When a crime takes place the government should not intervene

[Dooby]

unless asked to do so, and even then, the guidelines can be set in how much they can be involved.

For instance, a close relative of yours is murdered. Brutally murdered and was raped and tortured prior to the death.

The government catches the criminal and gives him life.

Is that justice? No. That person should be killed. Not in the most humane way either. That person should be tortured and raped as the victim's relatives see fit. Explain to me why it should be any other way?

At the very most the government should find and convict the person but then, their fate is decided by the victim or the victim's close relatives. The most extreme they can do to the criminal has to be equal to what the criminal did to the victim. So you can't kill someone if they stole your car.

Speak on it coli. Really lemme know what you think.

 

[sm0ke]

Some of the foremost philosophers on government and politics disagree with you.

I think it was John Locke who said that it's necessary for the government to play the role of an arbitrary judge, so criminals are punished justly. Why would you trust every victim or a relative of every victim to be able to deliver an equally severe punishment to the offender? It doesn't make sense, the victim or relative could be impassioned and enraged, and/or unstable to the point of delivering a more severe punishment (such as, killing a person for hitting your sister/daughter/mother).

It's a necessary role for the government to play.

 

[I Lord Justice]

Are you for anarchism by any chance?

 

[Dooby]

Are you for anarchism by any chance?

no

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

There's a little thing called the Constitution. You should read it sometime.

Also, what if the family of the victim wants the murderer to go free?​

 

[The Frozen One]

unless asked to do so, and even then, the guidelines can be set in how much they can be involved.

For instance, a close relative of yours is murdered. Brutally murdered and was raped and tortured prior to the death.

The government catches the criminal and gives him life.

Is that justice? No. That person should be killed. Not in the most humane way either. That person should be tortured and raped as the victim's relatives see fit. Explain to me why it should be any other way?

At the very most the government should find and convict the person but then, their fate is decided by the victim or the victim's close relatives. The most extreme they can do to the criminal has to be equal to what the criminal did to the victim. So you can't kill someone if they stole your car.

Speak on it coli. Really lemme know what you think.

what makes the family different than the person that did the murder in the first place. Believe it or not some family just want to see justice given, not necessarily seen the other person get tortured.

 

[Dooby]

what makes the family different than the person that did the murder in the first place. Believe it or not some family just want to see justice given, not necessarily seen the other person get tortured.

Of course but that's why they have the option to let the government intervene or not.

And it all has to do with closure.

 

[Neg Stark]

Smallfolk must trust in their liege lords.

 

[Fillerguy]

Sounds like feudalism breh. In the first scenario theres very little to no accountability. I trust my neighbor's brand of justice less than a pig's.


In the second, you risk turning droves of citizens into desensitized killers. Revenge killing solves nothing other than satisfying our bloodlust. But personally I believe revenge is too selfish an action to be considered Justice or at least my egalitarian view of it.

 

[Strapped]

The Bushes - Sports, Hip Hop & Piff - The Coli

 

[Dooby]

Some of the foremost philosophers on government and politics disagree with you.

I think it was John Locke who said that it's necessary for the government to play the role of an arbitrary judge, so criminals are punished justly. Why would you trust every victim or a relative of every victim to be able to deliver an equally severe punishment to the offender? It doesn't make sense, the victim or relative could be impassioned and enraged, and/or unstable to the point of delivering a more severe punishment (such as, killing a person for hitting your sister/daughter/mother).

It's a necessary role for the government to play.

Would you consider a man that tortures then kills a person getting to live the rest of his life out in jail, justice?

You obviously didn't read my entire post. I said they would be restricted to inflicting only the equal amount of damage received by them. So no, no one will be killed for punching someone.

And there will always be the option of letting the government intervene and by how much they intervene.

 

[sm0ke]

Would you consider a man that tortures then kills a person getting to live the rest of his life out in jail, justice?

You obviously didn't read my entire post. I said they would be restricted to inflicting only the equal amount of damage received by them. So no, no one will be killed for punching someone.

And there will always be the option of letting the government intervene and by how much they intervene.

Everybody's idea of justice varies, that doesn't mean you apply each person's idea of justice to each applicable crime. The government's job is to intervene, that's one of the reasons people create an establishment that they belong to and are protected by. How is a government to hundreds of millions of people going to effectively and efficiently institute this system? It's just completely illogical.

Just

 

[Brown_Pride]

regardless of your "morals" we do live in a relatively civilized society where we've socially agreed to certain rules. One of those rules in "the rule of law", our laws simply do not agree with you. If you'd like to experience justice like this may I suggest taking your ideas and relative morality to a place where it's more socially acceptable? War torn countries typically work on your "superior" morality.

 

[badvillain]

Police and the government should intervene only when a victim's rights have been violated, regardless if the victim's requests are voluntarily. With the said justice being unbiased.

Living eye for an eye is counter productive to the advancement of society, rather live by the Golden Rule. I do believe in limited government intervention, and that a victimless crime should never be considered a crime.

 

[Huellz Santana]

what would you do if someone was wrongly accused of murder?​