New Mars Forums

While it is true that justice is something to which we must all aspire, rarely, if ever, fully achieving it, I hold that it is not true that we are never qualified to dispense it. The alternative would be to never punish any crime.

With respect to use of the death penalty to increase justice, I guess we will have to "agree to disagree". I would argue that even if we had the techniques to completely rehabilitate a first degree murderer and absolutely assure that she would never do such a thing again, we should still execute them. Once again, the basic concept of justice is reciprocity (restitution) plus a penalty symbolizing the amortization of the cost to society of dealing with the situation.

Cobra. A really thoughtful and interesting post in general. However, there is one part I must comment on.

The accuracy of this statement depends on your definition of rare. Recent analyses of murder convictions by law students revealed such a horrendus scandal in Illinois that even Justice Sandra Day O'Connor commented on the need for higher standards in capital cases.

Fully ten percent of the people on death row were, on review by the students, were proven innocent by the most convincing of hard evidence (e.g. DNA samples and convincing confession of the crime by someone else in a manner consistent with the evidence). In well over half the cases, there was so much doubt that it appeared likely that the prisoner was actually innocent. Some of the most amazing failures to pursue evidence on the part of both the prosecution and the defense were revealed, e.g. apparently never having visited the murder site. If they had, they would have seen that the events described by the prosecution were impossible at that location.

Of course there is no telling how many more were falsely convicted on the basis of traditional procedures and for whom there was no DNA evidence to either prove or disprove their innocence. I have heard lawyers on C-Span start to take the 10 percent figure as a hard and fast rule. They fail to understand that the 10% figure is necessarily the lower bound of the error percentage, which may be much higher.

One of the nastiest features of current criminal jurisprudence is the widespread use of criminals with an interest in the outcome as witnesses in some of these cases. Sixty Minutes once presented a case where a nice young man with an excellent school and conduct record was convicted of a violent crime (it may have been a murder) on the basis of such evidence. He claimed, and presented some evidence to support his claim, that he was at a rock concert at the time of the crime. The heart of the program was a new "brain wave" test which gives a particular response when things are described that a person actually experienced. When this test was used to evaluate the prisoner's experiences at the time of the crime, both of the concert and the crime scene, they uniformly validated his claim that he was at the concert. Why juries will believe the word of a convicted  criminal with something to gain by their testimony over a person with a good record is beyond me. Of course, this is only a problem if the accused is poor or a minority. If wealthy and prominent, the judge throws the testimony out (or doesn't allow it to be presented in the first place).

And then there are a variety of biases that judges have. For example, many in the justice system are very skeptical of any evidence based on behavioral science studies regarding the trustworthiness of witnesses' memories and perceptions. This despite the fact that properly done behavioral science studies are just as reliable (and, strange as it may sound, in some cases even more reliable) than evidence from the "hard" sciences.

In one dramatic case, from Australia I believe, a rape victim identified a psychologist as the rapist and was absolutely firm in her conviction that he was the perpretrator. It was shown in court that she was watching the psychologist in a live TV discussion of rape when her rape occurred. His image was burned into her mind as the perpetrator, even though he was not anywhere near her location.

Some months ago a judge in our state would not even allow evidence relating to such distortions to be presented in a criminal case. As far as I am concerned judges, some of whom have very poor or even non-existent scientific qualifications, should be forced to admit all relevant evidence from high quality scientific studies. When it comes to evidence of guilt it is only the relevance and the scientific quality of the evidence which matters and ancient distinctions such as the presumed superiority of "eyewitness" evidence over "circumstantial (non-eyewitness)" evidence should be thrown out completely in a thorough-going revision of the basic legal concepts in the system. (Of course, the most reliable evidence, DNA testing, is circumstantial evidence).

Sometimes they are and sometimes they are not. Executioners and soldiers are overlapping classes. In any event, my point is that both are proper instruments of the state and in both cases homicide according to a specified set of rules is legitimate. Ditto for police officers.

Most but not all. Mercy might be granted, for example, if the family of the VICTIM requests it for some reason. But that is only an example. The violation of the sanctity of persons with no families is just as bad as that of those who have families to represent them so someone, in this case a representative of the state, must speak for them. And this representative must grant mercy only for very clear and compelling reasons, e.g. the perpetrator had saved one or more lives prior to the murder, the perpetrator was delusional when the murder was committed and actually thought he was acting in self-defense, etc.

It depends on the offense. The less the injury and the more ways of compensating the victim in particular and the society as a whole for the injury, the more mercy becomes a reasonable option. It is the particular nature of murder that no compensation to the victim is possible and therefore mercy must be very nearly impossible.

Yes, and also said, "I come not to bring peace but a sword".

In the case of murderers, because they took from their victims the same sanctity and potentiality of life which most of them and their anti-capital punishment advocates use as an argument for preserving their own life.

Yep, evolutionary action is statistical in nature. Young males are much more likely to commit violent crimes than other groups. It doesn't take much of a statistical differential to have a big effect over generations.

