As to sorry, I wanted to cite the infamous case of Biljana Plavsic, a war criminal who pled guilty to crimes against humanity before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. She played a key, high-level role in the massacre of Bosnians during the crisis, including the infamous Srebrenica massacre in which ~ 8000 people died. She pled guilty and expressed her contrition so passionately that the good-hearted, forgiving judges in the Hague gave her a reasonable sentence for such unspeakable crimes: 11 years. She served two-thirds of that time. She suffered greatly during this time, given the inhumanity of the Swedes: they incarcerated her with criminals who didn't read books, as she later complained. (Of course, if she hadn't pled guilty, they'd have given her an equally reasonable sentence: 20-25 years. When one does the math on how many lives taken per year served, even given that she bore proportional rather than absolute responsibility for the killings, the numbers are staggering.)
...anyway, a few years later, she was falling all over herself to explain that the contrition had been faked to get a lesser sentence.
So, for the genocidaires and acid flingers of the world, you can be as sorry as you darn well please, but, you know, you'll need to prove that. Over a long period of time. In prison.
An eye for an eye --> whole world (literally) blind.
-
axordil
- Pleasantly Twisted
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: Black Creek Bottoms
- Contact:
Bad judges make for bad justice. Running the machinery of genocide should mean never getting out, period, because we want there to be a powerful deterrence element to the punishment. We can't kill someone 8000 times, so retribution falls short here by necessity.
BTW, I wouldn't call the acid flinger's actions a crime of passion. Killing someone in the heat of the moment is not the same as acquiring acid to get back at her. That's a calculated move and should be treated as such.
BTW, I wouldn't call the acid flinger's actions a crime of passion. Killing someone in the heat of the moment is not the same as acquiring acid to get back at her. That's a calculated move and should be treated as such.
I would say that justice must be felt to be seen; as in, yes there needs to be a level of revenge for justice to be effective as a deterrant. Look at what happens when certain crimes are given a "slap on the wrist" -- the laws are virtually ignored.
That said, I'm wondering if rehabilitation is even possible for some or most of the violent criminals we hold now. Sadly, much of what I do is work with juvenile offenders. These are kids anywhere from 11 to 21, and many of them can no more grasp the idea that their victims felt any level of suffering than a blind man could pick out red from green. The abilities to make those connections are simply not there in the brain; these are dead cells when we talk about empathy. They may rationalize their actions in an attempt to avoid punishment, but there's no real emotion in anything they say.
I would say there is a difference between this kind of brute and what happens in a true "crime of passion", but I also do not believe the acid assault was a crime of passion. Crimes of passion happen quickly, without planning or thought, and are not planned. If the crime can be stopped, the perp will usually think better of the action and may even be ashamed of what he tried to do. The acid blinder needed to get the acid, track his victim, and plot his escape. He'd be lucky if he kept his life, were I the one in charge.
That said, I'm wondering if rehabilitation is even possible for some or most of the violent criminals we hold now. Sadly, much of what I do is work with juvenile offenders. These are kids anywhere from 11 to 21, and many of them can no more grasp the idea that their victims felt any level of suffering than a blind man could pick out red from green. The abilities to make those connections are simply not there in the brain; these are dead cells when we talk about empathy. They may rationalize their actions in an attempt to avoid punishment, but there's no real emotion in anything they say.
I would say there is a difference between this kind of brute and what happens in a true "crime of passion", but I also do not believe the acid assault was a crime of passion. Crimes of passion happen quickly, without planning or thought, and are not planned. If the crime can be stopped, the perp will usually think better of the action and may even be ashamed of what he tried to do. The acid blinder needed to get the acid, track his victim, and plot his escape. He'd be lucky if he kept his life, were I the one in charge.
Bite off more than you can chew. Then, chew it. Ask for seconds.
-
axordil
- Pleasantly Twisted
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: Black Creek Bottoms
- Contact:
What makes revenge revenge is not the nature of the action. It's the attitude of the person/group of people/society implementing it. It's one thing to say "you have hurt people, and so you must suffer for it." That's retribution. It's another to say "you have hurt people, and *I* want you to suffer for it." That's personal. That's revenge. And it corrodes anyone who engages in it from the inside as surely as acid does from outside, including whole societies.
Punishment can be punitive enough to deter without it becoming personal. I would go further and submit it MUST remain impersonal to deter, because otherwise it turns justice into a grudge match. It makes the excuse for the offender (that cop/DA/judge/jury had it in for me) accurate.
Punishment can be punitive enough to deter without it becoming personal. I would go further and submit it MUST remain impersonal to deter, because otherwise it turns justice into a grudge match. It makes the excuse for the offender (that cop/DA/judge/jury had it in for me) accurate.
