Did those barbarians actually get it right?

The "barbarian" includes all societies that fall under what I am arguing.

Who does the law protect more, Criminal or victim (victim's family if victim is murdered). In the event of a murder, should the person who commited the crime be sentenced to death (not he person convicted, I am only talking about the perpetrator, the convicted and perp might not always be the same person unfortunately), should it be the family that decides the punishment. Or should we the civilized ones always value life.
If they violate a persons right to life (and security) should their rights to life then be forfeit.
If a thief breaks a bone in the victims house should he/she be allowed to sue for unsafe work areas (they shouldn't be there in the first place).
Has the justice system gone to absolute pot, where "we" let a criminal get off on a technicality (warrant was not valid at time of search).
Should it not be black and white, he murdered him, his right to life is now forfeit (If it was in defense then obviously it is another ball game, he protected his life by killing he person trying to kill him [would you try convince your killer that you have a right to life while he/she is squeezing the trigger]) just because you have the right to it, it doesn't mean that someone will not try take from you.
Yes these are extremes, but it is just for a point.
To me law should be of the victims choice, within reason, you cannot ask for the persons life in return for them taking your brand shiny new TW game from your hand/car. Let the community carry out the punishment, would you not be scared witless if you knew that you would lose your manhood if a you raped someone and you were found out.

Yes, I know, Eye for an eye and the world would be blind. Would you blind a person if you knew that it would happen to you if you were caught. (Everyone makes mistakes sooner or later, Hannibal, Achilles, Julius Caeser, everyone messed up sooner or later).

So what Are your views

Some of those barbarian societies had laws but no enforcing body, meaning a criminal could just laugh at anyone too weak to make him pay. Some of them let you pay for your crimes in cold, hard cash. Some of them killed you for things that no sane person would consider a serious crime today. Perhaps we're still better off?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spart

The "barbarian" includes all societies that fall under what I am arguing.

Who does the law protect more, Criminal or victim (victim's family if victim is murdered). In the event of a murder, should the person who commited the crime be sentenced to death

---

No. We're not able to administer the death penalty correctly or accurately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spart

should it be the family that decides the punishment.

---

No. There is neither logic nor justice in that idea. That is simply revenge, and has no place in the justice system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spart

Or should we the civilized ones always value life.

---

Sounds good to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spart

If they violate a persons right to life (and security) should their rights to life then be forfeit.

---

Nope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spart

If a thief breaks a bone in the victims house should he/she be allowed to sue for unsafe work areas (they shouldn't be there in the first place).

---

Only if the thief belongs to the International Brotherhood of Nogoodniks and Miscreants. Then he should be able to follow proper union procedure and file a grievance with his shop steward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spart

Has the justice system gone to absolute pot, where "we" let a criminal get off on a technicality (warrant was not valid at time of search).

---

"Technicalities" are what ensure that the police and the courts can't railroad people into jail. The police should have to stick to the letter of the law. If a few badguys get off because the cops screwed up, tough crap. The cops are professionals and should be held to a high standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spart

Should it not be black and white, he murdered him, his right to life is now forfeit (If it was in defense then obviously it is another ball game, he protected his life by killing he person trying to kill him [would you try convince your killer that you have a right to life while he/she is squeezing the trigger]) just because you have the right to it, it doesn't mean that someone will not try take from you.

---

Nothing is black and white. The justice system should reflect reality, not fantasyland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spart

Yes these are extremes, but it is just for a point.
To me law should be of the victims choice, within reason, you cannot ask for the persons life in return for them taking your brand shiny new TW game from your hand/car. Let the community carry out the punishment, would you not be scared witless if you knew that you would lose your manhood if a you raped someone and you were found out.

---

Again, that's not justice, it's vengence. There is absolutely no place for that in the legal system.

Spart: some questions.

How do you define justice?

What is the point -- the end -- of that justice?

What will be the means to achieve that justice?

Thank you. :bow:

Barbarian law? If by barbarian you mean European following the fall of the Western Roman Empire, then I would say most definately no.

I've done a fair bit of reading on the matter (mostly what we have today of the old laws are, as a rule, extrapolated, since no-one at the time though of writing stuff down), and can tell you right away that it's not a good idea to think of those laws as good in any way.

Generally, though I oppose the death penalty personally, if it is to be administered, then I'd say to do it quickly and as painlessly as possible. At that time, that would have been hanging, but many punishments were worse. Quartering, drowning, starvation, exile into wilderness (where you're as good as dead) ... not pleasant deaths.

