|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Jul 13, 2010 21:02:44 GMT -5
There are enough 'reactionary' people to make up for all those who wouldn't seek out 'justice'. Allowing 'citizen's justice', we give license to kill to any number of seedy characters atop of those ones we wouldn't mind having a go for their own revenge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2010 4:43:21 GMT -5
That is NOT my position, Lynne.
I believe that society and the citizens rather than governments - PARTICULARLY non-elected ones - should be the determing factors in law and punishment.
At present the authorities get a relatively unopposed run at repressing the people!
I am NOT advocating lynch law but a radically DIFFERENT kind of justice.
I firmly believe that communities rather than nations should be in charge of such matters and that it is quite reasonable (so long as basic human rights are respected) for them to adopt slightly differing models.
As one outraged contemporary writer said of the Scottsboro' case, the accused might have preferred lynching to 'the partial [meaning biased] trials that have disgraced American justice.'
|
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 14, 2010 8:04:05 GMT -5
of course, everyone gets it wrong. "citizen's justice" is what we have. in a democracy, even a pseudo one such as the u.s. and most of europe, the power is derived FROM the citizen. the laws on the books are those which the CITIZEN wants.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Jul 14, 2010 8:59:36 GMT -5
That is NOT my position, Lynne. I believe that society and the citizens rather than governments - PARTICULARLY non-elected ones - should be the determing factors in law and punishment. At present the authorities get a relatively unopposed run at repressing the people! I am NOT advocating lynch law but a radically DIFFERENT kind of justice. I firmly believe that communities rather than nations should be in charge of such matters and that it is quite reasonable (so long as basic human rights are respected) for them to adopt slightly differing models. As one outraged contemporary writer said of the Scottsboro' case, the accused might have preferred lynching to 'the partial [meaning biased] trials that have disgraced American justice.' Well then, I'm confused. You have ~ on any number of occassions ~ called vigilantism, 'citizen's justice'. |
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Jul 14, 2010 9:04:21 GMT -5
of course, everyone gets it wrong. "citizen's justice" is what we have. in a democracy, even a pseudo one such as the u.s. and most of europe, the power is derived FROM the citizen. the laws on the books are those which the CITIZEN wants. I've heard both Mike and Lin talk about 'citizen's justice' and what they refer to is nothing more than vigilantism. Give license to MVS to kill their loved one's killer, allow the victim of rape to seek out their victimizer and kill him... etc. Of course, I acknowledge that in TX, you do have 'citizen's justice' where a possible criminal crossing your lawn may be shot in the back. Yay Texas. |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 14, 2010 9:39:47 GMT -5
of course, everyone gets it wrong. "citizen's justice" is what we have. in a democracy, even a pseudo one such as the u.s. and most of europe, the power is derived FROM the citizen. the laws on the books are those which the CITIZEN wants. thank you jumbo..exactly...and the people who make the laws are of course..citizens in most european countries[well untill we got the arbitary EU of course but the basic laws...are by the citizens and for the citizens |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2010 17:28:32 GMT -5
I believe that society and the citizens rather than governments - PARTICULARLY non-elected ones - should be the determining factors in law and punishment. Some societies want strong, unelected governments. Why are you biased against them? At present the authorities get a relatively unopposed run at repressing the people! Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Where have I heard that before.  I am NOT advocating lynch law but a radically DIFFERENT kind of justice. It sounds a lot like Sharia to me. You want a government of people, not law, a tyranny of the majority. communities rather than nations should be in charge of such matters and that it is quite reasonable (so long as basic human rights are respected) for them to adopt slightly differing models. Not possible. You can't comport human "rights" to communities. |
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz 
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Jul 14, 2010 20:08:51 GMT -5
Citizens' Justice = Mob Rule = Lynch Law = Savagery
|
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 15, 2010 1:31:37 GMT -5
communities would differ in their aproaches to those who transgressed
we pnly have to look at the ""moat"" reactions to see that wouldnt work...