I think deterrence (sp?) is largely illusional. It is not fear of punishment that keeps me from crime - it is principle.
I realize that there are millions for whom principle is another illusion, or rather a complete unknown, but that doesn't alter things. IMHO.
Empathy is not innate. It must be learned. Children of 11 and 12 are often not empathetic, even older teens are often callously self-absorbed. I say "often", not "always". But often enough.
Then there are the hopeless FAS cases, much more common than people have any idea of. Their empathy centres are clumps of dead cells, killed by alcohol in utero.
I realize that there are millions for whom principle is another illusion, or rather a complete unknown, but that doesn't alter things. IMHO.
Empathy is not innate. It must be learned. Children of 11 and 12 are often not empathetic, even older teens are often callously self-absorbed. I say "often", not "always". But often enough.
Then there are the hopeless FAS cases, much more common than people have any idea of. Their empathy centres are clumps of dead cells, killed by alcohol in utero.
Dig deeper.
The fear of being jailed has to be somewhat of a deterrent.
Maybe not for crimes of passion so much, but if there were no retribution then I would imagine that every store on the planet would have been looted by now.
Though a wise man once said to me: "Locks are made to keep innocent people innocent. A thief will break in, lock or no."
I think the idea of "justice" is to corral temptation in most of the population and keep generally honest people, honest. True criminals will always commit crimes, as will unstable people.
The percentage of crimes committed has to be in some sort of correllation with the retribution that is in place.
Maybe not for crimes of passion so much, but if there were no retribution then I would imagine that every store on the planet would have been looted by now.
Though a wise man once said to me: "Locks are made to keep innocent people innocent. A thief will break in, lock or no."
I think the idea of "justice" is to corral temptation in most of the population and keep generally honest people, honest. True criminals will always commit crimes, as will unstable people.
The percentage of crimes committed has to be in some sort of correllation with the retribution that is in place.
I have to admit that reading all this has actually muddied the waters for me a bit, in separating Justice from Revenge.
I'm beginning to believe they are the same thing. :|
I'm beginning to believe they are the same thing. :|
"What do you fear, lady?" Aragorn asked.
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
I don't. 
Revenge or retribution, both focus on making the guilty (or sometimes sufficiently similar or convenient) party suffer in punishment for the suffering they caused.
Justice should, IMO, focus on righting the wrongs caused by the guilty party, and on protecting the innocent from further harm. Revenge is often called justice, but it ain't. IMO.
That's why justice may require imprisonment or even death of the guilty, but never their torture.
IMO.
Revenge or retribution, both focus on making the guilty (or sometimes sufficiently similar or convenient) party suffer in punishment for the suffering they caused.
Justice should, IMO, focus on righting the wrongs caused by the guilty party, and on protecting the innocent from further harm. Revenge is often called justice, but it ain't. IMO.
That's why justice may require imprisonment or even death of the guilty, but never their torture.
IMO.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
There's also the fact that revenge never stops. Back and forth and back and forth and back and forth for years, decades, centuries sometimes.
The point of justice is that it's a stopping point. This to me is an argument for uninflammatory sentences for crimes, imposed following specified proceedings by dispassionate parties. Not satisfying to those worst hurt who may want tasty revenge instead; but it's the end of the matter.
The point of justice is that it's a stopping point. This to me is an argument for uninflammatory sentences for crimes, imposed following specified proceedings by dispassionate parties. Not satisfying to those worst hurt who may want tasty revenge instead; but it's the end of the matter.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Listening this evening to a CBC interview with victims of war crimes in Serbia, I began to wonder: is it a good idea for the victims of crime to be able to confront the criminal?
A friend of mine was the victim of an arson that maimed her and killed 3 people including her grandmother. 35 years later the arsonist was arrested and my friend said what she wanted was to see him in court and have HIM see what he had done to her. She didn't want revenge or retribution, but that confrontation. (It was denied to her, he killed himself before the court hearing.)
I think what she wanted, and what the people I heard on the radio also wanted, was for the criminal to "recognize" the harm he had done - to see and hear it and no longer be able to pretend ignorance of it. That's what it comes down to in some cases, the denial of harm, the pleading ignorance of the consequences.
Justice must deal with the criminals, that's what we have court systems for. I hear constantly that the "rights of the victims" are ignored or set aside and I am always confused as to what those rights ARE. Surely what "victims' rights" means is that a criminal is brought to court and tried? Otherwise, it is abandoning centuries of law?
A friend of mine was the victim of an arson that maimed her and killed 3 people including her grandmother. 35 years later the arsonist was arrested and my friend said what she wanted was to see him in court and have HIM see what he had done to her. She didn't want revenge or retribution, but that confrontation. (It was denied to her, he killed himself before the court hearing.)