Add to that some of the crimes that we would not tolerate today. Thank you, but I'd prefer not to stand trial for kidnapping because I touched a friend on her arm just because she happened to be a woman.

The Romans were the ones who got things right (mostly) and their rules apply still (as the basis of the law).

Generally, I do not see how taking another's life can be classified as justice. He may be a murderer of the worst sort, but taking his life makes us no better than he is, maybe worse because the way such things are done today is with a cold, clinical precision that shows no emotion, no care, and no pity.

Leaving the decision to the family of the victim? Worse, they are not objective. The whole point of the modern legal system is to present the case before a neutral party, who will then decide without bias (or with as little as possible).

As to the thieves comment. They operate outside the law, and therefore are not protected by it in such cases. So, essentially, the can't and shouldn't be able to do so.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spart
Has the justice system gone to absolute pot, where "we" let a criminal get off on a technicality (warrant was not valid at time of search).

---

"Technicalities" are what ensure that the police and the courts can't railroad people into jail. The police should have to stick to the letter of the law. If a few badguys get off because the cops screwed up, tough crap. The cops are professionals and should be held to a high standard.

---

Yes - quite agree with Goofball on this one. One of the supreme values of of "civilised" societies is the whole concept of the rule of law. That means the enforcers themselves also have to behave according to the law. If they don't then the law itself becomes even more of an ass than it usually is, and you defeat the entire object. And the object of the law is to protect the innocent, mostly from criminals, but also from the authorities.

I knew someone who was charged with a firearms offence - there was a strong case against him, but the police fabricated extra evidence to "make sure". Of course, that destroyed their case. They didn't need to do it. If they had followed the law themselves, it would have resulted in a conviction. These things aren't just technicalities - they are fundamentals.

Governments also need to be bound by law, and shouldn't be allowed to make political decisions that corruption is in the "national interest", for instance.

As for the death penalty, my objection to it is that the justice system is not perfect. If someone is jailed incorrectly, they can be pardoned, released and compensated. If they've been executed incorrectly you can't dig them up and start them up again. Again it's about protecting the innocent.

And one final comment: "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind".

I think you are confusing "suspect" with "convict" in your main argument. Habius Corpes (or however the feck u spell it) dog. I could give you a thousand reasons, read Grishams first non-fiction novel to see what i mean (happened right down the street, and i had a personal run-in with this DA to boot, so I guess i'm a little prejudiced ATM)

Uh....huh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Again, that's not justice, it's vengence. There is absolutely no place for that in the legal system.

---

Just a question, what is wrong with vengeance?

Y'know, the chain of revenges thing et all?

Well that may be the case with feuds between individuals, but haven't heard (much) of people wanting revenge against the state.

You'd be surprised.

I think that if you violate's someone elses rights you fortify your own. Our societies are sliding into anarchy. You can't smack your children any more and now look at Britain school system. Parents have abdicated responsibility and the teachers have no way to enforce the rules. Where I am I have actually seen things get progressivly worse in the past five years as I grew up. I'm only 20 and there's a massive generation gap between people my age and those three or four years younger.

If there is a murder then the convicted can be executed justifiably in my view. However if you have that law then you NEVER re-open the case. If the individual was innocent it doesn't actually matter so long as society believes he was guilty. Its a sad truth that a less corrupt force is less effective. Now Justice is not only done less it is seen to be done less.

Its the balance between protecting society and the individual. Currently it is too far to the latter. I think its hard to find the balance but I have no problem saying that if someone raped or killed my sister I'd cut his belly open before the Police got to him.

Justice to me is pure and simple, you violate a law there must e a consequence, cause and effect. I am in no favour of cutting a man's arm off for stealing. But the prison sentence should be for as long as the judge decide, there should not be an option of getting off early for good behaviour, just beacause he/she was good in prison does not mean he/she will behave once outside.

What do you think sending people to jail is, it is revenge cloaked as justice.
Mug a person and then they go to the police, then society has its' revenge, on a person who has broken a law.

This is a personal question for all those who believe in objectional government, those that believe in holding the police up to a higher standard.

Hypothetical: Your sisters boyfriend abuses her, what are you going to do?
(She 'loves' him too much and believes that she can change him)
A). Nothing, she must report it, he can only get perecuted if the victim files a case against.
B). Go to the police and tell them what is happening,
C). Tell your sister to leave him, he is no good, freeloading drunk
D). Tell him to bugger off, she doesn't nesd his no good, free loading drunken self.
E). Knock him into another dimension of pain and agony, while he is recovering you move your sister and family, all numbers change, you also leave a warning, any attempt to contact your sister/family will result in police intervention.

