To be honest, KKK lynchings are most folk's closest brush with mob justice.runaway wrote: ↑March 12th, 2021, 8:07 am I don’t agree with mob justice as they tend to act on impulse reactions to news rather than in an objective manner based on all the facts. If mob justice were the precedent then there could be many people who could have rumours made up about them and suffer some horrible consequences. However, if the crime was particularly horrible the legal system might not be tough enough and might even let them off the hook and the only way for the perpetrator to get what they deserve is through mob justice. Like I said though, mon justice is not the way to go as it will likely cause many more injustices than the legal system in more developed countries as it can be based on emotions and knee-jerk reactions rather than rational thought.
Thoughts on street justice
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7990
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Thoughts on street justice
- EsmagaSapos
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: August 20th, 2019, 10:42 am
Re: Thoughts on street justice
- Robert66
- Posts: 521
- Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm
Re: Thoughts on street justice
Yet the 'procedures' regularly fail, and injustice of the worst kind occurs:Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 11th, 2021, 8:38 pm
Death penalty is a severe form of punishment, even for those who endorse it (like me). Therefore, given the possibility of human error, there must be in place all the guarantees of presumption of innocence, fair trail, right to legal defense and appeal processes. All procedures designed to minimize the possibility of mistakes and an unfair verdict, must have been exhausted. About the form of punishment itself, a healthy progressive society would want to guarantee a treatment that aligns with a compassionate view of human life, which means respect for the dignity of every person and avoiding unnecessary suffering. None of these are very likely to be accomplished with street justice.
'[In USA] Since 1973, 185 former death-row prisoners have been exonerated of all charges related to the wrongful convictions that had put them on death row.
...
It is now clear that innocent defendants will be convicted and sentenced to death with some regularity as long as the death penalty exists. It is unlikely that the appeals process—which is mainly focused on legal errors and not on factual determinations—will catch all the mistakes. Reforms have been begrudgingly implemented, increasing both the costs and the time that the death penalty consumes, but have not been sufficient to overcome human error. The popularity and use of capital punishment have rapidly declined as the innocence issue has gained attention. The remaining question is how many innocent lives are worth sacrificing to preserve this punishment.' https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence
Stop endorsing the death penalty.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Thoughts on street justice
It is an issue of justice: some crimes deserve no other punishment but death. Whenever systemic failures are found it would be advisable to pause and correct the issues before resuming, but it is obvious that mistakes are found in the instance where determination of guilt or innocence takes place, which then defines the fairness or unfairness of the sentence, independently of how severe it is. Life in prison for an innocent person is also a serious mistake, yet it wouldn't be reasonable to eliminate this type of punishment or any other because of human error.Robert66 wrote: ↑March 14th, 2021, 7:52 pmYet the 'procedures' regularly fail, and injustice of the worst kind occurs:Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 11th, 2021, 8:38 pm
Death penalty is a severe form of punishment, even for those who endorse it (like me). Therefore, given the possibility of human error, there must be in place all the guarantees of presumption of innocence, fair trail, right to legal defense and appeal processes. All procedures designed to minimize the possibility of mistakes and an unfair verdict, must have been exhausted. About the form of punishment itself, a healthy progressive society would want to guarantee a treatment that aligns with a compassionate view of human life, which means respect for the dignity of every person and avoiding unnecessary suffering. None of these are very likely to be accomplished with street justice.
'[In USA] Since 1973, 185 former death-row prisoners have been exonerated of all charges related to the wrongful convictions that had put them on death row.
...
It is now clear that innocent defendants will be convicted and sentenced to death with some regularity as long as the death penalty exists. It is unlikely that the appeals process—which is mainly focused on legal errors and not on factual determinations—will catch all the mistakes. Reforms have been begrudgingly implemented, increasing both the costs and the time that the death penalty consumes, but have not been sufficient to overcome human error. The popularity and use of capital punishment have rapidly declined as the innocence issue has gained attention. The remaining question is how many innocent lives are worth sacrificing to preserve this punishment.' https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence
Stop endorsing the death penalty.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Robert66
- Posts: 521
- Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm
Re: Thoughts on street justice
Spoken just like the man in the street.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 14th, 2021, 9:52 pm
It is an issue of justice: some crimes deserve no other punishment but death.
No. Life in prison for an innocent person is a serious mistake. Execution is way more than that.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 14th, 2021, 9:52 pm Life in prison for an innocent person is also a serious mistake, yet it wouldn't be reasonable to eliminate this type of punishment or any other because of human error.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Thoughts on street justice
No, spoken just like any person who reasons about justice. The man in the street claims the right to get it done summarily, without due process, with his own hands. It's quite a difference.Robert66 wrote: ↑March 14th, 2021, 11:15 pmSpoken just like the man in the street.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 14th, 2021, 9:52 pm
It is an issue of justice: some crimes deserve no other punishment but death.
