[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Al Capone was tried and convicted on tax evasion. Was this justice for those who died as a result of his actions?

I think it's a flawed assumption that justice should be 'for' the victims/victims' families. Justice is enacted by the authorities, on behalf of the people, against those who commit crimes. There isn't and shouldn't be any element of revenge in this. It's not about compensation to those wronged, it's about removing undesirable elements from society and providing an incentive to future potential criminals to be good.

The damage that Capone did, or that Hussein did, can't be undone. There's no way to bring back the people who were killed or to fairly redistribute the assets that were stolen. The best we can hope for is to take steps to prevent such things from happening again. Beyond that, all anyone can do is accept the fact that the past is the past and get on with the present.

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

There isn't and shouldn't be any element of revenge in this.

Two questions...

1) There isn't?

2) Why shouldn't there be?

Bonus narky question:

3) Can I have some of what yer smokin?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Two questions...

1) There isn't?

Ok fine, that might have been a bit optimistic.

2) Why shouldn't there be?

Because it's not productive and serves no worthwhile purpose.

Bonus narky question:

3) Can I have some of what yer smokin?

Of course

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Because it's not productive and serves no worthwhile purpose.

Not to be a pest, but why?

If I can repurpose St. Thomas Aquinas, "prostitution revenge in the towns is like the cesspool in the palace. Do away with the cesspool, and the palace will become an unclean and stinking place."

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Not to be a pest, but why?

If I can repurpose St. Thomas Aquinas, "prostitution revenge in the towns is like the cesspool in the palace. Do away with the cesspool, and the palace will become an unclean and stinking place."

I'm not sure it works to just take a quote and replace a salient word with one of your own.



And let's not forget what Ghandi said, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". I suppose if you consider global de-oculation productive, then that's that...

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Too bad we wont get anymore pics like..

Saddam most certainly was well hung.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I think it's a flawed assumption that justice should be 'for' the victims/victims' families. Justice is enacted by the authorities, on behalf of the people, against those who commit crimes. There isn't and shouldn't be any element of revenge in this. It's not about compensation to those wronged, it's about removing undesirable elements from society and providing an incentive to future potential criminals to be good.

The reality is that most forms of punishment ARE based upon revenge, wishing it not to be so really does nothing.

Because it's not productive and serves no worthwhile purpose.

I would say that making that distinction really serves no worthwhile purpose. If I put someone in prison for 20 years out of revenge, how is that actually worse than if I put someone in prison for the reasons you mention?

[Snow-i]

better question.

What worthwile purpose would be served in letting him live?

He had such a disregard for human life, I don't see why people would want to treat him differently then he treated his people.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Snow-i

What worthwile purpose would be served in letting him live?

One could have then tried him for his major crimes.

With all of Saddam’s other crimes to choose from, why on earth would you hang him for executing the people suspected of involvement in the Dujail plot?

Because the United States was not involved in that one. It was involved in the massacre of the Iraqi Communists (the US Central Intelligence Agency gave Saddam their membership lists). It was implicated up to its ears in Saddam’s war against Iran — to the point of arranging for Iraq to be supplied with the chemicals to make poison gas, providing Baghdad with satellite and AWACS intelligence data on Iranian targets, and seconding US Air Force photo interpreters to Baghdad to draw Saddam the detailed maps of Iranian trenches that let him drench them in poison gas.

The Reagan administration stopped Congress from condemning Saddam’s use of poison gas, and the US State Department tried to protect Saddam when he gassed his own Kurdish citizens in Halabja in 1988, spreading stories (which it knew to be false) that Iranian planes had dropped the gas. It was the US that finally saved Saddam’s regime by providing naval escorts for tankers carrying oil from Arab Gulf states while Iraqi planes were left free to attack tankers coming from Iranian ports. Even when one of Saddam’s planes mistakenly attacked an American destroyer in 1987, killing 37 crewmembers, Washington forgave him.

And it was George W. Bush’s father who urged Iraq’s Shiites and Kurds to rebel after Saddam was driven out of Kuwait in 1991, and then failed to use US air power to protect the Shiites from massacre when they answered his call. The US was deeply involved in all of Saddam’s major crimes, one way or another, so no trial that delved into the details of those crimes could be allowed.

[Kevin]

And in the end it's still a US conspiracy!



You crack me up red. You really do.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

If I put someone in prison for 20 years out of revenge, how is that actually worse than if I put someone in prison for the reasons you mention?