If you say that you would follow all options in that order I now create an F option.

F). Your sister is either close to death or dead, You now file a complaint against him at the police station.
G). You kill him for harming your sister.

If you followed the options you would have only gotten up to option D.

The point of that justice would be to change to mind of that person, to show him/her that she/he can change his/her life for the better, I would do this in an AA setting, all the inmates would sit around and sate why they were incarcerated, they would get counselling, if the counseller decides that they are unfit for society and a panel of judges concurs, then he/she will have to spend even more time in prison until they were deemed fit to return to society, (no they cannot be held resposible for that persons relapse into crime, no they cannot suggest that an inmate be let off eary for good behaviour)

With technicalities, if a person breaks into a place to steal and is caught case closed, though it would be interesting to hear the story of how he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. If the police need to fabricate evidence then everything is suspect and they should be put on trial and the fabrications dismissed, though they should know if their case is strong enough, if they need to fabricate stuff then their case was obviously not strong enough.

I agree with wigferth, Society comes first, a society lacking in bad people is better off.

Also why do criminals always want their day in court, if you take to the dodgy path you should be prepared to accept the consequences if you are stupid enough to get caught.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spart

Justice to me is pure and simple, you violate a law there must e a consequence, cause and effect. I am in no favour of cutting a man's arm off for stealing. But the prison sentence should be for as long as the judge decide, there should not be an option of getting off early for good behaviour, just beacause he/she was good in prison does not mean he/she will behave once outside.

---

Ah I see.

Then, what of unjust laws? Does an individual has the right to break an unjust law, or must he be subject to them no matter what?

Also, what if the judge arbitrarily gives a sentence that is "unjust?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spart

What do you think sending people to jail is, it is revenge cloaked as justice.
Mug a person and then they go to the police, then society has its' revenge, on a person who has broken a law.

---

You will find that many -- if not most -- advocates of prison, prison reform, and other such dealings with prison consider them to be at least more than "just" revenge and punishment. The deterrent effect is one that is often raised; the prevention of the individual from causing further harms another. As a matter of fact, many consider prisons to be the key location for "rehabilitation," which is often placed in the direct opposite of revenge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spart

The point of that justice would be to change to mind of that person, to show him/her that she/he can change his/her life for the better, I would do this in an AA setting, all the inmates would sit around and sate why they were incarcerated, they would get counselling, if the counseller decides that they are unfit for society and a panel of judges concurs, then he/she will have to spend even more time in prison until they were deemed fit to return to society, (no they cannot be held resposible for that persons relapse into crime, no they cannot suggest that an inmate be let off eary for good behaviour)

---

So you support rehabilitation. Doesn't that weaken your concept of justice as revenge?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spart

I agree with wigferth, Society comes first, a society lacking in bad people is better off.

---

That argument has been used to justify countless...unpleasant...actions of the governing bodies in the past.

There's quite a lot wrong with your post Wigferth, as I hope you will realise when you re-read it. Not least if you apply those powers to a government that you don't like, say run by hoodies or hippies or...communists. :stupido2:

I find it difficult to understand how the comment quoted below can be espoused by any rational mind. For a moment, consider all the ways it can be abused. If you need inspiration, read Orwell's "1984", or perhaps the Magna Carta. Or was it Runymede where it all started going to hell in a handbasket?

:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

If the individual was innocent it doesn't actually matter so long as society believes he was guilty.

---

I was deliberately pushing the point to the extreme.

Quote:

---

If there is a murder then the convicted can be executed justifiably in my view. However if you have that law then you NEVER re-open the case. If the individual was innocent it doesn't actually matter so long as society believes he was guilty. Its a sad truth that a less corrupt force is less effective. Now Justice is not only done less it is seen to be done less.

---

I can quite see the problem here, my point is about law serving society or the individual. If society believes that the perpetrator of the crime has been caught and punished then they believe the justice system is effective. If they believe the system is effective and that therefore if you commit a crime you will suffer the punishment then that is an effective detterent. In that case crime will be low and the lower the crime level the lower the punishment level and therefore the lower the chance of an injustice. Further, the lower the crime level the less the stress on the Police Force and therefore the higher their success rate, further lowering injustice.