I think what she wanted, and what the people I heard on the radio also wanted, was for the criminal to "recognize" the harm he had done - to see and hear it and no longer be able to pretend ignorance of it. That's what it comes down to in some cases, the denial of harm, the pleading ignorance of the consequences.
Justice must deal with the criminals, that's what we have court systems for. I hear constantly that the "rights of the victims" are ignored or set aside and I am always confused as to what those rights ARE. Surely what "victims' rights" means is that a criminal is brought to court and tried? Otherwise, it is abandoning centuries of law?
Dig deeper.
-
nerdanel
- This is Rome
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:48 pm
- Location: Concrete Jungle by the Lagoon
The ICTY has wrestled with this question. In trying to honor victims' rights, it has perhaps taken some things to the extreme. It has allowed far more victims than necessary (from the standpoint of gaining a conviction) to testify, that they may feel the catharsis. This practice has come at tremendous cost; the funding for the tribunal is staggering; and despite the fact that many Americans have never heard of it or have only the vaguest idea what it does, we have paid the lion's share of its costs. The ICTY also compromises accuseds' due process rights, by allowing traumatized but necessary victims to testify anonymously, testify outside the presence of the accused, or submit declarations rather than apeparing in person.
Whatever victims' rights may be - beyond the fair trial of the accused, if that can be classified as a right of the victim - I think the ICTY is not the right model to vindicate them. Two other possible approaches:
1. An Austin, TX ADA whose blog I read recently mentioned the practice of allowing victims or their families to address the defendant after the close of sentencing. That saves some of the costs of trial (e.g., you don't have to have a jury there for that), and it applies only where the defendant has been convicted and the victim has something to say to him or her.
2. When we are dealing with larger scale atrocities with hundreds or thousands of victims, my understanding is that the international approach is Truth and Reconciliation Commissions. For instance, one operated in Sierra Leone alongside (and sometimes in tension with) the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The purpose of TRCs is to compile a historical record of the events and to allow the victims the catharsis of testifying and having their pain acknowledged. Some models require those accused or convicted of responsibility for the atrocities to show up, testify, and be questioned; this can create a number of due process issues if the accused has not yet been convicted. It can also create issues if accused/convicted people use their TRC testimony as a political soapbox to justify the crimes. I understand that TRCs are most successful where many victims want to testify and where wrongdoers appear to take responsibility, apologize, and even listen to victim testimony. However, skeptics report that TRCs lead to "some truth and little reconciliation" - and it is easy to see how they could only imperfectly achieve their objectives.
Either of these models could be treated within a particular society, or in response to a particular conflict, as "victims' rights" - and there are ways to arrange both that do not conflict with defendants' due process and fair trial rights. Of course, the victims will also be necessary to trials, so these remedies will be additional to court testimony in many (most?) cases, at least domestically.
It's also reasonable to create a system in which a victim's right to restitution for fiscal, physical, and/or psychological harm is part of the criminal justice process. If the defendant is to pay the restitution, the obvious practical flaw is that many will lack the resources to do so up-front or ever, meaning that the right is imperfectly realized over a long period of time, if at all.
Whatever victims' rights may be - beyond the fair trial of the accused, if that can be classified as a right of the victim - I think the ICTY is not the right model to vindicate them. Two other possible approaches:
1. An Austin, TX ADA whose blog I read recently mentioned the practice of allowing victims or their families to address the defendant after the close of sentencing. That saves some of the costs of trial (e.g., you don't have to have a jury there for that), and it applies only where the defendant has been convicted and the victim has something to say to him or her.
2. When we are dealing with larger scale atrocities with hundreds or thousands of victims, my understanding is that the international approach is Truth and Reconciliation Commissions. For instance, one operated in Sierra Leone alongside (and sometimes in tension with) the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The purpose of TRCs is to compile a historical record of the events and to allow the victims the catharsis of testifying and having their pain acknowledged. Some models require those accused or convicted of responsibility for the atrocities to show up, testify, and be questioned; this can create a number of due process issues if the accused has not yet been convicted. It can also create issues if accused/convicted people use their TRC testimony as a political soapbox to justify the crimes. I understand that TRCs are most successful where many victims want to testify and where wrongdoers appear to take responsibility, apologize, and even listen to victim testimony. However, skeptics report that TRCs lead to "some truth and little reconciliation" - and it is easy to see how they could only imperfectly achieve their objectives.
Either of these models could be treated within a particular society, or in response to a particular conflict, as "victims' rights" - and there are ways to arrange both that do not conflict with defendants' due process and fair trial rights. Of course, the victims will also be necessary to trials, so these remedies will be additional to court testimony in many (most?) cases, at least domestically.