It isn't. Unless you care about think like morality, human rights, basic human dignity, boring stuff like that.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

better question.

What worthwile purpose would be served in letting him live?

He had such a disregard for human life, I don't see why people would want to treat him differently then he treated his people.

Because we (like to think we) are better than him?

[Snow-i]

nonhuman, why the hell should i give a damn about saddam's human rights? He didn't give a damn about anyone else's.

Are you kidding me? You honestly think that peice of **** deserves to live? he deserves dignity? he deserves to be taken care of for the rest of his life?

No. certainly not. You should have to earn your place on society, even just by living your own life and leaving others alone. in my opinion, the second you start murdering people for opposing your views, you lose any and all rights to "boring stuff like that."
Where is your bleeding heart for those thousands and thousands of lives (of his own citizens) he's ruined?

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I'm not sure it works to just take a quote and replace a salient word with one of your own.

Well you should see the original word I put in there.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

And let's not forget what Ghandi said, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". I suppose if you consider global de-oculation productive, then that's that...

Seriously though, my Aquinas analogy wasn't perfect, let me state things in a more mundane manner.

Revenge as a concept seems pretty neutral to me. If the state does something to a criminal, and a victim wishes to see what the state has done as avenging the wrong, what exactly is wrong with that?

I can see that people are often not satisfied with their revenge, that's certainly an issue, but I don't think the solution is to try and eliminate the concept altogether, that's treating the symptom not the actual disease, which in this case is unrealistic expectations.

Besides, I can think of at least a dozen concepts that need to be taken out behind the woodshed before we even think about laying our hands on revenge. Misogyny would be at the top of that list.

Trust me, if you get rid of revenge before you get rid of misogyny, you are going to have a whole mess of vengeful bitches on your hands.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

nonhuman, why the hell should i give a damn about saddam's human rights? He didn't give a damn about anyone else's.

If you don't, then how can you claim to be any better than him? And if you're not any better than him, where do you get off condemning him to death?

Are you kidding me? You honestly think that peice of **** deserves to live? he deserves dignity? he deserves to be taken care of for the rest of his life?

Everyone deserves to live, everyone has an innate dignity. I don't think he should be taken care of any more than I think we should give the homeless and indigent free-rides, but just because our modern penal system coddles criminals doesn't mean we should simply go to the opposite extreme and kill people.

No. certainly not. You should have to earn your place on society, even just by living your own life and leaving others alone. in my opinion, the second you start murdering people for opposing your views, you lose any and all rights to "boring stuff like that."
Where is your bleeding heart for those thousands and thousands of lives (of his own citizens) he's ruined?

I agree that you have to earn your place in society, and that murderers forfeit the right to that place. I just disagree that we have the right to kill people simply because the alternative is inconvenient for us.

And tell me what good my speech or actions could possibly do to those thousands and thousands of people that he's killed. What's done is done, none of us can undo the crimes of the past so we have to settle for stopping the crimes of the present and preventing the crimes of the future. We've already prevented Sadaam from doing any more damage, killing him serves no purpose other than satisfying our own ghoulish blood-lust.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Are you kidding me? You honestly think that peice of **** deserves to live? he deserves dignity? he deserves to be taken care of for the rest of his life?

He doesn't deserve to live. The Iraqis (along with everyone else) deserve the dignity to not have the state kill them.

Saddam is an Iraqi, ergo, the state should not kill him. What he deserves is irrelevant.

You don't see the irony in the state killing someone who's great crime was that he used the state to kill people?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well you should see the original word I put in there.

Seriously though, my Aquinas analogy wasn't perfect, let me state things in a more mundane manner.

Revenge as a concept seems pretty neutral to me. If the state does something to a criminal, and a victim wishes to see what the state has done as avenging the wrong, what exactly is wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with the victims choosing to see what's done as revenge except in that it creates a societal expectation that criminal law is intended to avenge wrongs against them. It isn't (or shouldn't be). As Ghandi was saying, what happens when your family gets revenge on your killer? Their family gets revenge on you. At some point someone has to just let go and forgive the sins of the past. If our legal system doesn't encourage that sort of behavior, then it's just perpetuating a system in which it's constantly tied up (from the point of view of lawyers and law-enforcement, this may not be a bad thing).

I can see that people are often not satisfied with their revenge, that's certainly an issue, but I don't think the solution is to try and eliminate the concept altogether, that's treating the symptom not the actual disease, which in this case is unrealistic expectations.