A serious mistake that you will give a pass, not claiming the elimination of the legal procedures and institutions that allow for such mistakes, even though you acknowledge it will always produce mistakes. If the reason to eliminate capital punishment is that there is space for human errors, it should be the same reason for eliminating all types of punishment, which no one asks for. Once we admit that errors are part of the justice system, the best approach is to correct them and minimize them, without losing sight of the concept of justice being applied. If the justice system considers ethical the termination of life of a prisoner because of the severity of a crime, then it is not procedural errors that should deviate from that goal.Robert66 wrote: ↑March 14th, 2021, 11:15 pmNo. Life in prison for an innocent person is a serious mistake. Execution is way more than that.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 14th, 2021, 9:52 pm Life in prison for an innocent person is also a serious mistake, yet it wouldn't be reasonable to eliminate this type of punishment or any other because of human error.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Robert66
- Posts: 521
- Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm
Re: Thoughts on street justice
All voided at the point of execution. Executions which we later learn are in many cases wrongful.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 14th, 2021, 9:52 pm
... given the possibility of human error, there must be in place all the guarantees of presumption of innocence, fair trail, right to legal defense and appeal processes. All procedures designed to minimize the possibility of mistakes and an unfair verdict, must have been exhausted.
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 15th, 2021, 12:49 amNo, spoken just like any person who reasons about justice. The man in the street claims the right to get it done summarily, without due process, with his own hands. It's quite a difference.
'due process' which leads to wrongful execution is not good enough. You condone a process which kills innocent people, therefore the "difference" is much smaller than you imagine.
Not at all. The finality of execution places the act in a different category from all other punishments, and the fact of many unsound convictions which have resulted in the death of innocent people should sound a very loud alarm for any who would reason about justice.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 15th, 2021, 12:49 am
If the reason to eliminate capital punishment is that there is space for human errors, it should be the same reason for eliminating all types of punishment
It is an issue of justice: some crimes deserve no other punishment but death.
- Robert66
- Posts: 521
- Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm
Re: Thoughts on street justice
Robert66 wrote: ↑March 15th, 2021, 3:27 amAll voided at the point of execution. Executions which we later learn are in many cases wrongful.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 14th, 2021, 9:52 pm
... given the possibility of human error, there must be in place all the guarantees of presumption of innocence, fair trail, right to legal defense and appeal processes. All procedures designed to minimize the possibility of mistakes and an unfair verdict, must have been exhausted.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 15th, 2021, 12:49 amNo, spoken just like any person who reasons about justice. The man in the street claims the right to get it done summarily, without due process, with his own hands. It's quite a difference.
'due process' which leads to wrongful execution is not good enough. You condone a process which kills innocent people, therefore the "difference" is much smaller than you imagine.
Not at all. The finality of execution places the act in a different category from all other punishments, and the fact of many unsound convictions which have resulted in the death of innocent people should sound a very loud alarm for any who would reason about justice.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 15th, 2021, 12:49 am
If the reason to eliminate capital punishment is that there is space for human errors, it should be the same reason for eliminating all types of punishment
- Robert66
- Posts: 521
- Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm
Re: Thoughts on street justice
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Thoughts on street justice
No process carried out by humans would be enough then, because nothing is exempt of human error. Not even regular surgery or flying a plane. We can take for sure that flying planes and driving automobiles will kill people, so people work to make them better and safer, not to ban them completely. A wrongful execution is a term more appropriate to describe an act where there is a deliberate evil intention to kill an innocent person.
No, I haven't condoned such thing. The process is not designed to kill innocent people and it doesn't kill innocent people every time, and most likely it doesn't kill them most of the time. I also said that if systemic failures are found, in other words, if the process as designed is guaranteed to produce injustice, then a moratorium should be established until the problem is corrected. I'm not aware that there are such systemic failures specific to the legal procedures of capital punishment.
