Revenge Needed in the Justice System? Part I

[PoliticalChic]

The Forum on Law, Culture & Society held a panel discussion at the NYC Bar Association, on the topic of Revenge.
Central was Professor Thane Rosenbaum, author of "Payback: The Case For Revenge."
The panelists were:
a. Defense attorney Benjamin Brafman
b. Prosecutor Kathleen Hogan
c. Federal appeals judge Denny Chin
d. Author and Harvard professor Daniel Goldhagen.



1. To speak of seeking revenge sounds primitive, and uncivilized. But the claim today is that revenge is a healthy emotion, one that has advanced society, and that we are, as many studies have shown, hardwired for retaliation. In fact, humans cannot tolerate injustice, and evil doers getting away with crimes. Who has walked out of a revenge film muttering 'disgusting'?
Wrongs being righted is a sustaining impulse of the human species.

a. Aristotle said that if one doesn't get angry in the face of moral injury, if one doesn't require the feeling of measure-for-measure payback, that one is deficient in moral character.





2. We demand the emotion related to vengeance, of confronting the one who injured us, and the social contract requires government to take responsibility for punishing moral crime. Today, government doesn't do so, and the result is too much like injustice. The debt owed to society by the criminal is the largest concern of the legal system, while the debt owed to the victim is shortchanged.

a. Rosenbaum makes clear that revenge does not mean taking justice into one's own hands, but simply a justice system that more closely approximates measure-for-measure justice.
Today, 96% of all criminal cases are plea bargained....the criminal underpunished.

b. The discussion included a case where the mother of a victim was less than satisfied. "Ellie" Nesler shot and killed her 6-year-old son's accused molester in a Jamestown, California, courtroom during the preliminary hearing on the charges against him. She learned that he had been in prison for the same crime when a psychiatrist decided he was fit for release, and Nesler decided she couldn't trust the system. A capital murder case, citizens all over the nation sent money for her defense, and she served 3 years of a 10 year sentence.






3. By 'measure-for-measure', we mean greater proportionality between crime and punishment. It was suggested that the problem is one created by the statutes. In New York State, a drunk driver who kills five teenagers can only be sentenced to a maximum 5 to 15.

a. In the same state, possession of child pornography can result in a max of 1 1/2 to 4, while the same crime in the federal system can get a mandatory 10 years...up to life.

4. Our claim today is that justice and vengeance are actually identical, but we are trained to view the former as ideal, and the latter abhorrent.

a. Bush, after 9/11: "Our nation pursues and seeks justice, but not vengeance."

b. Obama, after the Boston bombing: "... perpetrators will feel full weight of justice."

Yet...the result really is the same as vengeance.
Law and Legal - "Payback: The Case for Revenge" - Book TV _________________________________________________________

 

[Mad Scientist]

No I disagree. Justice means a Fair Trial.

Vengeance is running the Guilty through a Wood Chipper, which I have no problem doing in some cases.

I think where people go wrong is that they confuse "Justice", "Punishment", Law and Order" and "Torture" and mix them all up.

There's a reason that the Trial and Sentencing phases are separated.

 

[Truthmatters]

revenge is mine sayth the lord.


why are so many claimed christains so unchristain?

 

[PoliticalChic]

revenge is mine sayth the lord.


why are so many claimed christains so unchristain?

"Our claim today is that justice and vengeance are actually identical, but we are trained to view the former as ideal, and the latter abhorrent.

a. Bush, after 9/11: "Our nation pursues and seeks justice, but not vengeance."

b. Obama, after the Boston bombing: "... perpetrators will feel full weight of justice."

Yet...the result really is the same as vengeance."



So....what is the difference?

 

[martybegan]

No I disagree. Justice means a Fair Trial.

Vengeance is running the Guilty through a Wood Chipper, which I have no problem doing in some cases.

I think where people go wrong is that they confuse "Justice", "Punishment", Law and Order" and "Torture" and mix them all up.

There's a reason that the Trial and Sentencing phases are separated.

