Shaming of Criminals

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You don't need a court to get revenge, so what is the point of the system then?

What do you mean you don't need a court? Very often you do. And without courts you often have a kind of blood feud system. Who wants that? The strong will oppress the weak. People from powerful families will murder and rape and get away with it because no one can risk going up against them.

What do you think the point of the system is?

[Montmorency]

What do you think the point of the system is?

To maintain order and uphold the state's monopoly on force. Different policies will have different effects on the maintenance of these.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The codification of law divorced it from its natural roots. It started as something organic, moulded by society; and has become something arbitrary, that moulds society rather than the reverse. Look, for example, at the social issues brought about in America's poor communities by mass incarceration.

If law doesn't flow from the society it serves, but rather particular demographics who monopolize it, then it will never properly fulfil the function it is intended to. The codification of law is the means by which minorities can monopolize it in this way.

[Montmorency]

If law doesn't flow from the society it serves, but rather particular demographics who monopolize it, then it will never properly fulfil the function it is intended to.

Has it really ever not been this way?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Vengeance is NOT the point of system of justice. The point of a system of justice is to replace revenge with a system of intimidation and minimized recidivism.

What would be the point of a system of laws if nobody knew what were going to be considered crimes? If most people know that murder is a crime and that they will be punished for it, they should be somewhat more hesitant about resorting to murder. It only modifies behavior if people are aware that it is a "wrong" and that they risk punishment if caught doing said activity. The threat of penalty serves to modify our behavior, in many cases even when there is no authority on scene. For example, most Americans driving on a lonely road on the open plains with no cars visible for multiple miles in any direction, who come to a stop sign on that road, will stop at the stop sign. We become conditioned to obey the law.

Despite this, we are all aware that it is impossible to deter all crime, so the second facet of a system of justice is to do something that will minimize recidivism. Executing a murderer cannot revive the victim -- it can only prevent the murderer from adding to their kill total. We treat children differently before the court because we assume that a greater degree of learning, experience and maturity will suffice to prevent recidivism and that physical separation etc. will not be required to accomplish this.

[Major Robert Dump]

Shaming could work like this:

[Kralizec]

The codification of law divorced it from its natural roots. It started as something organic, moulded by society; and has become something arbitrary, that moulds society rather than the reverse. Look, for example, at the social issues brought about in America's poor communities by mass incarceration.

If law doesn't flow from the society it serves, but rather particular demographics who monopolize it, then it will never properly fulfil the function it is intended to. The codification of law is the means by which minorities can monopolize it in this way.

Are you sure you have the right idea of what "codification" means? Because justice was far, far more arbitrary before codification.

Arguably the principle of Stare Decisis in common law would offer similar safeguards- but only if precedents remained the same indefinitely once introduced (and even then, there's the unlucky guy who gets to be convicted first, out of the blue). AFAIK even in England the overwhelming bulk of criminal law is found in statutes.

[a completely inoffensive name]

What do you mean you don't need a court? Very often you do. And without courts you often have a kind of blood feud system. Who wants that? The strong will oppress the weak. People from powerful families will murder and rape and get away with it because no one can risk going up against them.

In all honesty Sasaki, how is this any different from the current system? Take anyway the last part and replace it with "because they have the ability to understand the system or hire people who understand it and abuse it to their benefit."

What do you think the point of the system is?

To render unto individuals their just desert in proportion to the crime they have committed or the crime they have suffered. This is very different from revenge which sets no cap on the limitations of punishments besides one own blood lust.

[Montmorency]

My vengeance demands no less than the extinction of the whole universe.

Furthermore, I decide on a case-by-case basis that this vengeance must be just, the most just vengeance in the history of justness and vengeance, because my logic and experience shows this to be the case.

Therefore, all of you die now and I'll call it a good start.