The point is that the argument is based on a double standard: it is the same legal process that produces errors with or without executions, yet it is only in the cases where there are executions that the process is asked to be abolished. It shows that there's another agenda behind it, which is not justice. That the consequences are far more serious for the convict just means that the process should be more cautious, not that the type of punishment, which is deemed fair and ethical in itself, should be abolished.Robert66 wrote: ↑March 15th, 2021, 3:27 amNot at all. The finality of execution places the act in a different category from all other punishments, and the fact of many unsound convictions which have resulted in the death of innocent people should sound a very loud alarm for any who would reason about justice.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 15th, 2021, 12:49 am
If the reason to eliminate capital punishment is that there is space for human errors, it should be the same reason for eliminating all types of punishment
BTW, that 185 former death-row prisoners have been exonerated of all charges related to wrongful convictions speaks well of the legal process, not bad.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Thoughts on street justice
With this argument, you're only saying that all systems of justice are relative. It does not follow that no system of justice is valid. The fact is that in the justice system of some modern societies, some crimes are punishable with death, and this is considered ethical. One might disagree with the moral standards of such societies, but that's a different ball game which is not argued with technicalities. I'd rather question why those same societies condone the systematic and deliberate killing of millions of innocents by a political instrument called war, exempt of any due process.Robert66 wrote: ↑March 15th, 2021, 3:55 am And to return to your statement that 'some crimes deserve no other punishment but death', I say again "No". In the past there have been courts which have sentenced people to death for worshipping the "wrong" God. In the future there will be such sentencing for the theft of water, or food. These are subjective and changeable judgments which have no rightful place within a system of justice.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 77
- Joined: November 23rd, 2017, 11:12 pm
Re: Thoughts on street justice
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7990
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Thoughts on street justice
From my viewpoint not calling the cops would be the controversial choice.Fellowmater wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 4:08 am I’m not sure I’d call it “street” justice but once we had some really obnoxious renters move in next door. Real class acts. Anyway, the man of the house was drunk off his ass out in our street one night hollering at all the cars driving by to call the police if they didn’t like him being there. Well, being the polite person I am, I obliged. Last I saw of him he was hogtied and thrown into the back of a squad car. Never did see that dude again.
- Robert66
- Posts: 521
- Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm
Re: Thoughts on street justice
I am glad you mentioned automobiles. Ettore Bugatti famously replied to a dissatisfied customer, complaining of the inadequate braking capability of his car, by saying "I make my cars to go, not to stop". The carmaker was of course compelled, in order to survive, to produce cars with proper brakes, just as the other manufacturers. Bugattis now have very good brakes. A car in recent times would be banned completely if it did not have brakes. There is a way also to prevent wrongful death in systems of justice, by removing the death penalty.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 16th, 2021, 10:11 pmNo process carried out by humans would be enough then, because nothing is exempt of human error. Not even regular surgery or flying a plane. We can take for sure that flying planes and driving automobiles will kill people, so people work to make them better and safer, not to ban them completely. A wrongful execution is a term more appropriate to describe an act where there is a deliberate evil intention to kill an innocent person.
As for your contention regarding the term 'wrongful execution', I would say that it is just as appropriate to describe the execution of an innocent person, and that your extra words 'deliberate evil intention' are merely a transparent veil thrown over an immoral and unnecessary feature of some justice systems.
Here you have concisely made my argument for me. Thank you. A system which includes the death penalty is guaranteed to kill innocent people. Killing an innocent is injustice. Correcting the problem suggests itself - it is fruit which hangs almost as low as a peanut.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 16th, 2021, 10:11 pm
No, I haven't condoned such thing. The process is not designed to kill innocent people and it doesn't kill innocent people every time, and most likely it doesn't kill them most of the time. I also said that if systemic failures are found, in other words, if the process as designed is guaranteed to produce injustice, then a moratorium should be established until the problem is corrected. I'm not aware that there are such systemic failures specific to the legal procedures of capital punishment.
The point is that the argument is based on a double standard: it is the same legal process that produces errors with or without executions, yet it is only in the cases where there are executions that the process is asked to be abolished. It shows that there's another agenda behind it, which is not justice. That the consequences are far more serious for the convict just means that the process should be more cautious, not that the type of punishment, which is deemed fair and ethical in itself, should be abolished.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 16th, 2021, 10:11 pm
Not at all. The finality of execution places the act in a different category from all other punishments, and the fact of many unsound convictions which have resulted in the death of innocent people should sound a very loud alarm for any who would reason about justice.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 15th, 2021, 12:49 am
If the reason to eliminate capital punishment is that there is space for human errors, it should be the same reason for eliminating all types of punishment
BTW, that 185 former death-row prisoners have been exonerated of all charges related to wrongful convictions speaks well of the legal process, not bad.
[/quote]
The point is not that errors will occur, it is that many could be avoided altogether. Not just any errors, errors which cost lives. If your answer to the question "Which state would you rather reside in - a) one with the death penalty, or b) one without?" - is a), then you are choosing the option which includes the possibility of being wrongfully executed.