The whole idea of a criminal legal system is to remove the criminal act from being against a person to being against the people as a whole. That is why criminal prosecution is State v. criminal not Victim v. criminal.

That being said, the system only works if the victims or victim's relatives in the case of death are satisfied that "justice" is done. Punishment will always include a portion of vengence as the people hurt by the criminal need to accept that the punishment meted out to the criminal meets thier need for closure.

If the victims side is not adequately placated on a consistent basis, then you get the possibility of vigilante justice.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No I disagree. Justice means a Fair Trial.

Vengeance is running the Guilty through a Wood Chipper, which I have no problem doing in some cases.

I think where people go wrong is that they confuse "Justice", "Punishment", Law and Order" and "Torture" and mix them all up.

There's a reason that the Trial and Sentencing phases are separated.

Well, commie-pal, we seem to have a problem with terms!

Understandable, as I was unable to translate it into Cyrillic....

1. "Justice means a Fair Trial."
We both want to see fair trials.
As do all the panelists in the OP.


2. The 'revenge' at issue is directly related to the sentence....not the trial.
What the author states is that, at present, the relationship between the sentence and the crime is tenuous at best.

Evidence is the astounding 96% of crimes plea bargained down to some lesser crime.


3. "Vengeance is running the Guilty through a Wood Chipper,..."
If you'll allow me a personal note....I actually would like to see the sentence directly related to the crime....so that if some beast killed someone by putting them through a wood chopper....

....that would be the most satisfying sentence for the culprit. After all, they select the sentence in the commission of the crime.


a. As for '...cruel and unusual punishment...' Heck, if the perp uses the method, it ain't unusual to him or her.



4. So, friend commie.....if you were to advance my candidacy for Czar when you take over.....you can see that the recidivism rate would approach zero.
Mull it over.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No I disagree. Justice means a Fair Trial.

Vengeance is running the Guilty through a Wood Chipper, which I have no problem doing in some cases.

I think where people go wrong is that they confuse "Justice", "Punishment", Law and Order" and "Torture" and mix them all up.

There's a reason that the Trial and Sentencing phases are separated.

The whole idea of a criminal legal system is to remove the criminal act from being against a person to being against the people as a whole. That is why criminal prosecution is State v. criminal not Victim v. criminal.

That being said, the system only works if the victims or victim's relatives in the case of death are satisfied that "justice" is done. Punishment will always include a portion of vengence as the people hurt by the criminal need to accept that the punishment meted out to the criminal meets thier need for closure.

If the victims side is not adequately placated on a consistent basis, then you get the possibility of vigilante justice.

1. "The whole idea of a criminal legal system is to remove the criminal act from being against a person to being against the people as a whole."



Actually, Prosecutor Hogan, one of the panelists, says quite the opposite.

She claims that she is the voice of the injured individual, and she is the one who suggested that statutes stand in the way of allowing her to bring the system closer to the wishes of the victim.



2. "If the victims side is not adequately placated on a consistent basis, then you get the possibility of vigilante justice."

Lot of truth there.


The system is too criminal-centered, and should be more victim-centered.

 

[JoeB131]

We are one of the few industrialized country that has the death penalty, and we lock up more people than any country in the world.

Yet we have the highest crime rate amongst advanced industrial deomcracies.

Maybe we need to stop focusing on "revenge" and put more concentration on prevention.

 

[martybegan]

We are one of the few industrialized country that has the death penalty, and we lock up more people than any country in the world.

Yet we have the highest crime rate amongst advanced industrial deomcracies.

Maybe we need to stop focusing on "revenge" and put more concentration on prevention.

A high crime rate may just be an inherent quality of a nation built not on a single nationality, but on a mixing of may different ethnic groups and races.

There is a certain inherent order when everyone in "country X" is "nationality X"

 

[PoliticalChic]

revenge is mine sayth the lord.


why are so many claimed christains so unchristain?