|
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 15, 2010 6:03:42 GMT -5
of course, everyone gets it wrong. "citizen's justice" is what we have. in a democracy, even a pseudo one such as the u.s. and most of europe, the power is derived FROM the citizen. the laws on the books are those which the CITIZEN wants. I've heard both Mike and Lin talk about 'citizen's justice' and what they refer to is nothing more than vigilantism. Give license to MVS to kill their loved one's killer, allow the victim of rape to seek out their victimizer and kill him... etc. Of course, I acknowledge that in TX, you do have 'citizen's justice' where a possible criminal crossing your lawn may be shot in the back. Yay Texas. you did good with the first paragraph. it's sad that you spoiled your post with utter bs with the second one. obviously, if a criminal is on your property, you have the MORAL, as well as legal, right to kill it. that has nothing whatsoever to do with "citizen's justice" or "vigilantism". it is simply a god given human RIGHT. |
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 15, 2010 6:05:47 GMT -5
of course, everyone gets it wrong. "citizen's justice" is what we have. in a democracy, even a pseudo one such as the u.s. and most of europe, the power is derived FROM the citizen. the laws on the books are those which the CITIZEN wants. thank you jumbo..exactly...and the people who make the laws are of course..citizens in most european countries[well untill we got the arbitary EU of course but the basic laws...are by the citizens and for the citizens that is exactly what democracy is. any system which is not like that, either directly, which does not exist, or representatively, as is the case, is NOT a democracy |
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 15, 2010 6:09:14 GMT -5
communities would differ in their aproaches to those who transgressed we pnly have to look at the ""moat"" reactions to see that wouldnt work... the simple reality is that everyone is perfectly free to not be bound by any laws whatsoever, as long as he goes where he has NO interaction with other people whatsoever. simply by your desire to be among other people, you signify your willingness to comport yourself as the majority decrees. end of story |
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Jul 15, 2010 8:00:18 GMT -5
I've heard both Mike and Lin talk about 'citizen's justice' and what they refer to is nothing more than vigilantism. Give license to MVS to kill their loved one's killer, allow the victim of rape to seek out their victimizer and kill him... etc. Of course, I acknowledge that in TX, you do have 'citizen's justice' where a possible criminal crossing your lawn may be shot in the back. Yay Texas. you did good with the first paragraph. it's sad that you spoiled your post with utter bs with the second one. obviously, if a criminal is on your property, you have the MORAL, as well as legal, right to kill it. that has nothing whatsoever to do with "citizen's justice" or "vigilantism". it is simply a god given human RIGHT. Well, I utterly disagree that shooting an unarmed burglar who never even neared your home, but crossed your property LEAVING ~ in the back, is in any way moral or right. But, I accept that the uncivilized citizens of TX want to be allowed to do it, so they've written it into their laws. That makes it different than one by one saying 'this murder isn't acceptable, but that one is'. It isn't murder (although it certainly is elsewhere) in TX. |
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Jul 15, 2010 13:49:52 GMT -5
And since people will disagree as to which murder is acceptable or why, just like the Moat case (who probably was shot by SAS) it opens the way to blood feuds. The fact is that there are a lot of things citizens are not very good at deciding for themselves because they are not experts and do not necessarily know all the details, so make a joint decision to appoint specialists to specialist jobs for them.
If you want citizens' justice you look back to ancient Athens where just about everything was done by public assembly and they thought even elections not democratic enough compared to random lottery. The result of a minimum 501-man jury who all knew the people involved and had their own views about the case voting on guilt and proposed sentences often had more to do with personal prejudice and popularity than guilt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Jul 16, 2010 0:14:40 GMT -5
I so agree with you, Erasmus. Whenever we allow some people to get away with murder because we pity them, or understand why they murdered, we allow still more to do the same ~ even those we'd rather not.
|
|
