Hand

52 Posts

Posted - Jun 06 2007 :  10:11:13 AM  Show Profile  Send Da5id a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Future lawyers:

What do you think should be the purpose of what we call "the criminal justice system"?

1. To exact justice, in the sense of punishing the criminal in the way that morality demands.
2. To turn criminals into non-criminals--to cure them of the habit of crime.
3. To protect the potential victims of crime by removing the criminals from among their midst.
4. To insure that the criminal repairs the damage done to the victims of crime.

To what extent are any of these goals compatible with each other?

Should we, and can we, as a society, decide which of these goals our justice system should be designed to achieve? (Yes, I take it as a fact that we have not already done so.)

I often hear news reports that claim that most violent crime is committed by those who've committed violent crimes before. Does anyone know of objective evidence to back up this claim? I'd like to see something like statistics collected by the FBI.

Each item in the numbered list above (I think) carries with it assumptions that may be open to question.

Notably absent from the list above is that the criminal must pay a "debt to society." I'm not sure that phrase is as current as it was when I was young. I never could understand how incarceration constituted paying a debt to society. As far as I can tell, it's society that pays to incarcerate the criminal.

As a citizen, I am dissatisfied with the criminal justice system because it doesn't seem to be designed to achieve specific, achievable goals. I'm open to argument.

David

Edited by - Da5id on Jun 06 2007 10:20:11 AM

William Goetz
Adept

32 Posts

Posted - Feb 24 2015 :  11:52:30 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I agree and disagree. The justice system was built to be open to interpretation. The same beauty that built this wonderful ideology we have to day, is the same reason citizens such as your self feel dissatisfied. Terms like justice and Equality are supposed make people feel whole inside, the extent of reason and law now becomes too partial to create a wholly true, justice system with equality, its a good idea that impossible to obtain.

I pick number 1 because if your going to do something, you might as well do it right and cold heartedly in this system of equation. I bring beneficence and autonomy to the plate and we are beyond labeling people, white by law, that same phrase of words is a good book by the way. Because law is analytical and strenuous, if the products were so great, why do we continually punish ourselves?

Because if you have time to judge other people, and decide to use punishment on one person, than chances are 1,000 more people need the same punishment and will never feel the wrath of the law.

So constraining everyone's behavior is certainly a push toward normative behavior which. Saying that a push toward the Nazi's is a push toward a normative culture, it just depends on perspective to decide whether or not the normative culture is really God like? or manipulative? or honest and simply agrees our nation needs to change...

Currently, I am at opposition to the term debt and by definition I am instantly repelled. Society is a multidimensional thing, many layers that holds much qualitative data in the unfolding at the local level. I'm talking about communities, neighborhoods, and aggregates. This dimension of law at a local level is way different from what they are doing in the supreme courts...The courts put into affect now what our behavior should look like later, which I wish to point out, has affects at the local level from the top down.

The social dominance theory explains much to this regard, in that people get confused when other people do things behind your back. How can you get to the top is like I don't know let me see how many backs I step on to get noticed... Local cultures with more quality than written policy have a story telling richness about it. You explain your beliefs through tradition and story, griefs and hopes, success and failure. This is how generations pass on; this is why I'm not surprised people who are fed out of rusty garbage want Gold in there teeth when they grow up...They see what puts them down and try to take a little piece to bring them up.

In all is not supposed to be perfect.
Subjective, objective, achievable, and purposeful is what we are about right now in the Evidence Based-Practice wave.
once again it's never going to be perfect, only thorough, ever building; pushing and pulling the balance between the ethical should we Vs. the rational-empirical can we Vs. the Gangster's who you callin We, I ain't apart of your team
Give us a Definition and a Key it still don't mean nothing, people will always feel comfortable while others are starving.
1{Label} 2{place to put label like section 8}=> Label Placement...Where do judges, nurses, and lawyers go? they go to fix the problems, but only add to the problem unless they add in a transformative manner, implementing change as the new policy? what is this is this still additive?

Rant over, left with many questions, not sure if there is an argument in there
William
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Philosophy | University of Northern Colorado © 2004 tkt Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.11 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000