Recent exonerations have increased in an era in which DNA matching is possible, and vital in crime-solving. Thank you science! The legal process can reach the same (right) conclusions in cases, provided the operatives within the process are well-resourced, persistent, determined, and not corrupt. The legal process can however be a very murky world, and police departments and courts of justice not always well resourced nor as effective as we would hope.
I won't disagree with you but think some evidence is required that 'some modern societies' do consider the death penalty ethical in a way which is sufficient.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 16th, 2021, 10:38 pmWith this argument, you're only saying that all systems of justice are relative. It does not follow that no system of justice is valid. The fact is that in the justice system of some modern societies, some crimes are punishable with death, and this is considered ethical. One might disagree with the moral standards of such societies, but that's a different ball game which is not argued with technicalities. I'd rather question why those same societies condone the systematic and deliberate killing of millions of innocents by a political instrument called war, exempt of any due process.Robert66 wrote: ↑March 15th, 2021, 3:55 am And to return to your statement that 'some crimes deserve no other punishment but death', I say again "No". In the past there have been courts which have sentenced people to death for worshipping the "wrong" God. In the future there will be such sentencing for the theft of water, or food. These are subjective and changeable judgments which have no rightful place within a system of justice.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Thoughts on street justice
To solve brakes problems in cars you fix the brakes, you don't eliminate cars completely. Defective cars kill hundreds, if not thousands of innocent people every year, which by far exceeds the number of executions carried out in the US. In 45 years of capital punishment, around 1,500 people have been put to death, and even if a high percentage of them were based on wrong verdicts, it would be a ridiculous amount compared to the number of innocent people dying because of defective cars. These deaths are surely preventable if cars were banned, but no one thinks that's a reasonable solution.
That amounts to saying that intention plays no role in the moral assessment of an act. That's unreasonable. I know the New York times might not agree lately.Robert66 wrote: ↑March 27th, 2021, 7:13 pm As for your contention regarding the term 'wrongful execution', I would say that it is just as appropriate to describe the execution of an innocent person, and that your extra words 'deliberate evil intention' are merely a transparent veil thrown over an immoral and unnecessary feature of some justice systems.
Here you are again arguing similarly to banning the manufacturing of cars, since it is guaranteed that innocent people will die because of it. It is guaranteed that medical procedures will kill innocent people by mistake. It is guaranteed that road traffic will kill innocent people. It is guaranteed that the existence of police forces will kill innocent people. None of these, just as legal procedures, were designed to kill innocent people, but no human design is infallible. There will be anomalies, mistakes, a range of failures for which there can be set a tolerance threshold. If too much cars, if too much medical procedures, if too much legal procedures fail, surpassing the reasonable limits of error, then one might expect a serious look into them to the point of considering their banning. So no, I have not made any argument for you.Robert66 wrote: ↑March 27th, 2021, 7:13 pmHere you have concisely made my argument for me. Thank you. A system which includes the death penalty is guaranteed to kill innocent people. Killing an innocent is injustice. Correcting the problem suggests itself - it is fruit which hangs almost as low as a peanut.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 16th, 2021, 10:11 pm No, I haven't condoned such thing. The process is not designed to kill innocent people and it doesn't kill innocent people every time, and most likely it doesn't kill them most of the time. I also said that if systemic failures are found, in other words, if the process as designed is guaranteed to produce injustice, then a moratorium should be established until the problem is corrected. I'm not aware that there are such systemic failures specific to the legal procedures of capital punishment.
If one chooses b), one is choosing the option which includes the possibility that the author of a heinous crime against one of our loved ones, gets away with it without justice being served.Robert66 wrote: ↑March 27th, 2021, 7:13 pm The point is not that errors will occur, it is that many could be avoided altogether. Not just any errors, errors which cost lives. If your answer to the question "Which state would you rather reside in - a) one with the death penalty, or b) one without?" - is a), then you are choosing the option which includes the possibility of being wrongfully executed.
Unlike cars or medical procedures, weapons are specifically designed to kill people and coercive institutions such as police forces and soldiers are allowed to exercise lethal actions against people. Even regular citizens are given the right to decide on the lives of other people under certain circumstances, such as self-defense, which implies that these societies find tolerable the death of people by the hand of others, given the circumstances. All of this, outside the courts of law and execution facilities. Controls might be set up, but everyone accepts that there will be mistakes, malpractices, accidents, that will kill a lot of innocent people. The one and only domain where you will get a fairly due process, involving complex procedures and proper controls before a fatal outcome, is precisely the death penalty.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023