The reverse principle lies behind double-jeproedy. Once you have been found innocent you ARE innocent, all doubt is removed. The same principle used to apply to the guilty. In effect the law is set up as infallable.

Both principles have now been abandoned and not only is crime on the rise and the prisons full but there seems to be more injustice than ever. Half a century ago what I describe was, essentially, the status-quo in Britain.

Fortunately at the time the "corruption" in the Police was in the form of procedure rather than concience. I can quite see the problems with such a system, and the historical examples are there to see, but I'd rather have that than what we have now.

I'm also in favour of the return of corporal punishment in schools, and yes, I was struck with a wooden spoon when I was younger. It only happened twice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spart

The "barbarian" includes all societies that fall under what I am arguing.

Who does the law protect more, Criminal or victim (victim's family if victim is murdered). In the event of a murder, should the person who commited the crime be sentenced to death (not he person convicted, I am only talking about the perpetrator, the convicted and perp might not always be the same person unfortunately), should it be the family that decides the punishment. Or should we the civilized ones always value life.
If they violate a persons right to life (and security) should their rights to life then be forfeit.
If a thief breaks a bone in the victims house should he/she be allowed to sue for unsafe work areas (they shouldn't be there in the first place).
Has the justice system gone to absolute pot, where "we" let a criminal get off on a technicality (warrant was not valid at time of search).
Should it not be black and white, he murdered him, his right to life is now forfeit (If it was in defense then obviously it is another ball game, he protected his life by killing he person trying to kill him [would you try convince your killer that you have a right to life while he/she is squeezing the trigger]) just because you have the right to it, it doesn't mean that someone will not try take from you.
Yes these are extremes, but it is just for a point.
To me law should be of the victims choice, within reason, you cannot ask for the persons life in return for them taking your brand shiny new TW game from your hand/car. Let the community carry out the punishment, would you not be scared witless if you knew that you would lose your manhood if a you raped someone and you were found out.

Yes, I know, Eye for an eye and the world would be blind. Would you blind a person if you knew that it would happen to you if you were caught. (Everyone makes mistakes sooner or later, Hannibal, Achilles, Julius Caeser, everyone messed up sooner or later).

So what Are your views

---

There are many phenomenons that are similar in both systems:

Revenge:
* in an eye for eye society, you don't really try a revenge unless you're sure who's guilty. If the person is guilty of ******* with many, you can team up an get your revenge. There's a big deterrent for doing revenge on someone innocent, because then you get chains of revenge back and forth
- in modern society, there's a similar deterrent for revenge against someone not guilty. If you're sure and ready to spend time in prison, you can try revenge. It's not illegal to kill someone in revenge

Not hurting innocents:
* the eye for eye principle sometimes hurt innocents. The worst thing would be if someone mistakenly accused someone innocent for a deed, then tried revenge. That would unleash an endless chain of revenge
- the law sometimes hurts innocents

Deterrent from committing crime:
* the eye for eye society would make people scared of committing crime, but also, since the average family would be responsible of handing out justice, allow criminals to form entities stronger than the body of law, resulting in criminals gaining extreme power and being unable to be stopped for just a few victim families. This is probably why law gained popularity over eye for eye.
- the modern society tries to not have punishments, but tries to put away criminals in an institution until they're not considered dangerous any more.

Problematic cases of wrongfully accused:
* an eye for an eye, and the simpler society forms in which it was applied, would make it easier for an average person to know who was guilty, and know when it was worth fighting. There would be mistakes, but perhaps not as often as today. Pardoning and mitigating factors would be handled better because there was a smaller population and you could actually know everybody, and their history
- modern society can create a more horrible bullying situation than eye for eye could ever do. You can have the entire country consider you a monster, if you're wrongfully accused with proof considered strong enough by some formal measure. You can even have situations like one man raping your daughter, then you beat him up, but the rapist goes free because of lack of evidence, and you rot in prison. There's simply not much overview of society, and individuals are forgotten in the system. Pardoning formally exists as a right of the government, but in many societies it's a better way to get votes to never use the pardoning ability.

