Justice

[Kannap]

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.

But we could make punishments more just. Take fines, for example, they're a popular form of punishment but largely unjust. Poor people can't afford to pay fines and may face further punishment for this, further compounding the injustice. Wealthy people, however, can afford to pay fines - typically meaning that things that fineable offenses but affordable for the wealthy are de facto legal.

For example, in North Carolina you can be fined $1,000 for littering for the first offense and $2,000 for repeat offenses. I can't afford to pay that kind of fine, but the CEO of the company I work for would easily be able to. In this regard, he can litter frequently and - since he can afford it - it's practically legal for him to do so if the state only imposes fines against him. Instead, a more just punishment for littering could be community service to clean litter from the side of the road. But that's still unjust in our current society because that also carries indirect consequences: needing to miss work and miss pay to perform the service, potentially risking losing ones job if they have to miss a lot of time. This punishment would only really be just in a society where people are paid a living wage and there are social safety nets in place so people can afford to miss some days at work to perform the service. In our present society, the "more just" punishment I've offered is still unjust.

[Neanderthaland]

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.

Not realistically though, because you've introduced a world of big numbers.

[Galloism]

System A is clearly the best of the four, given with one judge and 12 jurors who are there to review all the evidence and work by rules is most likely to give the correct result.

System B is *slightly* better than System C or D. It introduces more ignorance into the system by people who haven't reviewed all the evidence or worked by rules, but at least doesn't disproportionately benefit the emotionally uninformed over the informed.

System C is probably *slightly* better than system D. The emotionally uninformed will outweigh the informed (information leads to less outrage), which would make it worse than B, but at least those who are emotionally informed can *try* to counteract it.

System D is the worst. The emotionally uninformed will be much more motivated to go for a specific result even at personal cost than the unemotionally informed, who will tend to benefit themselves as they are more rational actors.

[Galloism]

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

But we could make punishments more just. Take fines, for example, they're a popular form of punishment but largely unjust. Poor people can't afford to pay fines and may face further punishment for this, further compounding the injustice. Wealthy people, however, can afford to pay fines - typically meaning that things that fineable offenses but affordable for the wealthy are de facto legal.

For example, in North Carolina you can be fined $1,000 for littering for the first offense and $2,000 for repeat offenses. I can't afford to pay that kind of fine, but the CEO of the company I work for would easily be able to. In this regard, he can litter frequently and - since he can afford it - it's practically legal for him to do so if the state only imposes fines against him. Instead, a more just punishment for littering could be community service to clean litter from the side of the road. But that's still unjust in our current society because that also carries indirect consequences: needing to miss work and miss pay to perform the service, potentially risking losing ones job if they have to miss a lot of time. This punishment would only really be just in a society where people are paid a living wage and there are social safety nets in place so people can afford to miss some days at work to perform the service. In our present society, the "more just" punishment I've offered is still unjust.

Food for thought:

"Punishable for a fine" is basically the same as "legal for a price".

[The Blaatschapen]

But we could make punishments more just. Take fines, for example, they're a popular form of punishment but largely unjust. Poor people can't afford to pay fines and may face further punishment for this, further compounding the injustice. Wealthy people, however, can afford to pay fines - typically meaning that things that fineable offenses but affordable for the wealthy are de facto legal.

For example, in North Carolina you can be fined $1,000 for littering for the first offense and $2,000 for repeat offenses. I can't afford to pay that kind of fine, but the CEO of the company I work for would easily be able to. In this regard, he can litter frequently and - since he can afford it - it's practically legal for him to do so if the state only imposes fines against him. Instead, a more just punishment for littering could be community service to clean litter from the side of the road. But that's still unjust in our current society because that also carries indirect consequences: needing to miss work and miss pay to perform the service, potentially risking losing ones job if they have to miss a lot of time. This punishment would only really be just in a society where people are paid a living wage and there are social safety nets in place so people can afford to miss some days at work to perform the service. In our present society, the "more just" punishment I've offered is still unjust.

Food for thought:

"Punishable for a fine" is basically the same as "legal for a price".

In Finland they have fines that aren't €X amount but rather "equivalent of X working days". So if you earn more, your fine will be proportionally higher.

(of course now a Finnish person will come in to correct me)

[Galloism]

Food for thought:

"Punishable for a fine" is basically the same as "legal for a price".

In Finland they have fines that aren't €X amount but rather "equivalent of X working days". So if you earn more, your fine will be proportionally higher.

