|
8101. alistairConnor - 3/17/2006 7:14:14 PM Hell, No, I don't believe I said any such a thing. I merely said that the business of prosecuting and judging offenders should be held at arm's length from the gut reactions of ordinary decent citizens.
And no, the process of forming laws is roughly similar in the US, France, and New Zealand. That's not the question I was discussing.
Both laws and justice must, obviously, come out of the social values of a democratic nation. But both need a lot of scrutiny, and need to be constantly measured against values which must necessarily underpin a nation which is "democratic" in the full sense : in particular, standards of individual human rights.
Otherwise, in a narrowly-defined democracy, 51% could vote a law to cut the balls off the other 49%. 8102. alistairConnor - 3/17/2006 7:28:24 PM Uz, my remarks in Message # 8068 were provocatively ad hominem, perhaps because if I addressed your views in political language it would have been even nastier.
But perhaps I misunderstood. We probably agree that justice should be administered in an unsentimental manner. To me, this cuts two ways :
- it means that justice should not go soft out of pity for people who didn't get a good start in life;
- it also means that it should not seek to punish out of anger and revenge.
Justice ought to seek the best outcome, and needs not only to be just (and seen to be just) but to be effective. This might mean that some idiot who burns down a church or ruins a football field gets some sort of non-custodial sentence, for example, because sending him to jail would turn him into a full-time criminal, at a far greater overall cost to society than if he's forced to spend his time helping out old folks or kids for a couple of years.
A justice system which is closely coupled with public opinion is not likely to have the latitude to develop effective strategies. We don't vote on the structural design of bridges; we don't elect the engineers either. 8103. arkymalarky - 3/17/2006 7:36:34 PM Otherwise, in a narrowly-defined democracy, 51% could vote a law to cut the balls off the other 49%.
That's already been done in the US.
8104. Ms. No - 3/17/2006 8:01:58 PM Connor,
I confess to twitting you a bit, but your original post gave me the impression that you believe the justice system in America consists of little more than wild-eyed mobs appointing a nominal "Judge" to oversee lynchings in the town square.
Most of our judges are hired or appointed not elected just as are most attorneys for the State.
8105. judithathome - 3/17/2006 8:17:57 PM MsNo, have you ever seen a production of Jacques Brel Is Alive And Well And Living In Paris? I think you'd really like it. 8106. judithathome - 3/17/2006 8:18:54 PM Also, check Neflix for a French movie called Le Bal. 8107. uzmakk - 3/17/2006 10:36:18 PM Connor,
I guess you don't think much of the jury system. It puts the mob right into the middle of the whole process. 8108. uzmakk - 3/17/2006 10:39:15 PM the mob= "ordinary decent citizens"
8109. PelleNilsson - 3/17/2006 10:49:53 PM Or the reverse. 8110. alistairConnor - 3/18/2006 12:02:22 AM You've intrigued me with the Brel thing, Judith... tell me about it! 8111. Magoseph - 3/18/2006 12:27:47 AM It's playing soon, the 17th, I think.
Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris - Musical
Jacques Brel is Alive and Well & Living in Paris is a musical revival which originally opened off-Broadway at The Village Gate Theatre in 1968 and ran for more than four years, often playing to sold-out houses. Often referred to as the Bob Dylan of France, Jacques Brel wrote songs about people actively questioning their own values as well as the rising tide of conservatism around them. With a cast of four actors and four musicians, the show celebrates Brel's relevance and enduring passions. Translated from the French by American poet Eric Blau and lyricist Mort Shuman, the show is a blend of ballads, tangos, boleros, rock and classics. Each piece tells a story, examining themes of love, war, adventure, broken dreams, people from all classes, being young, growing old and death, but always remembering life has much humor in it.
Cast Members:
Robert Cuccioli, Natascia Diaz, Rodney Hicks, Gay Marshall
Venue:
Zipper Theatre
336 West 37th Street (Between 8th and 9th Avenues)
New York NY 10018
Running Time:
Approximately 2 hours, including one 15 minute intermission 8112. alistairConnor - 3/18/2006 12:54:20 AM Well, Mort Shuman is well-respected in France in his own right. Horrible singer, but great songs : "Il pleut sur le lac Majeur", "Papa Tango Charlie", etc.
