Justice

[Xerographica]

You’re sitting on the beach with your buddy while his son is swimming. The boy is suddenly attacked by a shark. Your buddy jumps up and starts to run to try and save his son… would you try to stop him?

We naturally perceive that a parent should be able to do everything in their power to try to save their child. If a woman robs a bank, but she does so to pay for her child’s life-saving operation, then our perception of her desperate act is less negative. Assuming that nobody at the bank was hurt, we’d have the expectation that the punishment should be less severe.

Justice is a function of perception, and not just one person’s perception, but everyone’s perception.

Let’s say that a video goes viral of one man, Michael, beating another man, Frank, to death with a metal pipe. The trial is live-streamed and Michael ends up in the electric chair. The chair, however, is controlled by an app that anybody can download. If you press the red button he receives a miniscule shock, but if you press the green button it cancels out a miniscule shock.

Do you recognize this scenario? If so, you might watch too many Korean dramas. I loosely borrowed this scenario from The Devil Judge.

Let’s tweak the scenario by allowing participants to press either button as many times as they want within 30 minutes. Some people would naturally press the buttons more times than others, which would reflect the fact that some people’s perceptions are stronger than others.

Let’s tweak the scenario one more time by turning the buttons into donation buttons. The more money you donate (to the government) within 30 minutes, the bigger the shock (or its cancelation).

System A = traditional system, the result is based on the perception of 12 jurors and/or 1 judge

System B = the result is based on everyone’s perception via one click

System C = the result is based on everyone’s perception via unlimited clicks

System D = the result is based on everyone’s perceptions via unlimited donations

How would you rank these systems in terms of justice? From my perspective, I ordered them from least just to most just, given that justice is a function of everyone’s perception, which isn’t equally strong. And it really isn’t just to prevent people from spending their money to try and save their sons, daughters, mothers, fathers and so on.

[Page]

All four systems are garbage.

I reject the commonly held notion of justice altogether. My philosophy is that we should be striving to minimize the suffering and maximize the well-being of all parties at all times. I don't believe in retribution at all. There are some people who are so dangerous they have to be restrained or incarcerated in some way, but I don't believe any aspect of that should exist for the sake of inflicting misery on them, any loss of freedom must directly serve the collective safety of the community.

So a serial killer, I'd lock them up in a building but they can have whatever food and entertainment they want within reason. A woman robbing a bank to feed her hungry kids? My only problem with that is that thousands of people aren't robbing all of the banks to feed all the hungry kids*

*Not to be taken literally. If we actually had the level of organization to commit thousands of simultaneously bank robberies, forget the banks, just overthrow the ruling class

[Ifreann]

This is worded so awkwardly. People having different opinions about what is or isn't just isn't perception.

Anyway, your idea about letting rich people directly buy court decisions is bad.

[Mijukelie]

The justice system is totally corrupt and needs an overhaul. No juror goes in with an open mind. People are constantly put on trial for things they haven't done. It's all a farce. We should use full context when punishing people. It does matter why someone committed the crime. The death penalty should be done away with. It doesn't deter anyone and innocent people are put to death all the time. Our justice system sucks and there is no justice in it.

[Page]

The justice system is totally corrupt and needs an overhaul. No juror goes in with an open mind. People are constantly put on trial for things they haven't done. It's all a farce. We should use full context when punishing people. It does matter why someone committed the crime. The death penalty should be done away with. It doesn't deter anyone and innocent people are put to death all the time. Our justice system sucks and there is no justice in it.

Also many of the things people are put on trial for are either harmless (like drugs), laudable (like self-defense against police aggression during protests), or awesome (like Chelsea Manning and Reality Winner exposing state secrets).

[Senkaku]

Do you recognize this scenario?

We always recognize the scenario, Xero, why you think anyone’s still interested in talking about it is beyond me

[Lady Victory]

The justice system is totally corrupt and needs an overhaul. No juror goes in with an open mind. People are constantly put on trial for things they haven't done. It's all a farce. We should use full context when punishing people. It does matter why someone committed the crime. The death penalty should be done away with. It doesn't deter anyone and innocent people are put to death all the time. Our justice system sucks and there is no justice in it.

Also many of the things people are put on trial for are either harmless (like drugs), laudable (like self-defense against police aggression during protests), or awesome (like Chelsea Manning and Reality Winner exposing state secrets).

The information Chelsea Manning exposed put people's lives at risk. That is not "awesome".

[Page]

Also many of the things people are put on trial for are either harmless (like drugs), laudable (like self-defense against police aggression during protests), or awesome (like Chelsea Manning and Reality Winner exposing state secrets).

The information Chelsea Manning exposed put people's lives at risk. That is not "awesome".

No, the US government put people's lives at risk by murdering civilians.

[Xerographica]

All four systems are garbage.

I reject the commonly held notion of justice altogether. My philosophy is that we should be striving to minimize the suffering and maximize the well-being of all parties at all times. I don't believe in retribution at all. There are some people who are so dangerous they have to be restrained or incarcerated in some way, but I don't believe any aspect of that should exist for the sake of inflicting misery on them, any loss of freedom must directly serve the collective safety of the community.