Understanding, temptations and exaggerated punishment for minor crimes:
* understanding, temptations and not exaggerated punishments for minor crimes are things that are stimulated slightly better by eye for eye. You wouldn't risk a blood feud and chain of murders over someone stealing a bread, unless in times of starvation, for example.
- ...whereas many law systems have killed thieves, forgotten mitigating factors and understanding of the criminal's situation, assumed the criminal was the spawn of satan and inhuman etc. Modern law however (except in some cases) seeks to reduce crime towards innocents as it's main goal, which means if it finds out that stealing bread from someone innocent is the consequence of too high taxes or too low salaries and starvation, the society tries to solve that problem. If mafia organizations kill each others but don't hurt innocents outside the mafia organizations, the police doesn't care as much about that, as they do about someone going postal and machinegunning everybody in a school. Society thus tries to remove temptations by understanding the criminals and what caused them to go mad, and try to help the small time criminals such as one-time thiefs or cleptomaniacs back to society rather than punishing them by death or other draconic punishment.

Conclusion: modern society with large population, complex society structure, and law, has disadvantages over eye for an eye, but eye for an eye would be a lot worse if applied to our modern society. What can also be seen is that modern society and legal systems can be improved compared to how they are today, and that they only reduce crime and protect innocents if the goals of the law are remembered: to protect innocents from crime. Punishing and creating deterrents is a secondary goal, applied in many cases because it in most cases (but not all) it usually helps achieving that goal.

An eye for an eye doesn't leave the world blind, it leaves bad folks that don't get the message blind.

The desire to punish comes from herd animal instincts, as a means of removing individuals considered to cause chaos and conflict in a way that would hurt the herd. Evolutionary it makes sense for animals to have instincts to quickly dispose of "criminals", because letting the worst criminals (murderers) work freely would destroy the herd. For a herd animal, the greatest form of weakness is malevolence. That's why most herd animals are born with altruism. Obviously, in the herd animal case, it made more sense to be intolerant and apply principles similar to eye for eye because there were no prisons or any other way at all to create something filling the function law is supposed to fill today, and because it was extremely effective and accurate in a herd where everybody would see what everybody did, and people would know who is guilty and who isn't. Evolution would automatically regulate it so the most evil, with evil in the sense of "prone to damage the herd by his/her behavior" would have least chance of surviving that justice system. Add to that the fact that society wasn't changing much, so the suffering caused by this evolutionary pressure wouldn't be in vain.

While in civilization, the society constantly changes, so whoever is extincted by draconian death penalties and similar isn't necessarily the one who has genes that will make him mad in the next society form, while those who were innocent in one society form tend to become the criminals of the next society form. And add to that the fact that society is formed by human beings. If you call those who get mad in one society form EVIL, and kill them for some action their madness led them to commit, you will have nothing stopping you from turning society even worse, in a way that calls forth more madness, because you killed those human beings that were your best guides for when your society was starting to go wrong. When you kill people who get mad in a society form, and at the same time have the ability to change the society form, you tend to go towards societies in which it becomes easier and easier to get mad, and as more people get mad, you didn't really gain anything from slaying all those criminals, because it wasn't their genes, but your society, that caused their madness. That's why eye for an eye doesn't work in complex civilizations, but only in pre-civilization societies or some of the early civilizations.

The criminals and mentally ill are valuable to society because they tell use when society system has gone too far, and become too intolerant, in a way so that it causes madness and brutality. Our goal is to fight madness and brutality towards innocents, not to please our animalistic instincts which were adapted to maximize survival in a completely different society than the one we live in today. Perhaps those who can't resist their urge to punish, are a sign that modern society is too complex for the average citizen, because no matter how much he pretends to be rationalist, he is still controlled to 99% by instincts, unable to resist the temptation of doing as they say, even when it has bad consequences.

Ah Altruism, you scratch my back and I'll ride on yours. You seem to think as society as a living evolving thing, it's just an social contract bases on the convenience of the day. Conveniences exist because of inconveniences, that inconvenience being the crime of the day. Getting rid of that isn't animalistic, it's just common sense.

Not to mention we are pack hunters, not herd animals. The way we resolve conflict is a proof of this. If you want an animal-kingdom example just look at our brave Otters currently engaged in warfare and genocide against the invading Mink.

On a more serious note, there is a difference between retribution and revenge. The law is concerned with exacting the former to prevent the latter. The concept behind retribution is that you get what you deserve, whereas law is just "You hurt me so I'll hurt you." The problem with revenge is it tends to escalate.

Germanic law-codes were neither bad nor Draconian (Draconian actually means all crimes are punished by death, or near enough) they certainly wer harsh but the key thing you have to grasp is that those people did not value all life equally.

Today most people would say that intrinsically the life of a murderer is worth the same as his victim. If you tried to explain that to a Saxon or a Norseman he'd look at you like you were mad. From his point of view a murderer forfeited his right to life when he committed murder. That is a perfectly logical viewpoint, whether you agree with it or not.