Brel, of course, is in the pantheon of intangible cultural references. Not French, he was Belgian - Flemish, in fact. I wish I could have seen him in the title role of "Man of La Mancha", one of his great moments. 8113. uzmakk - 3/18/2006 2:45:26 PM Uz, my remarks in Message # 8068 were provocatively ad hominem, perhaps because if I addressed your views in political language it would have been even nastier.
I was going to let this go, but I must register my amusement.
But perhaps I misunderstood. We probably agree that justice should be administered in an unsentimental manner. To me, this cuts two ways :
- it means that justice should not go soft out of pity for people who didn't get a good start in life;
- it also means that it should not seek to punish out of anger and revenge. I agree with bullet one. And perhaps we agree on bullet two also. We must moderate our anger and revenge, but dispense with it? Impossible, you bloodless toad! (provocatively ad hominum)
Justice ought to seek the best outcome, and needs not only to be just (and seen to be just) but to be effective.Seen to be just by whom? Just by whose judgement? Effective by who's judgement? This might mean that some idiot who burns down a church or ruins a football field gets some sort of non-custodial sentence, for example, because sending him to jail would turn him into a full-time criminal, at a far greater overall cost to society than if he's forced to spend his time helping out old folks or kids for a couple of years.
I agree with this because I am a right thinking American savage who prefers American democracy to European civilization. Just because I'm a savage and you are civilized doesn't mean we can't come to some kind of an agreement.(nyuk, nyuk, nyuk) My first thought is not to lighten the sentence, whereas it is the first thing out of our liberal talkshow host's mouth. A matter of degree and priorities as with most things. There's nothing like a short jail sentence, a very short jail sentence, to "build character" among those who are not completely lost.
A justice system which is closely coupled with public opinion is not likely to have the latitude to develop effective strategies. We don't vote on the structural design of bridges; we don't elect the engineers either.
Do you think that the analogy between the human and the mechanical is a good one? Once again, it is a question of degree; none of us denies that we are designing some kind of a system and that our outlook is essentially mechanical. I'm not fond of your compartmentalizing and cutting the feedback loops to the citizenry, Citizen Connor.
8114. uzmakk - 3/18/2006 2:13:07 PM Connor, I believe you are speaking of a professional class which shares your conception of "individual human rights." Yes? 8115. arkymalarky - 3/18/2006 5:23:21 PM I want to start an "Uzmakk for President" movement. I get dibs on campaign chair. 8116. judithathome - 3/18/2006 10:36:06 PM I just ordered a CD by this guy, with whom I post on another forum. He is insanely talented as this piece shows. Give it a listen:
Steve Schalchlin's Song "Save Me a Seat 8117. uzmakk - 3/20/2006 3:09:31 PM Thank you for the vote of confidence, Arky, but I am going to take your previous advice which was to work for one's issue if one has an issue. However, if I was drafted to run for POTUS I might reconsider.(nyuk nyuk)
Judith, would you like a comment? Too much visible ego in that particular song for me. This is not to say that the man is not oozing talent. 8118. alistairconnor - 3/20/2006 3:58:32 PM Connor, I believe you are speaking of a professional class which shares your conception of "individual human rights." Yes?
No, I believe there are fundamental human rights which, once agreed upon, should be set in concrete, and then scrupulously defended by a professional class. This is not a particularly European concept.
Otherwise, you start making exceptions, and you go to hell. For example : yes, in principle, everyone is entitled to a fair trial, and is protected against arbitrary detention, and cruel and unusual punishment. But we except terrorists, obviously. Also, paedophile murderers. Oh, and while we're at it, that guy whose dog craps on my lawn every day. 8119. Ms. No - 3/20/2006 5:34:52 PM Alistair,
You're forgetting the Parable of the Cave.
What we perceive to be fundamental human rights today may not even encompass those that next year we will perceive to be human.
Would you truly argue for a system of government that was not answerable to the governed? 8120. alistairconnor - 3/20/2006 6:20:14 PM That's not what I'm arguing at all. I'm saying (again) that fundamental principles should be held at arm's length. In France, we have a constitution that gets changed every time something in it becomes inconvenient for the government. That doesn't offer individuals much protection from their government. I think the US model is somewhat better in that respect.
On the other hand, you're right that it's a conservative mechanism I'm talking about : it's no easier to extend new rights than to abrogate old ones.
|
