Tag Archives: Law

Justice and Vindictiveness [Quote]

“Punishment should not be vindictive or retaliatory. The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob” [Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, Chapter 1 The Foundations of Liberal Policy, Sub Chapter 13 The State and Antisocial Conduct]

I love this quote by Ludwig von Mises. It brings into the question what the objective of justice is. Justice is not revenge quenching. Justice is a form of penalizing bad behaviour and a deterrence for others from engaging in bad behaviour. Justice must be done without the lynch-thirsty mob which i take to mean that when justice is being dispensed the judge must look at the facts and not have to worry about the mob, so basically justice must be preformed by weighing evidence and not emotions.

 

 

Femin***s

Projection is perception. The title may make some mad.

Reading several blogposts by self-appointed saviours of other women I came accross a blog that started out good only to end in recomendations that would totally reverse the civilisation.

1. Innocent Until Proven Guilty

It’s not relevant outside of court of law.

People do things, and it is the community’s responsibility to hold members accountable for their actions and to protect themselves and their members from harm and to support those in need. That’s what a community is for.

Make them [accused] respond to accusations instead of making the victims hide in shame.

There is a fallacy that these self-appointed social justice warriors (or Social Justice Stormtroopers) have not looked into. They believe that rights come from the government, that rights are a privileges granted to you from above. This kind of reasoning leads to tyranny. Two things that the author clearly didn’t realise while writing, the writer talks about how innocnet until proven guilty is something that is only valid when inside the court and outside the court you can do the reverse, followed by demanding that the community enforce the punishment based on accusation. if the job of enforcing punishment goes to the community instead of a competent court you are asking for a mob-rule, call it whatever you want. The author’s reasoning is counter to the common understanding held by people and legal experts and that is that all our rights come from our humanity. According to the UN charter innocent until proven guilty is a human right.

3. No to Vigilante Justice

Again. We’re not talking about criminal cases here. We’re talking about social responsibility.

I don’t even want to go on what the social responsibility is, but a rape is a criminal case where the duty is to report it to the authorities and the duty of the people is to not jump to conclusions on the event but rather to provide her with any justified assistance to the victim, don’t let the case get contaminated by emotions of vindictivness. As a side there is a thing called the bond-vigilantes who are not wearing spandex doing their job.

5. Ruining a person’s life

Rape does ruin the life of a woman and we as society individuals need to have a debate about how best to provide the highest quality of couselling and legal service that will help the victims of rape get back on life and gwt the highest quality of justice. I can’t say much about rapists having an easy life and if the justice system is broken then as a society an individual we need to identify the specific areas and find a solution that is ethical and fix it as soon as possible.

6. People will just “cry rape” willy nilly

Under this heading the writer has made it clear that they are not interested in making a society a better place for all but rather because they are living in fear that everyone deserves to live in fear. This is mean-spirited and sadistic.

7. Right to privacy

Your privacy in society is a privilege, not a right. That privilege can be taken away when you violate others’ rights, like by raping someone or by posting pictures of underage girls as “fop” material on Reddit. It is, by the way, an inalienable right to not be raped. Each of us OWNS our body. It’s ours, and it can only be entered with given and maintained consent. Period.

Privacy according to the US constitution is argued to be not a right and Late Antonin Scalia explains. However an individual can lose their right if there is evidence that a person has commited a crime and then they do lose rights either as part of investigation to be done by competent people or as punishment.

There was one feeling that I consistently felt through out reading the literature of the Feminist-Marxists and it was hoe morally bankrupt their arguments are at the heart of it. Farxists are so wrong wrong in their reasoning that they don’t realise how far removed they have descended downwards from the moral high ground. The second thing I began to understand is how convoluted their understanding of the Law is. I will have to write more on this.

By the way just because someone is a victim of a crime does not make them an expert in the crime.

That’s not Fair!

“… for though the law of nature be plain and intelligible to all rational creatures; yet men, being biased by their interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular cases.”   John Locke, Two Treatises on Government, § 124. [Download Book]

“It is in the nature of men to rise against the injustice of which they are the victims.” Frédéric Bastiat, The Bastiat Collection, The Law [Download Book]

I chose these two quotes because these gentlemen wrote centuries ago and yet manage to be relevant after all the time. there we have in a nutshell why we hear individuals complain “That’s not fair” because on the one hand we are very selfish and on the other hand we have a sense to resist injustice. Being selfish is not wrong in itself in fact being selfish is a good thing as long as you remain in your limits.

One of the things that is puzzling is that how can putting thieves, rapists, murderers, terrorists and various serious criminals concentrated in one place suppose to achieve. Another thing is what is the objective of punishment? Is it to hurt or reform the criminal? But many law makers talk about stricter punishment as a form deterrent to future criminal which seems to remain since recorded history. So tougher punishments as deterrent seems not to work.

It seems that hurting the criminals does not produce the desired result in fact it makes the person commit crime since coming out of prison he has to carry the title of being in prison and reducing his employability and this prevents the criminal from setting a life even if the person is reformed. Which makes sense since most criminals make a re-entry into prison.

Up until this point it has been assumed that the way to deal with any criminal is to hurt the criminal because that is what he has done by committing crime. But if justice means hurting the criminal because they have hurt someone how better are we then the criminal for believing in this system.

I think its time to think outside the box when giving punishment.