[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.5629

File: 1591834578412.png (524.9 KB, 745x1024, 745:1024, aaf.png) ImgOps Google

By changing the laws and sentencing, changing how much the state scrutinizes citizens, and changing how the state uses discretion, the state can basically set the proportion of citizens that will end up in prison.

Authorities use force to make subjects more moral than they could be as individuals.  It might follow that the more force used -- in this case, the more subjects put in correctional control, the more moral a society, the logical end being a totalitarian state where the whole nation is basically a prison.

On the other hand, I think when people say "Law and Order," they assume some will not need punishment.  You could even imagine a perfect state of law and order where police do nothing, citizens obey out of self-discipline, or obedience is common because the laws are tolerant of diverse behaviors.  You could disband police.  You could dissolve authoritarian power.

Something keeps things between these extremes for the most part.  How is it decided how much enforcement is best?

 No.5631

>>5629
>By changing the laws and sentencing, changing how much the state scrutinizes citizens, and changing how the state uses discretion, the state can basically set the proportion of citizens that will end up in prison.
OK, but that would be incredibly dystopic.

>How is it decided how much enforcement is best?
Whatever the politicians think will get them the most votes.

 No.5634

>>5629
I think I would disagree with your standards for a moral society, as well as the purpose of government, as it pertains to law and order.

It is my stance that the role of government is to fulfill justice.
That law and order exist to facilitate this, by establishing where standards requiring recompense lie. Explaining, and rationalizing it in a logical manner

Though of course this is idealism and not necessarily how it is. But, then, you did mention a perfect state

 No.5644

File: 1591912764351.jpg (63.61 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, prison.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5631
>OK, but that would be incredibly dystopic.
Ah.  You would prefer the state falls into some proportion, then.  It is probably more subtle forces than a grand plan, I guess.

>>5634
>the role of government is to fulfill justice
Oh, yes, I agree.  Of course, subjects are not to oppress the state by taking laws too literally or having interpretations that differ from the authorities.  But in governments that use law (and I don't know of any that don't), authorities deliver legal justice.

Suppose the proportion in prison is something we're just suppose to respect.  They call it 'correctional' because it is helping people develop good habits.  I guess that's good.

 No.5645

>>5644
That's why I've always been against the idea of "corrections" or "rehabilitation" in prisons.
Prisons are for punishment, and we ought to recognize that. Doesn't mean we can't have programs for the encouraging of good habbits in them, but, I think it's important not to forget that.

If it was just to make people "better", I doubt we'd see the rate of repeated offenses, or for that matter have 'background' checks for so many things.
Though, I think especially as it relates to jobs, background checks are a large part of why you get repeated offenses.

 No.5648

>>5645
Ah just punishments, and the state determining how many should not have jobs or good jobs at least.  That's the meaning of correction and rehabilitation, and it is needed over and over again usually.  OK.

 No.5649

>>5648
I feel like you either didn't get what I was saying, or misread something here.
But then, that presumes this is sarcasm.

Either way, I think being honest with the point of prison would help keep them humane in a lot of ways.
Punishment isn't wrong. Excessive punishment, however, is. Punishment must fit the crime. We're not barbarians, chopping hands off for a loaf of bread stolen.

As is, prisons are built for profit with the promise of 'education' and 'readjustment' that seems to be nothing but an excuse to get people who have to work for free. Hardly a just punishment, you ask me.

 No.5650

File: 1591987539838.png (457.83 KB, 850x895, 170:179, neko-pzth7tqyu9kw.png) ImgOps Google

>>5645
>Prisons are for punishment, and we ought to recognize that.
I agree that punishment (and thereby deterrence) is a primary purpose of prisons.  Some people think that punishments like whippings are cruel, but I'd say many of the punishments in the US are far crueler.  I'd much rather take 10 lashes than 10 years in prison.

Another purpose of prisons is to lock away folks who are too dangerous to let loose in society.  The problem here is these folks often don't get any less dangerous in prison, unless they stay there until they are feeble with old age.

So I'd say we should distinguish between two types of criminal: (1) those who are mostly law-abiding people who made some mistakes, and (2) gang members and others who know only a life of crime.

 No.5651

>>5649
I wasn't attempting sarcasm.  Sometimes people think I am being sarcastic when I talk about human justice.  I understand authorities deliver justice whenever they use force on individuals (either that or the principle of authorities is deeply broken, and I think people would get very upset if I thought that -- well, much more upset than the slightly upset they get by me simply respecting all authorities).  And authorities pick their words, too, I guess.