So a serial killer, I'd lock them up in a building but they can have whatever food and entertainment they want within reason. A woman robbing a bank to feed her hungry kids? My only problem with that is that thousands of people aren't robbing all of the banks to feed all the hungry kids*

*Not to be taken literally. If we actually had the level of organization to commit thousands of simultaneously bank robberies, forget the banks, just overthrow the ruling class

What's missing from your system is a way to make decisions... such as whether somebody is innocent or guilty. If they are guilty, then you need a way to decide the consequence.

[Xerographica]

This is worded so awkwardly. People having different opinions about what is or isn't just isn't perception.

Anyway, your idea about letting rich people directly buy court decisions is bad.

But what about the idea that we shouldn't prevent parents from doing everything in their power to save their children? If you're fine with allowing a mother to save her son's life by giving him her kidney, then why would you be against allowing her to spend her money to try and save him from the electric chair?

[Heloin]

This is worded so awkwardly. People having different opinions about what is or isn't just isn't perception.

Anyway, your idea about letting rich people directly buy court decisions is bad.

But what about the idea that we shouldn't prevent parents from doing everything in their power to save their children? If you're fine with allowing a mother to save her son's life by giving him her kidney, then why would you be against allowing her to spend her money to try and save him from the electric chair?

Because it's an insane comparison which is just part of your larger philosophy that rich people deserve more rights than poor people.

[Infected Mushroom]

Justice is basically:

1. Good people get rewarded.
2. Bad people get punished.

Saving people from sharks or distributing things economically don’t seem like traditional examples that involve justice. Responsibility and fairness maybe.

[Necroghastia]

what the fuck was the point of the shark thing lol

[Neanderthaland]

what the fuck was the point of the shark thing lol

Xero just really wanted to mutilate a child, I guess?

[Neanderthaland]

It's weird to have a justice system where the only options are horrific execution or (presumably) total absolution.

I guess we'll just have to add justice to the (by now extensive) list of subjects Xero knows nothing about.

[Necroghastia]

"Peoples' perception isn't equally strong (sidenote: what) so that's a no-go but obviously it's entirely different when it comes to money"

[Engadine Mcdonalds 1997]

It's weird to have a justice system where the only options are horrific execution or (presumably) total absolution.

I guess we'll just have to add justice to the (by now extensive) list of subjects Xero knows nothing about.

Well hey, that's how it works here in Engadine Mcdonalds 1997, and we're gloriously crime free!

[Infected Mushroom]

It's weird to have a justice system where the only options are horrific execution or (presumably) total absolution.

I guess we'll just have to add justice to the (by now extensive) list of subjects Xero knows nothing about.

Well hey, that's how it works here in Engadine Mcdonalds 1997, and we're gloriously crime free!

You can’t really have justice without punishing people though.

[Xerographica]

what the fuck was the point of the shark thing lol

When Michael was a child he was attacked by a shark. His father risked his life to save him.

When Michael was an adult he was sentenced to the electric chair. His father sold his house to save him.

[Xerographica]

It's weird to have a justice system where the only options are horrific execution or (presumably) total absolution.

Michael could potentially receive a moderately severe electric shock. It really depends on the input.

[Heloin]

what the fuck was the point of the shark thing lol

When Michael was a child he was attacked by a shark. His father risked his life to save him.

When Michael was an adult he was sentenced to the electric chair. His father sold his house to save him.

Yeah when you put it like that it all still seems batshit insane.

It's weird to have a justice system where the only options are horrific execution or (presumably) total absolution.

Michael could potentially receive a moderately severe electric shock. It really depends on the input.

Good night, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are.

[Kannap]

Weird definition of justice where those with more money have more say is weird.

[Ifreann]

This is worded so awkwardly. People having different opinions about what is or isn't just isn't perception.

Anyway, your idea about letting rich people directly buy court decisions is bad.

But what about the idea that we shouldn't prevent parents from doing everything in their power to save their children?

This is not a thing that people commonly believe, and it's pretty clear you've made it up to suit your argument. You want to say "If we let a parent run into a burning building to save their child, why can't we let them pay to get a criminal sentence commuted?", but we don't let parents run into burning buildings. Everyone knows that someone trying that is most likely just going to get themselves killed, and so people will try to stop a distraught parent from getting themselves killed.

[The Blaatschapen]

This is worded so awkwardly. People having different opinions about what is or isn't just isn't perception.

Anyway, your idea about letting rich people directly buy court decisions is bad.

Rich people should just bribe polticians like in the good current times.

Or better, they really should pay their taxes.

[Kannap]

You’re sitting on the beach with your buddy while his son is swimming. The boy is suddenly attacked by a shark. Your buddy jumps up and starts to run to try and save his son… would you try to stop him?

We naturally perceive that a parent should be able to do everything in their power to try to save their child. If a woman robs a bank, but she does so to pay for her child’s life-saving operation, then our perception of her desperate act is less negative. Assuming that nobody at the bank was hurt, we’d have the expectation that the punishment should be less severe.