Germanic society didn't collapse, so the law-codes must have worked. By contrast our own society is rather worse off in terms of crime than it was 50 years ago. Our law-codes no longer seem to be able to deliver retribution or detterent.

As an interesting aside, the Saxon law on manslaughter required the convicted to support the family of the man he killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Ah Altruism, you scratch my back and I'll ride on yours. You seem to think as society as a living evolving thing,

---

Before civilization, society was pretty much fixed, only small changes occured. Nowadays we have a cricular pattern where a society form is created by a generation of humans, that society form then affects the next generation, which based on its experiences makes changes to society and create the next society form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

it's just an social contract bases on the convenience of the day.

---

Convience is a value assigned to different things by different people. Depending on the experience of those who form society, they will seek convenience in different ways. Some parts of how society looks spring from what is practical, some of it springs from earlier experience and sometimes an overcompensation of previous errors causing new errors. Some of it just springs from somebody's desire to gain power, and sometimes the struggle of some to achieve power leaves traces in the entire society system, because to get power they're prepared to change laws to make it possible. All these phenomenons I'm sure you can admit exist, or? Those are the ones I'm referring to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Conveniences exist because of inconveniences, that inconvenience being the crime of the day. Getting rid of that isn't animalistic, it's just common sense.

---

Society isn't based on what is convenient, it's based on political correctness, our perception of reality, our forecasts and attempts at predicting the outcome of different actions, and our emotions and desires, and our definition of what is good for us, but also the struggle for power from individuals who are prepared to let laws change in ways that will allow them to gain enough power. A few examples of irrational decisions made in politics:
1. think things that aren't problems are problems
2. due to instincts and desires prefer certain ways of solving problems over others, even when they aren't the best methods
3. not isolate and define problems well, but instead "solve" things lying around problems, and assign strange goals to ourselves. Goals that were originally a means of achieving a real goal, and not a goal, are often raised to become goals on their own
4. solving a problem by creating several new, possibly even worse, problems
5. overcompensating to counter the problems of the previous generation, often seen as "political correctness"

Society certainly isn't rational, and nobody really controls it. You might think that since human beings created civilization, they would control it. Or you may think that those with the greatest power positions actually determine in which direction society goes. But how much power do they really have, and how much is created out of nondeterministic factors because they made incorrect predictions, incorrect decisions, or just saw a few years ahead and ignored what the results in 100 years would be? Any history book should show that things happening 100 years before a particular incident played no little role in making it happen. It's all about cause and effect, and it turns out the cause that has the greatest impact on what effects come out is how the previous society form looked, and not how individual humans, no matter how powerful, acted.

Does men create society or does society create men, society's are different wherever you find them, top down or bottom up, either way convenience for development of homo sapiens as a species. What you call political correctness is also covencience, keeps us in check now, makes us live by the rules of the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Not to mention we are pack hunters, not herd animals. The way we resolve conflict is a proof of this. If you want an animal-kingdom example just look at our brave Otters currently engaged in warfare and genocide against the invading Mink.

---

So are you saying that a hunter pack would benefit from having pack members who would be hurting their own pack mates?

I would also like to see any serious research talking about a "genocide" of minks. And otters killing minks isn't comparable to humans killing humans, but to humans killing lions or cows. I fail to see what's so sensational... :smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Germanic law-codes were neither bad nor Draconian (Draconian actually means all crimes are punished by death, or near enough) they certainly wer harsh but the key thing you have to grasp is that those people did not value all life equally.

---

Did I ever say anything different? I said that Germanic law-codes worked well in the society form they had. When they applied many of the roman ideas, and also some new ideas that they came up with on their own, the society form changed in a way that demanded a change of life style, and increase popularity of the concept of law. Being a historian, you're no doubt aware that blood feud came to be replaced by laws during the Dark age and Middle ages, with comparatively advanced systems existing over Europe by the end of the 17th century, even in smaller villages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Today most people would say that intrinsically the life of a murderer is worth the same as his victim.