>an excuse to get people who have to work for free
The state is allowed to force prisoners to labor.  You don't think that's a good idea, though, I take it.

 No.5652

>>5651
Fair enough.

In that case, I would frame it like this: Authority does not create, nor does it dictate justice.
Justice exists regardless of authority. Or, rather, it is a matter of morality, not whether or not someone in power dictates their will to you.

Authority is a tool, if you will. A spoon does not come from the carving knife, but that carving knife can be used to make a spoon.
Justice does not come from authority, but it can be used to achieve justice.
A carving knife is not guaranteed to create a spoon.
Authority is not guaranteed to create justice.

 No.5653

File: 1592090543302.jpg (325.68 KB, 924x1024, 231:256, aag.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5652
State authorities are tools that were created for the purpose of overriding individuals, and if this were a reasonable thing to do, individuals lost the right to meaningfully assert moral authority over the state.  That's the bit that gets me stuck anyway.

A carving knife is in an individual's direct control.  Is that more how you see justice as working?

 No.5654

>>5653
State authorities are made up of individuals. I would argue they were made for the purpose of facilitating a standard set of rules so as to ensure fairness, and consequently, justice.
The whole point of law is that it is codified, orderly, and applies to everyone.

The individual holds the same moral constraints as the state. That is to say, they have moral authority so long as they are just, and lose it if they are unjust.

>A carving knife is in an individual's direct control.  Is that more how you see justice as working?
In a manner of speaking. A state is ultimately in individuals' control. It is in their hands as much as it would be in any single person's hand.
Government is a tool as any other tool. It is not guaranteed to create what is desired on its own. That depends on the craftsman.

 No.5655

>>5654
>State authorities are made up of individuals.
Yes.

>I would argue they were made for the purpose of facilitating a standard set of rules so as to ensure fairness, and consequently, justice.
Yes.

>The whole point of law is that it is codified, orderly, and applies to everyone.
Yes.

>The individual holds the same moral constraints as the state. That is to say, they have moral authority so long as they are just, and lose it if they are unjust.
The individual looses moral authority when they conflict with the standard the state enforces.  Or, if they only have moral authority when in union with the state, the state is a moral authority.  OK, with you so far.


>It is not guaranteed to create what is desired on its own. That depends on the craftsman.
I do grant states are not all the same.  There are a variety of spoons.  The states are the result of individuals, yes.  I guess the question might be if the state were not fairness, justice, and the like, who is in a position to finally judge, except the state itself?

 No.5657

File: 1592181451061.jpg (251.71 KB, 1000x1291, 1000:1291, flag_rainbow.JPG) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5654
>It is in [individual's] hands as much as it would be in any single person's hand.  Government is a tool as any other tool. It is not guaranteed to create what is desired on its own.
I have to think on this a bit more.  If an individual is sent to prison, and they feel it is not justice, they may say they are being treated unfairly.  But they are still in prison, and most people will say, "Do the crime, do the time!" or such.  But maybe you do get group agreement with the prison sentence being unfair -- some saintly grandma serving 30 years in prison because kids were found smoking pot in her yard.  Social media is full of denouncements.  Opinions pieces in major newspapers say it is unjust.  And finally, the sentence is overturned, maybe the law changed.

You can say there's some platonic principle of justice that the state is being held accountable to, I do think there's some truth to that.  On the other hand, the state is still the one that decides to overturn the sentence and change the law.  Unless it's going to be anarchy, the state still holds authority.  But there are meta-forces that restrict the state, I'll agree to that.

 No.5658

File: 1592197651293.jpg (64.58 KB, 800x533, 800:533, precinct-burn.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5657
>On the other hand, the state is still the one that decides to overturn the sentence and change the law.
Or the citizens tell the police to go to hell and burn down their precinct building.  

 No.5665

File: 1592269304028.jpeg (201.04 KB, 1184x1024, 37:32, ana.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>5658
We can't deny that states can decay into anarchy.  The situation for people living through that is generally not so good, but you could argue it's the forces that caused the state to decay that made conditions bad, rather than the dissolution of state authority itself.  I can observe most in modern times (really most all talked about in recorded history) do not live under anarchy.

Some of the problem is entropy.  When I think of happy anarchy, I think of an equality that comes from no one acting as an authority over me -- no police offer forcing me to do what I don't think is appropriate because they have a gun, for example.  The problem becomes that there are many more kinds of inequality than equality, and even worse inequality tends to feed on itself.  So (happy) anarchy is a kind of razor edge.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]