Eliminating the concept, no. But refraining from encouraging it, certainly. I agree that the problem is unrealistic expectations, I just think the unrealistic expectation is the expectation that everyone who is wronged is going to be able to get revenge. They're not, it just can't happen, and it would be counter-productive (not to mention lying) to encourage people to think otherwise.

Besides, I can think of at least a dozen concepts that need to be taken out behind the woodshed before we even think about laying our hands on revenge. Misogyny would be at the top of that list.

Fix what you can, when you can. If you can solve a problem today, why put it off just because there are other problems you might be able to solve later?

Trust me, if you get rid of revenge before you get rid of misogyny, you are going to have a whole mess of vengeful bitches on your hands.

So clearly we just need to get rid of feminism.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by subego 

What he deserves is irrelevant.

Bingo.

If you ask me, the greatest philosophical problem of our age is that people think that they somehow 'deserve' things. It's bullshit. You get things because an opportunity presents itself and you act on it. Something you end up with what you want or more, sometimes you don't.

Life isn't fair. Deal with it.

[Ghoser777]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

And in the end it's still a US conspiracy!



You crack me up red. You really do.

So none of that happened?

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

There's nothing wrong with the victims choosing to see what's done as revenge except in that it creates a societal expectation that criminal law is intended to avenge wrongs against them. It isn't (or shouldn't be). As Ghandi was saying, what happens when your family gets revenge on your killer? Their family gets revenge on you. At some point someone has to just let go and forgive the sins of the past.

Eliminating the concept, no. But refraining from encouraging it, certainly.

I concede.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Saddam most certainly was well hung.

Geez. Tough crowd.

[Face Ache]

Your comments support the enemy (more than Saddam's Y-fronts ever did).

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It isn't. Unless you care about think like morality, human rights, basic human dignity, boring stuff like that.

I was asking a serious question.

Can't it be said that the difference between punishment and revenge is merely semantics?

And what about those societies that have considered revenge to be moral and the right of those victimized? Who gets to decide whether they are right or wrong? It seems to me that to simply state that to act out of revenge is wrong and has no purpose is not only an imposition of ones morals on another, but also an over simplification.

[subego]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Can't it be said that the difference between punishment and revenge is merely semantics?

On one hand, I agree, but on the other, I think the fact it's the state that prosecutes you makes the difference more than semantic.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

If you ask me, the greatest philosophical problem of our age is that people think that they somehow 'deserve' things. It's bullshit. You get things because an opportunity presents itself and you act on it. Something you end up with what you want or more, sometimes you don't.

Life isn't fair. Deal with it.

This is close to what I have thought.

It seems to me that the question is of how and why things "happen" to us which encompasses your idea of "deserving".

A lot of unnecessary misery and misplaced joy revolves around the idea that things are happening TO US…as if we are the target of what is occurring. Things just happen, they aren't happen TO us. The more we realize that the more free we are to enjoy our lives.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by subego 

On one hand, I agree, but on the other, I think the fact it's the state that prosecutes you makes the difference more than semantic.

When you start looking at what revenge and punishment actually are the difference is mostly a matter of semantics. The only distinction is that of morality, which is highly subjective. In a society which views revenge to be moral it is no longer revenge. it becomes punishment as that is by definition the moral avenue.

So in order for one to view the death of Saddam as an immoral act of revenge they must do so from the OUTSIDE and thus impose THEIR moral view on another society.

[subego]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

When you start looking at what revenge and punishment actually are the difference is mostly a matter of semantics.

Punishment is part of the deterrence angle though, and some (though not I) would argue that punishment is part of the correction angle too.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by subego 

Punishment is part of the deterrence angle though, and some (though not I) would argue that punishment is part of the correction angle too.

Deterrence and correction are both relatively recent ideas. Punishment has traditionally been about justice and retribution, which are about fairness and "just" treatment, which are again subjective terms to be read in the context of the societies in which they are used.

[subego]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Deterrence and correction are both relatively recent ideas.

Yet still germane to the argument, no? Especially in terms of the point nonhuman was making.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Punishment has traditionally been about justice and retribution, which are about fairness and "just" treatment, which are again subjective terms to be read in the context of the societies in which they are used.

Can't disagree here.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yet still germane to the argument, no? Especially in terms of the point nonhuman was making.