You seem to think that deterrence is the primary reason for punishment, whereas it is, in fact, only one of many factors. My argument is based on moral reciprocity as the foundation for justice. For example, while I am no expert on the literature of crime and punishment, I have heard that punishments which have a foundation in restitution tend to be somewhat more effective in reducing recidivism than those which do not.

The principle of restitution is fundamentally consistent with reciprocity principles. However, many crimes, and homicide most of all, generate an injury which can never be healed, either ever by anyone as in the case of homicide, or by any future action of the perpetrator (as in the case of permanent physical injury or many financial crimes). In these cases, the punishment should have a comparable impact on the lives of the perpetrators as on the victims. In the case of first degree murder the only comparable effect is the surrender of their own life.

???? This violates the common experience of justice in almost every country in the world. Can you name a country where the penalty for all crimes is death?

Actually, reciprocity principles provide the basis for a relatively non-subjective implementation of moral principles. In fact, thinkers such as Georg von Wright contend that ethics is fundamentally more conceptual like mathematics than empirical, like physics or chemistry. I don't agree, but their arguments must be taken seriously.

I disagree. In appropriate cases, I argue that it is morally wrong NOT to use capital punishment. As I pointed out in a previous post which I don't have time to go back to at the moment on this library computer, NOT having capital punishment for serial killers who are certainly guilty is a horrible moral contradiction from an evolutionary perspective as the human rights of the killer are placed above those of the victims. This CAN'T be right in any theory of morality above the level of social Darwinism. Certainly is fails both Jesus' and Kant's reciprocity tests.

You are right. It is a confession of our intrinsic "weakness", if "weakness" it be. We simply DO NOT KNOW HOW TO EDUCATE ALL PEOPLE AGAINST CRIMINALITY. This is one example of the basic flaw in the "liberal" perspective. Liberal descriptions of social problems are often very accurate and should be regarded with careful attention. Liberal proposals for solutions to the problems are almost always either totally ineffective or have, at best, limited effectiveness. This is because the liberal believes in social cause and effect far beyond the level to which is really applies. We respond to many social influences, both relatively overt and relatively subtle. However, due to the fact that humans possess free will the liberal assumption of social causation (thus allowing us to educate all people against criminality, for example) is fundamentally flawed. There is a huge difference between social influence and social causation.

We do not have, and in my opinion should not want, the ability to control others behavior (though we may very justifiably want to hone our persuasive skills to the very highest level).

True, but what does that have to do with the administration of justice?

P.S. For those who might be interested, my mother has been discharged from the hospital and may be allowed to put full weight on her hip after her X-rays a week from Friday. In the meantime I am logging on from a library computer with a maximum of 30 minutes use time if anyone is waiting. Thus I can't respond to those issues requiring more detail.

But Cobra, I thought you didn't believe in natural rights <g><wink>.

Clark,

The topics you raise are very critical and I will respond to them. However, it may be some time because I must go out of state to take care of my parents.

Catch you when I get back.

I have the Kaku book on hold at the library. It's overdue and so I don't know whether this will be one of those cases where they simply decide to pay for it rather than returning it. I also notice that he has an interesting looking book entitled Hyperspace. I may read it while waiting for Visions.

I haven't followed up on Kardashev yet. I've been reading an outstanding book entitled Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War. It provides, one one hand, a very discouraging picture of how our government typically operates and the very painful outcomes for those who try to restore integrity from within the system. On the other, it shows what can be accomplished by men of integrity if they truly don't care who gets the credit. While not an intention of the book, it also shows how a foreign rival could "wax our ass".

I vaguely remember reading some RA Wilson some decades ago. I think I was turned off by some of his more doubtful "New Age" speculations.

I like New Age works like Marilyn Ferguson's The Aquarian Conspiracy who stick fairly closely to real science and informative data. While they often stretch the conclusions they have the science as their starting point. Ferguson introduced me to concepts such as mathematical catastrophe theory, fractals, and self-organization/emergent phenomena. Looking back I realize that she brought into American discourse much important work that was going on in Europe.  But too many "new agers" get off into really weak ideas like "Illuminati" conspiracies, channeling,  and various forms of mysticism.

In any event, if you have a recent Robert Anton Wilson work that you especially like, please let me know.

No, I don't know why people aren't responding to this thread though I have some speculations. For one thing many of these basic ideas have been explored before, sometimes ad nauseum, in other forums and threads. For another, some of the books and names are not generally known and that requires a little background work for those more seriously interested in this particular topic. Then, there is reference to "anarchy" as a serious political system and that just makes a lot of people uncomfortable. After all that was the big "bogeyman" in American politics before communism came along (as it was in Russian politics). And, I think that the notion that someone has to use library and internet cafe computers really makes some people uncomfortable. A social ambience sort of thing. Finally, the authors you cite that they do recognize have a "New Age" aura and nothing is treated with more contempt in wide circles of the scientific and technological communities, circles which are heavily represented on these boards.

The point you raise is a very good one and a tough one for me philosophically. Certainly loads of studies show that children are very sensitive to demonstrations of real or simulated violence and tend to imitate aggressive actions very quickly. In the ordinary conduct of life, violence is certainly a negative and we want to emphasize non-violent means of solving problems in civil life.