1. I got it!
You always appeared to be angry and in a hurry when you've committed to a thread.
I believe I understand both.

2. I blamed you intelligence, or lack of same, guessing that you were unable to actually understand the posts to which you were responding. But now I see that you pretend same so that you don't actually have to engage.......
....so your posts are actually a variation on 'I don't agree.'

3. But, as for blaming your intelligence....well, seems to be a good dollop of that. See, to disagree with the OP on the religious basis,....you must be laboring under the misapprehension that the United States is a theocracy....

4. You're not from Iran by any chance, are you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

We are one of the few industrialized country that has the death penalty, and we lock up more people than any country in the world.

Yet we have the highest crime rate amongst advanced industrial deomcracies.

Maybe we need to stop focusing on "revenge" and put more concentration on prevention.

Hey....I've got an idea!

How about we focus on the crime....rather than the absurd notion that if lots of criminals engage in the act, we must be doing something wrong in punishing them.

Good idea?




Wise up.

 

[JoeB131]

We are one of the few industrialized country that has the death penalty, and we lock up more people than any country in the world.

Yet we have the highest crime rate amongst advanced industrial deomcracies.

Maybe we need to stop focusing on "revenge" and put more concentration on prevention.

Hey....I've got an idea!

How about we focus on the crime....rather than the absurd notion that if lots of criminals engage in the act, we must be doing something wrong in punishing them.

Good idea?

Wise up.

NO, not a good idea at all.

The problem with having a Prison-Industrial Complex is that it become self-perpetuating.

When you let the PIC lock someone up for a nothing crime, you've created part of your problem. The first time it's Pot. Then you lock him up with really vicious people for a few years, and let him out- no employment prospects- and you wonder why he does something more serious the next time.

Again- why is it we need to lock up 2 million people and Germany only locks up 78,000?

 

[Montrovant]

The Forum on Law, Culture & Society held a panel discussion at the NYC Bar Association, on the topic of Revenge.
Central was Professor Thane Rosenbaum, author of "Payback: The Case For Revenge."
The panelists were:
a. Defense attorney Benjamin Brafman
b. Prosecutor Kathleen Hogan
c. Federal appeals judge Denny Chin
d. Author and Harvard professor Daniel Goldhagen.



1. To speak of seeking revenge sounds primitive, and uncivilized. But the claim today is that revenge is a healthy emotion, one that has advanced society, and that we are, as many studies have shown, hardwired for retaliation. In fact, humans cannot tolerate injustice, and evil doers getting away with crimes. Who has walked out of a revenge film muttering 'disgusting'?
Wrongs being righted is a sustaining impulse of the human species.

a. Aristotle said that if one doesn't get angry in the face of moral injury, if one doesn't require the feeling of measure-for-measure payback, that one is deficient in moral character.





2. We demand the emotion related to vengeance, of confronting the one who injured us, and the social contract requires government to take responsibility for punishing moral crime. Today, government doesn't do so, and the result is too much like injustice. The debt owed to society by the criminal is the largest concern of the legal system, while the debt owed to the victim is shortchanged.

a. Rosenbaum makes clear that revenge does not mean taking justice into one's own hands, but simply a justice system that more closely approximates measure-for-measure justice.
Today, 96% of all criminal cases are plea bargained....the criminal underpunished.

b. The discussion included a case where the mother of a victim was less than satisfied. "Ellie" Nesler shot and killed her 6-year-old son's accused molester in a Jamestown, California, courtroom during the preliminary hearing on the charges against him. She learned that he had been in prison for the same crime when a psychiatrist decided he was fit for release, and Nesler decided she couldn't trust the system. A capital murder case, citizens all over the nation sent money for her defense, and she served 3 years of a 10 year sentence.






3. By 'measure-for-measure', we mean greater proportionality between crime and punishment. It was suggested that the problem is one created by the statutes. In New York State, a drunk driver who kills five teenagers can only be sentenced to a maximum 5 to 15.

a. In the same state, possession of child pornography can result in a max of 1 1/2 to 4, while the same crime in the federal system can get a mandatory 10 years...up to life.

