What is Justice--A Test

[RobertOne]

Most governments have a judicial system based partly on Justice and partly on revenge. Some may argue that this is inevitable and required to prevent citizens who believe they have been wronged from taking the law into their own hands. In short, a judicial system is partly based upon revenge to prevent civil unrest.

I did not define "Justice" in the introduction for a reason. A Judicial system is, arguably, the most important aspect of a society. It implements values and ensures peace. I encourage you to answer the following question, and then explain why. I believe that your answer will define your belief in Justice. Please expand upon your answers as much as you like.

--Citizen X brings a licensed gun to work and opens fire in the lobby killing 50 people.

--Citizen X has unnamed medical condition that made him believe that he had to fire that gun in the lobby. The medical condition made him believe that it was not only the "right" thing to do, but he also had absolutely no choice.

--The day after he commits the crime a cure is found for this unnamed medical condition and Citizen X is cured.

--What penalty should be given to Citizen X by the Judicial System?

 

[Johnney]

hes going to sit in a nice cell ina max hospital for the rest of his life. probably die there. but then again, the US has been known to execute the mentally ill in the past.
but surley he is going to pay in some way.

 

[Moi]

Well, first of all, you are assuming that a medical condition can and did cause this person to believe that he had to fire the gun, that it was the right thing to do and that he had no choice.

I do not believe that is possible- ever.

So....just for giggles:

If the person did not, in fact, believe that his action were wrong and appreciate the consequences of that action, he is not guilty under NY law (can't speak for the other states) by reason of mental defect. The consequence of his actions, however, would afford the government the right to incarcerate him in a facility to rehabilitate him, more commonly known as a mental hospital until such time as his "defect" is cured. Thus, if the absurd notion was proven that he was cured was borne out, he'd be a free man. His "penalty" would be therefore, sanity and the knowledge that he murdered innocent people.

 

[Bry]

Given the conditions stated, give him a pat on the back and new membership in the witness protection program.

But,

few mental conditions are so overbearing as to be able to say that the medical condition itself is the only responsible agent.

there is no such thing as a perfect cure for such medical conditions.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If some snips are snaps and some snaps are snoops, is it fair to conclude that some snips will be snoops?

 

[Bry]

:rotflmao:

no, nor can the possibility be ruled out.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
If some snips are snaps and some snaps are snoops, is it fair to conclude that some snips will be snoops?

No. It's fair to conclude that some snips MAY be snoops.

 

[RobertOne]

Many medical conditions pervade the ability of an individual from determinging what is right from wrong. Some that I am familiar with warp "right, and "wrong," into a self oriented value system. Right is what makes them feel good, wrong is what makes them feel bad. If what makes them feel good or bad is corrupted by dillusion, paranoia, or other conditions, the above medical condition is possible.

The point of this question is to determine if there should be an aspect of "Revenge" in the judicial system. If someone commits an act because of a condition that is cured the very next day, why should they be sentenced to prison? It is, I admit, an extreme example, but it is used to address a point. While the person who commited that act will hold the guilt of their actions for the rest of their lives, at this point, there is nothing wrong with them, and it is argued that they are not responsible for their actions. I am not asking what the law does now, I am familiar with current laws, I am curious what do you think the law SHOULD do.

 

[Johnney]

hell there are alot of laws out there that do one thing, but alot of people think they should do something else.

 

[Zhukov]

In my mind the "why" is irrelevant. His state of mind is irrelevant. The 'insanity' defense doesn't fly with me. His "cure" is irrelevant. He should be exterminated like any other dangerous animal. Not out of revenge, but to protect society.

 

[Johnney]

you also havd to think about the cure. is it a one time shot you get or is it monthly maintanance. with the monthly thing you have to worry about the person not taking it. and there is always the danger of it coming back as a bigger bader strain.

 

[wonderwench]

Guilty but mentally incompetent - life sentence.

 

[RobertOne]

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here but..

Why should he be "exterminated" for the good of society if he is no longer a threat to society?

Why should he be declared mentally incompetant but a life sentence? The cause for his actions no longer exist, the medical condition (the cause of the act) is cured.

I"m looking into what, if any, factor "revenge" should play in our judicial system. I'm not dissagreeing with the people posting here, I"m just trying to clarify a few looseends in the answers.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by RobertOne
Why should he be "exterminated" for the good of society if he is no longer a threat to society?

Well, I'm playing the role of a judge here, and the idea that a cure has just been discovered for the individual's disability does not concern me. The motivation for the crime is not important, it's the fact of the crime, the proven capability of commiting the act in question. He's not a threat to society anymore? Says who? The fact of his crime is what's most important, and the risk that he may do it again, despite your assurances to the contrary, is to great to ignore.

Now I understand your hypothetical is that we can all be 100% sure this person will never commit another crime of this nature, but that's a silly hypothetical. The only way to be 100% sure is to kill him.

 

[RobertOne]

If the overproduction of a chemical is the cause of paranoia, dillusion, and a warped sense of right and wrong, a "cure" that reduces the overproduction of this chemical is verifiable.

If a gland is releasing too much of a chemical, there could be a deformity in that gland. A cure could be to surgically fix the deformity.

If that is the case, and chemical imbalances are basically the primary cause of medical disorders, would you still kill or punish the perpetrator?

 

[Moi]

If I had my way with the law, the reason for the crime would not be cause to circumvent punishment. Is it a mental patient's fault he has a problem? Maybe not. But by extending such excuses, how can you blame a child molester that was himself abused? Or the child who grew up without morals due to bad parenting? Or the poor person who sells drugs for a living? Would they be at fault, legally?

The fact of the matter is that people who commit crime even though they are mental defects should be treated just like any other criminal and removed from society. My belief is that if you cannot live by society's laws regardless of the reason you have given up your right to live in society.

If the person were truly cured, he would feel such remorse for his actions that he would want to be removed.

 

[RobertOne]

Well, then by that belief, there would be no distinction between murder and manslaughter, no degrees of murder, and the punishments for a particular crime will all be the same.

The fact is, you have to take into consideration the motivations behind a crime or you would have one sentence and one punishment for every crime.

Unless you feel that is how it should be, and if so, that is your opinion and I respect that.

 

[Zhukov]

Steve hates Bob.

Special unrepeatable circumstances over a long period of time have caused Steve to hate Bob.

Steve kills Bob.

Now that Bob is dead, Steve will never kill again.




So what. Steve should be executed.

The fact is, you have to take into consideration the motivations behind a crime or you would have one sentence and one punishment for every crime.

Well, it's not entirely a question of motivation sometimes. Often it has to do with circumstances. A man who accidentally runs down someone in the street is tried with manslaughter. And that is a separate issue.

Motivation typically only comes into when deciding between instances of pre-meditation, passion, or insanity. Because I feel that sentences should not be revenge oriented but instead should reflect upon the nature of the danger to society, I wouldn't make much distinction, if any, between these various motivations for a crime. An insane person is just as dangerous to people around them as someone incapable of controlling their emotional responses, or someone capable of coolly planning murder. The only way to ensure safety is death.

 

[Bry]

I don't think revenge should be a part of the penal justice system. However, in said hypothetical situation, they may be expected to renumerate the victim's family as part of a civil justice decision.