Unfortunately, this leads to foolish over-generalizations such as that children should never be physically restrained, spanked, etc. And discussions about the alternatives typically lead to "more heat than light".

Only rarely do people descend from their abstract beliefs about these matters and get down to relevant facts. I remember one very articulate advocate of physical discipline, a faithful and active churchgoer, productive citizen who proudly discribed himself as a "redneck", and successful parent who vividly described his mother taking him to the barn and using a bullwhip on him. He pointed out that this did nothing to harm him. Further discussion revealed that he was physically punished only 2-3 times during his entire life.

OTOH, there are many parents who support physical punishment who state that they use this punishment "occasionally". When asked what they mean by occasionally, they respond "once or twice a week". Well, any parent who has to use violence that often is simply an incompetent parent as the parent mentioned in the previous paragraph was quick to recognize. Truly abusive parents have defensive systems very similar to alcoholics and must always be pinned down to specifics.

I have a friend who has been a top child/adolescent psychologist in the area for many years. Over the years he has described several cases of young (age 3-4) children who terrorize their households by throwing tantrums whenever they are told to do something that they don't want to do. While the specific actions used vary according to the specific circumstances, he has had a great deal of success by simply not giving in to the child, no matter how persistent the child is. At times, when the child is physically violent, this has involved actually holding and physically restraining the child for hours at a time, letting them go free for periods of time until they cause a fuss again and restraining them again. The child's behavior is usually brought under control in one or two sessions and the parents taught how to use the technique. For some children, he recommends that the parents spank them when the child disobeys. Yes, Aunt Nellie, done properly this can work very well!! (As millions of our parents and grandparents were well aware).

Most important,  there are some people and groups of people who have no qualms about using intimidation and violence to achieve their ends and MUST be physically and sometimes violently restrained.

So the issue becomes one of discrimination between proper and improper uses of violence. Most people seem to believe that violence should be used: when no other reasonable alternatives are available and the use of the violence should be constrained by a carefully developed set of rules which specify when and how it is to be used and identification of the limits of how far it can go in specific settings. This is the way it is typically used in the justice systems of developed countries. One especially interesting system is used in Singapore where a number of minor crimes are punished by caning. The rules are very explicit, e.g. a cane is used which is specifically designed to break the skin. In fact, if the stroke doesn't break the skin, it doesn't count. On the other hand, the number of strokes is strictly limited. I forget the maximum number now, but it is less than 10 (I vaguely remember perhaps 6) so you don't get into the habit that sailing ship captains and slave overseers used to use of dozens, if not hundreds, of lashes for minor offenses. Naturally medical assistance is on hand if needed. The advantage of strokes is that they are fast, make a big impression in a short time, and inexpensive. Singapore also makes heavy use of the death penalty and that is the usual penalty for serious crimes, e.g. drug distribution, violent crimes, etc. They also strongly support the justice system. For instance, if a foreign businessman is the victim of a crime, the government pays the businessman her travel and living expenses to come back and testify in court. Courts are deeply respected and corruption is nearly non-existent. They no longer have jury trials because of experiences similar to the O.J. Simpson trial in the U.S. As human justice systems go, the system works pretty well despite it's unusually high use of violence, properly considered and restrained violence. This consideration and restraint are important social lessons in themselves.

Because history has shown that religious differences are so prone to generate profound social discord and the development of violence, it is perfectly reasonable that capital punishment be used in cases of violation of laws against religious preference when deportation is not an option (i.e. there is no money for return passage).

I looked it up. No, it's not the same Peter Marshall.

As far as "anarchism and free love" are concerned, those might have attracted some degree of interest for me 45 years ago, but I'm afraid that the repeated recycling of those same old things (late 1800s, 1920-30s, 1960s) produce very little that seems to have the potential for real growth and constructive change.

Maybe the young will find a new combination that works. Certainly some of the anarchistic critiques should be studied in philosophy, history, and government courses because they do raise issues that need to be dealt with. However, the solutions they provide tend to be utopian. In reading the Spencer essay you referenced I was amused that he was describing the "withering away of the state" from an anarcho-capitalist perspective and Marx used the same concept later from a socialist perspective. I do,  however, agree with Spencer's observation that the idea of a state is so attractive to most people that it won't be given up until the need for it is long past! Like the American Federalists, Spencer had a very good grasp of human nature.

Yes, I enjoy Buckminster Fuller's work. It's a little hard to read, but his accomplishments make it worth it.

I also find Fritjof Capra a good popularizer of major scientific advances. I think he relates best to those who are approaching it from a "new age" perspective.

Is the Peter Marshall you are referring to the famous minister who was Chaplain of the U.S. Senate?

Remember the purpose of schools it to narrow your perspective in many important ways and expand it in only a few.

Thanks for the very interesting articles. While I am not a libertarian of the anarchist stripe, I certainly think that the relevant arguments need the same degree of (but hopefully more sophisticated) examination that thay did in the late 1800s.