(of course now a Finnish person will come in to correct me)

That's actually a really good idea.

[Xerographica]

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.

Michael's father would not be risking his life if he sold his house to try and save his son from being electrocuted. He'd simply be spending his money to try and save his son. He should be allowed to do this regardless of how much money he has. Because there is absolutely no logical reason to prevent him from doing so.

Absurd systems exist, and will continue to exist, until enough people open their eyes.

[The Blaatschapen]

In Finland they have fines that aren't €X amount but rather "equivalent of X working days". So if you earn more, your fine will be proportionally higher.

(of course now a Finnish person will come in to correct me)

That's actually a really good idea.

Well, up to a certain point.

If you earn nothing, you'd be able to do all crimes that have fines.

Or if you're a tourist from abroad , you can do them too, since they don't know your income.

So I can assume that there's a minimum attached to it.

[Kannap]

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.

Michael's father would not be risking his life if he sold his house to try and save his son from being electrocuted.

As shelter is one of the basic needs for survival, it could be said selling his house and then blowing all the money on this silly app of yours would be a risk to his life.

He'd simply be spending his money to try and save his son. He should be allowed to do this regardless of how much money he has. Because there is absolutely no logical reason to prevent him from doing so.

I can think of one logical reason: A justice system shouldn't work on a pay-to-win idea.

Absurd systems exist, and will continue to exist, until enough people open their eyes.

I've been hoping one person, in particular, opens their eyes. But, alas, no cigar.

[Ifreann]

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.

Michael's father would not be risking his life if he sold his house to try and save his son from being electrocuted. He'd simply be spending his money to try and save his son. He should be allowed to do this regardless of how much money he has. Because there is absolutely no logical reason to prevent him from doing so.

Absurd systems exist, and will continue to exist, until enough people open their eyes.

You're reasoning from a false premise, i.e. parents may do anything in their power to save their child, therefore the details are irrelevant.

[Neutraligon]

That's actually a really good idea.

Well, up to a certain point.

If you earn nothing, you'd be able to do all crimes that have fines.

Or if you're a tourist from abroad , you can do them too, since they don't know your income.

So I can assume that there's a minimum attached to it.

If you have no income I wonder if doing community work or the like would be sufficient.

[Vikanias]

I’m just wondering why did this shark attack the Friends son. At most the shark would bite the little bastard and since Sharks don’t eat humans it would have left. The average shark fatalities worldwide is 10 deaths per year, most deaths are caused by blood loss instead of the shark chomping down on Human flesh. Fucking coconuts kill 150 people worldwide every year.

[Xerographica]

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.

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.

How is it at all fair if you prevent a parent from spending their money to try and save their child?

You want to start a business, so you ask your father for some money. Would I try and place a limit on the amount of money your father can give you? Uh no, because who the heck am I? Obviously I'm not your father. I'm certainly not your husband. I'm not even your bff.

If I wouldn't interfere with your father's decision to invest in your business, there's no way in hell I'd interfere with your father's decision to try and save your life.

[Kannap]

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.

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.

How is it at all fair if you prevent a parent from spending their money to try and save their child?

We live in a society where, unless you have a damn good reason, murder is wrong. Why should somebody be allowed to get around that simply by having the money to do so?

You want to start a business, so you ask your father for some money. Would I try and place a limit on the amount of money your father can give you? Uh no, because who the heck am I? Obviously I'm not your father. I'm certainly not your husband. I'm not even your bff.

This is irrelevant.

If I wouldn't interfere with your father's decision to invest in your business, there's no way in hell I'd interfere with your father's decision to try and save your life.

Good thing you don't have to, that's why we have a justice system in place that has processes for determining these things. It has flaws and things should be done to make it better, but allowing people to break laws simply because they can afford to do so is perhaps the single most rubbish idea you've ever had.

[Xerographica]

How is it at all fair if you prevent a parent from spending their money to try and save their child?

We live in a society where, unless you have a damn good reason, murder is wrong. Why should somebody be allowed to get around that simply by having the money to do so?

On the one hand you assume that society believes that murder is wrong. On the other hand you assume that society will spend more money to let murderers go free.

[Neutraligon]

We live in a society where, unless you have a damn good reason, murder is wrong. Why should somebody be allowed to get around that simply by having the money to do so?

On the one hand you assume that society believes that murder is wrong. On the other hand you assume that society will spend more money to let murderers go free.

No individuals will spend money to get off for murder if they have the means to do so.