It's also reasonable to create a system in which a victim's right to restitution for fiscal, physical, and/or psychological harm is part of the criminal justice process. If the defendant is to pay the restitution, the obvious practical flaw is that many will lack the resources to do so up-front or ever, meaning that the right is imperfectly realized over a long period of time, if at all.
Reading these last posts, something occurred to me: Justice is a society's version of parental discipline. Justice, I think, has nothing to do with making victims "whole" or giving "closeure" after mayhem happens, it's a way to make the bad guys think twice. When I was growing up, my parents did not reason with us or care about what was fair and we did not behave well because we were inherently good people. My parents believed and used corporal punishment and we behaved most of the time because Da was a strong man with a big fist. Noboby wanted to get hit, so we were pretty careful not to step out of line when there was a good chance of getting caught.
Before you start thinking less of my parents, they raised 10 children and there was plenty of mayhem in the house. The physical punishment was reserved for crimes that could injure someone or went beyond what was considered honorable behavior. In other words, carelessness would not get you hit but cheating on a quiz in school would.
The idea of Criminal Justice seems very similar. Society doesn't have the time or resources to consider "appropriate punishments" for every incident, or take into account the perp's quirks. Our legal system would be overwhelmed if we did. We have two options for serious crimes -- jail or the needle. The justice for the victim is that the perp doesn't "get away with it", just as it was when I was a child and my brother copied my work.
Before you start thinking less of my parents, they raised 10 children and there was plenty of mayhem in the house. The physical punishment was reserved for crimes that could injure someone or went beyond what was considered honorable behavior. In other words, carelessness would not get you hit but cheating on a quiz in school would.
The idea of Criminal Justice seems very similar. Society doesn't have the time or resources to consider "appropriate punishments" for every incident, or take into account the perp's quirks. Our legal system would be overwhelmed if we did. We have two options for serious crimes -- jail or the needle. The justice for the victim is that the perp doesn't "get away with it", just as it was when I was a child and my brother copied my work.
Bite off more than you can chew. Then, chew it. Ask for seconds.
My parents never lifted a finger on me and I certainly did not behave well because I was afraid of them, neither do my kids - as I am not strong and never have lifted a finger on them either. I do care what is fair with them and I do reason them, although it takes time.
Yet, my children are according to everybody well behaved and I am not a criminal...
Somehow I don't see the comparison of a family and society - in a family you have ties like love which in a society as a whole do not apply. Also in family you can more or less fix values yourself - like for me not hitting my child is a rather absolute value - whereas in a society you have to fix values for too many persons to aspire to full adherence of everybody. Also, in a society, all indivuals should be legally considered as equal, which is not the case in a family.
Yet, my children are according to everybody well behaved and I am not a criminal...
Somehow I don't see the comparison of a family and society - in a family you have ties like love which in a society as a whole do not apply. Also in family you can more or less fix values yourself - like for me not hitting my child is a rather absolute value - whereas in a society you have to fix values for too many persons to aspire to full adherence of everybody. Also, in a society, all indivuals should be legally considered as equal, which is not the case in a family.
"nolite te bastardes carborundorum".
I agree with Nin, here. I do not think children (most children) behave well because they are afraid of their parents. I think most children behave well because they want their parents' love and approval. Parents do NOT withdraw their love if a child misbehaves and children soon learn that. But they also learn that it hurts when their parents are disappointed or angry, etc.
In Canada there are "Victim Impact Statements".
In Canada there are "Victim Impact Statements".
Dig deeper.
The original topic was about a perpertrator dousing someone's eyes with acid.
If we are talking about children and raising children, then I would guess at this point we have evolved the conversation beyond the original intention.
Acid in someone's eyes and rearing kids never should meet hopefully, and I would guess that is a discussion for a different topic. Coming from a parent of four.
If we are talking about children and raising children, then I would guess at this point we have evolved the conversation beyond the original intention.
Acid in someone's eyes and rearing kids never should meet hopefully, and I would guess that is a discussion for a different topic. Coming from a parent of four.
Hey, if someone's going to speak out against corporal punishment, I'm going to state my views at least once, whether it's within the intention of the thread starter or not.
Not that raising children has anything to do with the criminal justice system. Adult criminals are not children to a society. The society is not a parent to the criminal. Any comparison between the two is just wrong in my opinion. Children are not criminals any more than criminals are children.
Not that raising children has anything to do with the criminal justice system. Adult criminals are not children to a society. The society is not a parent to the criminal. Any comparison between the two is just wrong in my opinion. Children are not criminals any more than criminals are children.