Who is "we"? Broad generalizations aren't science. People behave and react differently; not everybody thinks the same way. I'd assume most people believe, yes, that a parent should be able to do almost everything in their power to protect/save their children. Some people would say this is unconditional, that parents should be able to do anything to save their child - regardless of laws or other limitations. Other people would say that parents should be able to do anything to save their child short of breaking the law.

You bring up a story of a woman robbing the bank to pay for her child's life-saving operation. A more common question is "Is it okay for somebody to steal food from a store if their family is starving?" My answer, personally, is yes. I believe that the systems we've put in place - particularly capitalistic ones that seek to maximize profits rather than maximizing the quality of life for the majority of people - are shit. If somebody's family is starving and they're desperate and steal food to feed them, I'd personally say they're not guilty even though I'm aware theft is illegal. There are people, however, who would demand the fullest punishment the law provides.

It's impossible to generalize the entire human population - or even just the population of a country - into one mindset or one way of thinking. Going back to your example, if a woman robs a bank to pay for her child's life-saving operation, I'd say she's not guilty despite knowing theft is illegal. Again, there are other people who would demand the fullest punishment that the law provides. In this way, I don't have expectations of how people will view certain events.

Take the killing of Walter Scott for an anecdote. When this happened, I had a coworker who said the guy wouldn't have been shot if he hadn't started running away, and that he deserved to be shot because of that. My thoughts on the matter where the complete opposite: The guy shouldn't have been shot even if he was running away. I don't think police should use that type of force so readily and willingly and that - as long as we have a justice system - it's not the police's job to play judge, jury, and executioner in the streets. For all the flaws our justice system has, we still have a constitutional right to a fair trial before our peers, we have a right not to be gunned down by agents of the state in the street for crimes that aren't immediately threatening other people's lives.

Justice is a function of perception, and not just one person’s perception, but everyone’s perception.

I'm not sure you understand what perception is - or justice for that matter.

Let’s say that a video goes viral of one man, Michael, beating another man, Frank, to death with a metal pipe. The trial is live-streamed and Michael ends up in the electric chair. The chair, however, is controlled by an app that anybody can download. If you press the red button he receives a miniscule shock, but if you press the green button it cancels out a miniscule shock.

Sounds barbaric - the app, I mean. Well, the murder too, but we're focusing on the app here.

Let’s tweak the scenario by allowing participants to press either button as many times as they want within 30 minutes. Some people would naturally press the buttons more times than others, which would reflect the fact that some people’s perceptions are stronger than others.

Seems like a dumb way to tweak the app. You'd think if you at least believed in even the smallest fairness of justice, you'd adhere to at least "one person, one vote"

Again, not sure you understand what perception is. Perception, oversimplifying here, is essentially just the way we take in information, the process by which we receive and interpret information. It seems you're more so trying to reference people's emotions and how they feel about something they've learned, which makes sense. You hear about this guy who murdered another man by beating him to death with the pipe and now he's on death row. You could be angry the murder happy, you could be angry the death penalty exists, you could be sad the murder happened, you could be scared to even approach the topic. But these are all emotions felt based on the information we've perceived. And maybe we don't have all the information either, maybe the guy who was beaten to death sexually assaulted the murderer's wife. Does that change how some people see the crime? Yes, it does.

But even if somebody presses the button more times than somebody else, it doesn't inherently mean that they care more about the outcome or that they feel more strongly. Let's say Person A presses the button to deliver a shock one time, but Person B presses it 500 times. Sure, we could guess that person A isn't as angry as Person B, but that's just one interpretation. Perhaps Person B is just bored and has more free time on their hands, so they press the button more in their half hour allowance. Perhaps Person B just likes seeing people in pain, regardless of how he feels about the murder. If we look at Person A and Person B, perhaps Person A feels more strongly about the situation in believing that the person deserves death, but also believes in fairness in our justice system and therefore only presses the button one time to preserve this moral conviction. We can't just assume person B feels more strongly on the issue because they pressed the button more times - the human mind is much more complex than simple assertions.

Let’s tweak the scenario one more time by turning the buttons into donation buttons. The more money you donate (to the government) within 30 minutes, the bigger the shock (or its cancelation).

And there it is, I was wondering when this would come to donations. I see we're throwing any belief in justice entirely out the window by allowing the minority of wealthy people to dictate the outcome instead of allowing for a fair form of justice.

System A = traditional system, the result is based on the perception of 12 jurors and/or 1 judge

System B = the result is based on everyone’s perception via one click

System C = the result is based on everyone’s perception via unlimited clicks

System D = the result is based on everyone’s perceptions via unlimited donations

How would you rank these systems in terms of justice? From my perspective, I ordered them from least just to most just, given that justice is a function of everyone’s perception, which isn’t equally strong. And it really isn’t just to prevent people from spending their money to try and save their sons, daughters, mothers, fathers and so on.

All these systems are flawed and have problems, but the most just option is of the four is the one we presently have in place: the traditional system, where the defendant has a right to a fair trial in front of their peers. But even this system is flawed, as evidenced by the American justice system, by corruption and profitability of the prison industrial complex.

That being said, despite all its flaws, I don't see a need to make the justice system worse by instituting systems B, C, or D. Naturally, system D is the least just of the four, of course.