Well, I don't know. Not every country cares about correction or deterrence in the same way as the more modernized countries do. We would have to be ready to tell these sovereign nations how to run their own punishment systems.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

There's nothing wrong with the victims choosing to see what's done as revenge except in that it creates a societal expectation that criminal law is intended to avenge wrongs against them. It isn't (or shouldn't be). As Ghandi was saying, what happens when your family gets revenge on your killer? Their family gets revenge on you. At some point someone has to just let go and forgive the sins of the past.

No. The same nation that is avenging one of it's citizens is also determining the limitations of vengeance. That once vengeance is carried out there can be no further escalation.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by subego 

He doesn't deserve to live. The Iraqis (along with everyone else) deserve the dignity to not have the state kill them.

Saddam is an Iraqi, ergo, the state should not kill him. What he deserves is irrelevant.

You don't see the irony in the state killing someone who's great crime was that he used the state to kill people?

So should we see the same irony in putting a judge in prison for abusing his power to to put innocent people in prison? How about removing a President from office for abusing hi power to remove his political opponents from office? Or perhaps a congressman gets a large fine for using his office to take money from his constituents. I'm obviously just making these examples up but my point is that sometimes the punishment is similar to the crime. There really doesn't have to be any more to it than that.

Why exactly don't people deserve the dignity not to be put into a CAGE for committing crimes? Seems to me that spending your life in a prison is a pretty horrible thing for a nation to imposing on it's people yet no one ever speaks out against imprisonment.

Dignity? At WHAT point does ones choices and behavior negate their right to dignity and WHO exactly is to be the arbiter of such things? Saddam is not a victim here.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I was asking a serious question.

Can't it be said that the difference between punishment and revenge is merely semantics?

And what about those societies that have considered revenge to be moral and the right of those victimized? Who gets to decide whether they are right or wrong? It seems to me that to simply state that to act out of revenge is wrong and has no purpose is not only an imposition of ones morals on another, but also an over simplification.

I agree that punishment and revenge are basically the same thing. I also don't think the purpose of our 'justice' system should be to mete out punishment. As I said before, it should be about preventing future crime not misguided attempts to undo past crime. It's a fine line between deterrence and punishment—the difference is probably entirely in the intent—but I think it's an important one, and I think it would be better for society as a whole to take on an attitude of forgiveness rather than one of vengeance. People who commit crimes, especially violent ones, should be removed from society so that a) they won't continue to commit crimes and b) there is still an incentive for others to not commit crimes, but the attitude should be more of 'if you can't play nice, you can't play at all', rather than 'you hurt me! i hurt you back more!'.

I'm not going to try and pass judgement over people or societies with different ideas than mine. But for my own society, the one that I live in and could potentially one day come before the justice system of, I'm going to promote the values and ideas that I think best. Obviously not everyone agrees with me, but that's why we live in a partially-democratic state. If we can reach a compromise that we don't both hate, that's good enough for now.

[Snow-i]

People who commit crimes, especially violent ones, should be removed from society so that a) they won't continue to commit crimes and b) there is still an incentive for others to not commit crimes, but the attitude should be more of 'if you can't play nice, you can't play at all', rather than 'you hurt me! i hurt you back more!'.

I could not agree with you more. However, unless you dump them on another country society still bears the burden of their life - by paying for all the necessities of prison life or by living with a violent person in their midst.

"If you can't play nice..." is exactly whats happened to saddam. He couldn't "play nice" in life...

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I could not agree with you more. However, unless you dump them on another country society still bears the burden of their life - by paying for all the necessities of prison life or by living with a violent person in their midst.

"If you can't play nice..." is exactly whats happened to saddam. He couldn't "play nice" in life...

We should just ship 'em all to Australia.

[subego]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

So should we see the same irony in putting a judge in prison for abusing his power to to put innocent people in prison? How about removing a President from office for abusing hi power to remove his political opponents from office? Or perhaps a congressman gets a large fine for using his office to take money from his constituents. I'm obviously just making these examples up but my point is that sometimes the punishment is similar to the crime. There really doesn't have to be any more to it than that.

I implied that I was against the death penalty, so I wouldn't see the same irony in punishing someone in a way that I wasn't against (FWIW though, I think the current notion of prison is really ****ed up).

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Why exactly don't people deserve the dignity not to be put into a CAGE for committing crimes? Seems to me that spending your life in a prison is a pretty horrible thing for a nation to imposing on it's people yet no one ever speaks out against imprisonment.

Well, there. I just did.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

We should just ship 'em all to Australia.

I'm down