4. Our claim today is that justice and vengeance are actually identical, but we are trained to view the former as ideal, and the latter abhorrent.

a. Bush, after 9/11: "Our nation pursues and seeks justice, but not vengeance."

b. Obama, after the Boston bombing: "... perpetrators will feel full weight of justice."

Yet...the result really is the same as vengeance.
Law and Legal - "Payback: The Case for Revenge" - Book TV _________________________________________________________

While I think there is a difference between revenge and justice, I think that justice is likely to have revenge as part of it. The idea of trying to have an equality to the crime and the punishment is more about justice than revenge; revenge does not, IMO, worry overmuch about the punishment being 'enough'.

So, while it might be justice to kill someone who kills the little girl I nanny, if I were to exact revenge, they would live....so I could make them suffer. And suffer and suffer and suffer. I would want them to suffer more, as much as possible, simply killing them would not be enough.

Justice, at least in the context of our legal system, attempts to curtail the lengths to which people will go in the name of revenge while still providing the punishment society is willing to allow.

Because of many problems with our legal system, that punishment appears wildly inconsistent.

However, some of the very issues that cause such inconsistency may be reason not to punish much more stringently.

The inequality in representation available to people of different financial means, the differences in the system based on location in the country, possible racial, religious, ethnic, or other biases in our system, there are a number of issues that come to mind when it comes to increasing punishment.

I can certainly see some of the ridiculously small sentences for major crimes being an issue, and one that should be addressed, but I don't think that a general increase in punishment is the answer.

I've had a bit of a long day so I apologize for any disjointedness to my post.

 

[martybegan]

We are one of the few industrialized country that has the death penalty, and we lock up more people than any country in the world.

Yet we have the highest crime rate amongst advanced industrial deomcracies.

Maybe we need to stop focusing on "revenge" and put more concentration on prevention.

Hey....I've got an idea!

How about we focus on the crime....rather than the absurd notion that if lots of criminals engage in the act, we must be doing something wrong in punishing them.

Good idea?

Wise up.

NO, not a good idea at all.

The problem with having a Prison-Industrial Complex is that it become self-perpetuating.

When you let the PIC lock someone up for a nothing crime, you've created part of your problem. The first time it's Pot. Then you lock him up with really vicious people for a few years, and let him out- no employment prospects- and you wonder why he does something more serious the next time.

Again- why is it we need to lock up 2 million people and Germany only locks up 78,000?

The only people who get actually get locked up for pot nowadays are those trafficking in it or selling it.
They are drug dealers, pure and simple, and thus not what I would call a "nothing" crime.

 

[JoeB131]

The only people who get actually get locked up for pot nowadays are those trafficking in it or selling it.
They are drug dealers, pure and simple, and thus not what I would call a "nothing" crime.

The whole war on drugs is an absolute absurdity, and the kind of big-government horseshit that "conservatives" should be against on principle.

It is a nothing crime. And drug offenses make up half the prison population.

But again, the goal is to create a powerless workforce that can be easily exploited, not actually doing the business of justice.

 

[martybegan]

The only people who get actually get locked up for pot nowadays are those trafficking in it or selling it.
They are drug dealers, pure and simple, and thus not what I would call a "nothing" crime.

The whole war on drugs is an absolute absurdity, and the kind of big-government horseshit that "conservatives" should be against on principle.

It is a nothing crime. And drug offenses make up half the prison population.

But again, the goal is to create a powerless workforce that can be easily exploited, not actually doing the business of justice.

Actually the goal is to prevent some junkie from boosting my car stereo when he needs his fix.

We can scale back the drug war, but certain drugs need to remain illegal. Either that or the users have to agree to be placed in some isolated area and do the crap until they are dead.

 

[JoeB131]

The only people who get actually get locked up for pot nowadays are those trafficking in it or selling it.
They are drug dealers, pure and simple, and thus not what I would call a "nothing" crime.