---

"A person being worth something" is a concept I've always thought sounded ridiculous. Worth, as in money? What is usually meant, I understand, is that "a person having the same right to live as anyone else", if a competition situation would occur where the survival of someone would conflict with the survival of another. Starting with the hypothesis that all persons have the same right to live, and applying consequence ethics, it becomes clear that if we let the murderer survive he will kill someone else, which is a worse end result than if we let the murderer die, and someone else survive. Thus, IMO, the murderer has less priority to survive in such a situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Germanic society didn't collapse, so the law-codes must have worked. By contrast our own society is rather worse off in terms of crime than it was 50 years ago. Our law-codes no longer seem to be able to deliver retribution or detterent.

---

I agree that our modern societies have problems - it has often overinterpreted the concepts that was the groundwork of law in the 1950ies to 1990ies or so, and the whole tolerance and understanding part has partly collapsed because criminals have learnt how to abuse the system by having their lawyers trying to prove they were mad when they committed the crime. I don't believe harsher punishment would solve the problem though. A more clear definition of insanity and more professional judgement of that, among other things, would solve many of the problems. To be honest, from what I can tell reading newspapers, there have been plenty of cases recently where people who believed they could trick the system by playing mad didn't get any lowered sentence, showing that perhaps the system has already gone far in solving that particular problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

As an interesting aside, the Saxon law on manslaughter required the convicted to support the family of the man he killed.

---

Yes, that's something I really miss in modern law - the criminal being forced to compensate for his crime as good as he can. For example a thief getting to work until he can buy the things back, etc. etc. That is one of the major faults of modern law. But while that part of the old law is very good and still applicable today, the bloodfeud part of it IMO isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Does men create society or does society create men,

---

Both, it's a circle. Could anyone honestly deny such a simple and obvious fact?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

society's are different wherever you find them, top down or bottom up, either way convenience for development of homo sapiens as a species. What you call political correctness is also covencience, keeps us in check now, makes us live by the rules of the system.

---

Is this post attempting to argue against something I said? And if so, against what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Is this post attempting to argue against something I said? And if so, against what?

---

If so probably your need to comprehend, I don't think we are that complex. Basicly we are all eating/shitting-omatics that wants to keep doing that as long as possible because the alternative is not being here at all. To do that we have to compromise, that compromise we call society, just the best we can do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

If so probably your need to comprehend, I don't think we are that complex. Basicly we are all eating/shitting-omatics that wants to keep doing that as long as possible because the alternative is not being here at all. To do that we have to compromise, that compromise we call society, just the best we can do.

---

Yes exactly! It's the best we can do, and basically I'm trying to argue that nature, who has 4.5 billion years of experience compared to our around 10,000 years, is a whole lot better than us at it. And the second thing I want to explain is that even when we have extremely clever ideas about how society could be formed, we can never apply them because the society form depends more on how the society form previously looked, than on the actual actions of human beings. When people realize how much they're affected by the previous society form, they have a chance of actually judging the society form in a more neutral way, and not just based on the prejudice that happens to be fashionable at the moment. Basically, there's a whole lot more potential to improve society than we're using at the moment, and we have more wars and genocides than anyone could dream of proving the point. Now that also environment problems have entered the picture, we're basically at a point unlike any previous, where we have to choose whether we want self destruction but follow our instincts, or whether we want to act rationally, and survive, even if it would require that we at times would act contrary to our instincts, and according to thoughts.

I'm not directly argueing against you Legion, on this occasion. Your tendancy to reduce a lot of problems down to our being animals irritates me though. Its a difference of opinion. The Otters are currently expanding back into Mink-filled arears and driving the Mink before them. They are effectively prosecuting a war. I think its an interesting comparison to hummanity.

My point about the Saxon law was that the punishement was looking after the victim's family. Thats it. In other words you didn't get executed, maimed or locked up for doing something by accident.

I think the current problem with out society has to do with a great deal of the social-engineering that has been attempted. The backlash against political correctness and the resentment it is now creating against minorities is an obvious example. Humanity is elastic and I expect that by the time we die they will be executing murderers again.

Survive in which world, the one that was already there or the reality we created? One of the two doesn't really exist, it just looks like it does sometimes. When it does seem to exist, it is us that are really going against our instincts, isn't genocide a completily natural thing, thinking as a species? We are living in two worlds it seems, the one we know and the one we know very well.

Thats quite profound Frag.

The counter question is "Do you want to be a man, or a man."

Genocide and racism are perfectly logical from a survivalist point of view, but should we view the world from a survivalist point of view.

I have no problem with killing men if they try to kill me, or if they hurt my family, yet I can't imagine laying hands on a woman.

Weird, huh?