[Kannap]

We live in a society where, unless you have a damn good reason, murder is wrong. Why should somebody be allowed to get around that simply by having the money to do so?

On the one hand you assume that society believes that murder is wrong. On the other hand you assume that society will spend more money to let murderers go free.

No, on the one hand I know society believes murder is wrong - you'll be hard pressed to prove otherwise.

On the other hand, I'm well aware that some people would spend money to let murderers go free, for a variety of motives.

Unlike you, I try to avoid speaking in generalizing terms. There are some things, like murder being wrong, that society as a whole generally agrees on. There are, however, individuals within society that may not agree on the things society largely supports.

But I'm mainly supposing that people who can afford to get away with murder by paying off any punishment, as you're proposing they be allowed to do, will do so.

[Neutraligon]

On the one hand you assume that society believes that murder is wrong. On the other hand you assume that society will spend more money to let murderers go free.

No, on the one hand I know society believes murder is wrong - you'll be hard pressed to prove otherwise.

On the other hand, I'm well aware that some people would spend money to let murderers go free, for a variety of motives.

Unlike you, I try to avoid speaking in generalizing terms. There are some things, like murder being wrong, that society as a whole generally agrees on. There are, however, individuals within society that may not agree on the things society largely supports.

Well that and some people have different ideas as to what counts to murder (see the trans are icky defense) as well as they may see it as generally bad...but not when they or a loved one does it.

[The Holy Therns]

Voting with money is bad, and that applies to the idea of criminal punishment too.

Entirely unrelatedly there was something about a shark.

[Neanderthaland]

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.

Well that's actually useful. Because that introduces what is probably the greatest injustice in your system.

Let's suppose that Michael's father's name is "Bezos." It now no longer matters how obviously guilty Michael is, or how many people try to pay to convict him. Michael is getting away scot free.

[Kannap]

No, on the one hand I know society believes murder is wrong - you'll be hard pressed to prove otherwise.

On the other hand, I'm well aware that some people would spend money to let murderers go free, for a variety of motives.

Unlike you, I try to avoid speaking in generalizing terms. There are some things, like murder being wrong, that society as a whole generally agrees on. There are, however, individuals within society that may not agree on the things society largely supports.

Well that and some people have different ideas as to what counts to murder (see the trans are icky defense) as well as they may see it as generally bad...but not when they or a loved one does it.

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. While society largely agrees that "murder is wrong", you'll find individuals in society define murder differently based on a variety of things: who they're killing, who the murderer is, what the motive is.

Michael murders Bob because Bob killed his wife; Derek murders Terry because he wants Terry's wallet. Some people may see these both as "murder is wrong" while some people may say "Murder is wrong, but Michael had a good reason". Even still, some people may think neither of these situations are wrong - or that murder is wrong.

But this whole tangent Xero has thrown us on also just deviates from my point: If you make it acceptable for people to throw around money to get out of punishment for crime, then the people who have money are going to do so. You've only made everything de facto legal for the wealthy. Donald Trump can shoot that guy in the middle of Fifth Avenue and just pay his way out of it.

We already have corruption and bribery and all that shit, don't make it the entire system.

[The Blaatschapen]

I’m just wondering why did this shark attack the Friends son. At most the shark would bite the little bastard and since Sharks don’t eat humans it would have left. The average shark fatalities worldwide is 10 deaths per year, most deaths are caused by blood loss instead of the shark chomping down on Human flesh. Fucking coconuts kill 150 people worldwide every year.

I love the smell of palm in the morning.

[Xerographica]

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.

Well that's actually useful. Because that introduces what is probably the greatest injustice in your system.

Let's suppose that Michael's father's name is "Bezos." It now no longer matters how obviously guilty Michael is, or how many people try to pay to convict him. Michael is getting away scot free.

Ok, Jeff Bezos is Michael's father. How much would they both be willing to pay in order to prevent Michael from being electrocuted? If the amount of money you guess is too small, then I'm going to say that clearly society doesn't strongly perceive that Michael should be electrocuted. If the amount of money you guess is very large, then, assuming the government spends it on medical care, for example, then how many lives would be saved?

"I'd rather have Michael electrocuted than have _____ lives saved."

Please fill in the blank.

[Herador]

How many times do we have to have the same thread with different wallpaper before Xero gets that literally no one agrees with them?

[The Holy Therns]

How many times do we have to have the same thread with different wallpaper before Xero gets that literally no one agrees with them?

"At least once more, Ms. Swann, as always."