The whole war on drugs is an absolute absurdity, and the kind of big-government horseshit that "conservatives" should be against on principle.

It is a nothing crime. And drug offenses make up half the prison population.

But again, the goal is to create a powerless workforce that can be easily exploited, not actually doing the business of justice.

Actually the goal is to prevent some junkie from boosting my car stereo when he needs his fix.

We can scale back the drug war, but certain drugs need to remain illegal. Either that or the users have to agree to be placed in some isolated area and do the crap until they are dead.

Actually, we should do what the Europeans do. Treat drug addiction like a medical problem. Instead of locking up that junkie, we need to treat him.

Oh,wait. That's not the "conservative" way.

If you are a rich Junkie like Rush Limbaugh, or Cindy McCain, you get rehab and sweetheart deals from the courts.

If you are a poor junkie, you get prison time.

 

[martybegan]

The whole war on drugs is an absolute absurdity, and the kind of big-government horseshit that "conservatives" should be against on principle.

It is a nothing crime. And drug offenses make up half the prison population.

But again, the goal is to create a powerless workforce that can be easily exploited, not actually doing the business of justice.

Actually the goal is to prevent some junkie from boosting my car stereo when he needs his fix.

We can scale back the drug war, but certain drugs need to remain illegal. Either that or the users have to agree to be placed in some isolated area and do the crap until they are dead.

Actually, we should do what the Europeans do. Treat drug addiction like a medical problem. Instead of locking up that junkie, we need to treat him.

Oh,wait. That's not the "conservative" way.

If you are a rich Junkie like Rush Limbaugh, or Cindy McCain, you get rehab and sweetheart deals from the courts.

If you are a poor junkie, you get prison time.

We try that as well, and the people here dont seem to like it. How many times are people given rehab as a punishment instead of jail the first - thrid times they are caught with drugs?

Rehab is just not for rich people, there are plenty of court mandated programs out there.

We cannot compare our system to Europe.

 

[JoeB131]

[

We try that as well, and the people here dont seem to like it. How many times are people given rehab as a punishment instead of jail the first - thrid times they are caught with drugs?

Rehab is just not for rich people, there are plenty of court mandated programs out there.

We cannot compare our system to Europe.

Horseshit. Poor people usualy end up in prison on the first offense. Heck, there are people in prison because they won't rat out their boyfriends.

Again, the problem is, someone has figured out how to make money on prisons. It's the ultimate in Corporate Welfare. The taxpayers pay a bundle building the prisons, and big corporations make money off the cheap labor and services.

The problem is that we let the rich keep too much of their money and have too much influence in politics.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The whole war on drugs is an absolute absurdity, and the kind of big-government horseshit that "conservatives" should be against on principle.

It is a nothing crime. And drug offenses make up half the prison population.

But again, the goal is to create a powerless workforce that can be easily exploited, not actually doing the business of justice.

Actually the goal is to prevent some junkie from boosting my car stereo when he needs his fix.

We can scale back the drug war, but certain drugs need to remain illegal. Either that or the users have to agree to be placed in some isolated area and do the crap until they are dead.

Actually, we should do what the Europeans do. Treat drug addiction like a medical problem. Instead of locking up that junkie, we need to treat him.

Oh,wait. That's not the "conservative" way.

If you are a rich Junkie like Rush Limbaugh, or Cindy McCain, you get rehab and sweetheart deals from the courts.

If you are a poor junkie, you get prison time.

I don't know which I like more.....your campaigning for druggies or commies.....



Here is my solution to the drug problem:

1. Confiscation of drugs via police action.....

2. Adulteration of the drugs with a chemical which, over time, turns the skin green.

3. Recirculation....sell the drugs via undercover agents....the sale would support the program so drug users, rather than taxpayers, support it.

4. Arrest the green people.
Problem solved.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_kwXNVCaxY]That's All Folks! (Best one on YouTube) - YouTube[/ame]




I may have to run the idea through the NAAGP....