Whats even stranger is that actually makes me a chauvanist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Survive in which world, the one that was already there or the reality we created? One of the two doesn't really exist, it just looks like it does sometimes. When it does seem to exist, it is us that are really going against our instincts, isn't genocide a completily natural thing, thinking as a species? We are living in two worlds it seems, the one we know and the one we know very well.

---

Well genocide is neither rational nor natural in a situation where there isn't a resource crisis or otherwise the survival of someone conflicts with the survival of another. Most genocides have indeed happened at times of resource crisis, and most lethal violent behaviors (as opposed to mostly but not exclusively non-lethal violence that animals sometimes use to fight over partners) in animals occur only in times of similar crisis. Basically: from an evolutionary perspective, violence is good for the individual's survival when nothing else works for survival, but when there's no reason to use violence, the best thing is to not use it. That's why instincts tend to call forth violence almost only in times of crisis as seen from the perspective of the individual that uses it.

If we make sure the triggers for violence never appear, by making sure there's never a Malthusian disaster (resource crisis), or badly distributed power or other dangerous crisis, we will make sure that it doesn't occur as often that people will emotionally consider genocide an option. It would of course be unrealistic to expect total lack of genocide, war and crime in such a setting for many reasons, but at least a very dramatic decrease, and our closest animal relatives prove that it isn't unrealistic to expect that if the correct society form is chosen, violence can decrease quite dramatically down to the levels they show, because they have almost the same instincts set as we have.

And would we really have to change society that much to achieve it? I don't think so. All we would need would be birth control in most countries, and trade blockades etc. on all countries that don't adopt it, and have western countries increase their agriculture by a few percent.

But that's where the problem lies. It's easier for a politician to win an election with the message "more aid for the families and children in society so you can buy Christmas presents today!" than "introduce a taxation on children and strict birth control, so that we don't get a resource crisis in around 20-80 years from now". The first politician can pick some easy propaganda points, and accuse the second politician of "spreading fear and chaos", or "advoctating violence" and even blaming "people like him" for causing the violence of genocides etc., when in reality he's trying to do the opposite by making sure the crisis never takes place. In order to be able to have politicians in a democracy win an election with the latter message, the average citizen must be educated in the dangers of resource crisis, and learn to resist the temptation of having too many children, and know the necessity of voting through birth control. But people seem too ruled by instincts to accept such a regulation, they have a too strong desire to have much offspring. That desire is natural, because pre civilization not all of the offspring would survive to reproductive age. But in the modern society form it doesn't work as intended. That's one example of the core problem I mentioned: that the instincts aren't adapted to the modern society but to a precivilization setting, but that we still can't resist to act by these instincts, even though they don't work well. The question is: is it society or humans that should change?

Quote:

---

"introduce a taxation on children and strict birth control, so that we don't get a resource crisis in around 20-80 years from now".

---

This guy gets my vote! :2thumbsup: I'm fed up of all the breeders putting strain on resources AND getting all the tax breaks....

Sorry, I'll shut up and let the rest of you get back on topic.....

Here's an interesting question:

How many of our current "murderers" who have say, killed their sister's rapist would still be out and about if we had the death penalty for such a crime?

Capital punishement is fairly final and it probably does away with a lot of personnal vengance.

Another question. How many angry young men who go out and kill people would be better off in the army, restrained and only let loose to do the hacking and slashing on behalf of the state. We fought Napoleon with such men.

A fair few, despite capital punishment. A quick death is not for them ... they must suffer. That kind of mentality, so yes, you'd have such cases and a lot of them. Though, to be honest, rape isn't a very reported crime and a lot of cases would slip through unnoticed, in which case a brother or father or relative or even friend would get involved, in a rather nasty, bloody way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Another question. How many angry young men who go out and kill people would be better off in the army, restrained and only let loose to do the hacking and slashing on behalf of the state. We fought Napoleon with such men.

---

Those would be a one-shot weapon these days. Send them off to war, and as soon as they're back it's time for war crime trials. Back in those days, when such people were used, rape and pillage were considered basic parts of being a soldier. These days not so much.

I'll take your first point but I'll not take your second. There's a difference between psycho's and naturally violent people. I am not the peacable type myself, I don't go around killing people but I can understand, and have no problem with, a man who finds his wife in bed with another man and kills the adulterer.

A lot of the soldiers I know are very scary people. As nice as they may be they have an air of supressed violence about them and if you upset them they might just kill you. That doesn't mean they're bad people but they have a different set of values to you.

These days it's very hard to get into the army. Back then it was very easy.