[Discussion] Do you value justice higher than mercy?

[Babadook]

This thread though...

Motivation/reason are one's inner cause for committing a crime, while the circumstances are outside factors, which form and often induce the will in someone to commit the crime. But based on the circumstances, the law doesn't criminalize certain actions, like in case of (self)-defense. F.e : Someone wanted to rape my child. I hit him hard with a heavy object. I didn't necessarily want to kill him but he died. Or, I was so angry that I didn't care if he'd die or not. In this case, the circumstances and the reason are basically the two sides of the same coin. But still not exactly the same. Let's say that I see an old enemy of mine being drunk, beating his wife. I couldn't care less, but now is the chance to get rid of this enemy. I've long been thinking about how to do it. Now I kill him and claim that I just wanted to protect his wife. Will anyone doubt this claim? I don't think so. Are the circumstances and my reason the same? No. It's just that the circumstances gave rise to the opportunity.

Do one's inner thoughts and relation/feelings toward the crime matter? Yes they do. Should they? Yeah I think so. A person who shoots someone in the head, is not the same as a psychopath who tortures the person before burning the victim alive and then cutting the body in pieces and raping the corpse. Or whatever the order is. Killing on the spur of the moment after a heated debate, and regretting the act and confessing voluntarily with the police, is not the same as carefully planning out how to get rid of someone without anyone finding it out.

That's why penal codes differentiate between intentional and unintentional crimes. The former has two subcategories. One means you wanted the crime to be fulfilled, the other is you just didn't mind that it'd happen. Then there is negligence, which also has 2 subcategories, one being negligentia, meaning you didn't see the consequences of your actions out of ignorance, the other is luxuria when you saw the potential consequences but you were complacent enough to think that the consequences won't happen.

Yes, sometimes it's very hard to tell the difference. It's hard to tell that the act should be seen as an intentional assault resulting in unintended death, or it's careless murder. Much depends on one's mental state. And that's why some people can't be punished the same. Like children or people with mental disease.

Then there is a difference between an attempted and a finished crime. One voluntarily stopping the criminal act should be taken into consideration as well.

Also, let's say you buy a car. You don't know it's stolen. Or you exchange money. You are not aware it's forged. Should you be punished for possessing illegal stuff? Nah.

Or. There was a case few yrs ago when a teen killed her stepfather who beat her and her mother for yrs. One day she couldn't stand it anymore. She was already 18 so she could have been punished and received the verdict but was pardoned by the president. But I don't see this as mercy vs justice. I think in this case giving mercy was just. That's why you have the institution of mercy built in the legal system...

 

[Yubel]

Remember, it's if you value justice higher than mercy, not if you're a merciless person.

You made the mistake of believing that because there's a potential for wrong convictions, you're more merciful than you are a person of justice. You have people that will go rather light on individual identified culprits, but will simply rationalize a "punish them all including that one innocent" scenario into a punish all result.

Not once did I even think that and if you read the thread you'd know I decided that I value justice higher than mercy.

 

[Disquiet]

Not once did I even think that and if you read the thread you'd know I decided that I value justice higher than mercy.

The correction would be: you may me more merciful than you are a person of justice

Yeah I read the OP, and a majority of the posts, but not that exact one you made like 28 posts later.

 

[Fountain]

I don't belive in justice I believe in vengeance. We should all have the same rights. I don't believe in some supreme being who gets to decide what should and should not be done.

 

[slimreeper]

Citcumstance and reason aren't always the same. Ex. My circumstance is i'm a poor minority. My reason for looting however is the because the cops killed somone.

 

[Funky Tiger]

this is not a simple yes/no question like "do you want pizza now"

it depends on the scenario. first one might be some woman who had killed a person who tried to rape her and was awaiting a sentence for murder. second might be someone who killed someone for the heck of it, at a school shooting or something. both of them have killed one person each, but surely they dont deserve the same sentence. i'd show mercy for the woman, but not even a hint of it for the school shooter.

 

[Aim64C]

So I was doing this myers briggs test in the hopes that I learn more about myself and things I do that I usually don't pay attention to about myself. Usually your image of who you are is clouded by your experience and very misleading, reality is often much different and can surprise even yourself.

Anyway, I came across this question and didn't know what to answer, they want me to answer yes or no. However I'm torn because on one hand I believe justice should be given equally without mercy but on the other hand think that would be unfair to people who are innocently blamed for crimes they did not commit. What do you think of this?

Justice is a somewhat relative term.

Justice according to what? Or whom?

Within the realm of many people, Justice is a vehicle for Mercy and Mercy is a result of Justice.

For example; someone who is a very lawful individual would argue that laws and the enforcement of laws are necessary to prevent the destruction that is caused by those who have the intent and desire to cause harm to others or to otherwise pursue personal interests to the destruction of those around them.

In this sense, a failure to enforce the laws, to enact Justice, is a failure to show mercy to those who obey the laws. They follow the laws in the faith that those laws will be upheld. If those laws are not upheld, then there is no reason to follow them - and then everyone becomes little more than self-serving, short-sighted animals.

It is, therefor, the merciful thing to do to enact Justice.

Of course - the law could state that everyone must worship the head of the State. In which case, we'd have to review the content of the laws that form the sense of Justice and their relative effectiveness.

--------

We could also look at the concept of justice in another way - that justice is to produce a result that is "fair."

In which case, Justice and Mercy are essentially the same act. Of course, what is "fair" is relative and subject to personal bias. In this form of the issue, one party is almost invariably selected to receive the business end of some variety of Justice while the other is to receive the rewards of some variety of Mercy.

This is why I never like "yes/no" or "true/false" questions on tests.

There are simply too many ways for the ignorant ****s who wrote the thing to interpret my answer to suit whatever foolishness they are on about. From an academic standpoint, such questions are useless for determining proficiency in understanding or recollective capacity. I literally have a 50/50 shot of getting it right simply by answering... and many questions can be answered both ways depending upon how one interprets the question and how one interprets their agreement to the statement.

For example: "True/False: Electricity is electrons."

I ran into that question, once. The only way to answer it is to ask: "Just how stupid are the people who wrote this test?" Yes, Electricity has to do with Electrons. It's not neutrons, or something. On the other hand, electricity is a much more specific idea regarding the movement of electrons and their respective charges - so, no - Electricity isn't simply "electrons."

Whether the question is correct or incorrect depends upon whether or not the person with grading authority considers to be the level at which we are testing (or... the level of his/her own understanding...)

But I ramble between yawns.

 

[Yubel]

Justice is a somewhat relative term.

Justice according to what? Or whom?

Within the realm of many people, Justice is a vehicle for Mercy and Mercy is a result of Justice.

For example; someone who is a very lawful individual would argue that laws and the enforcement of laws are necessary to prevent the destruction that is caused by those who have the intent and desire to cause harm to others or to otherwise pursue personal interests to the destruction of those around them.

In this sense, a failure to enforce the laws, to enact Justice, is a failure to show mercy to those who obey the laws. They follow the laws in the faith that those laws will be upheld. If those laws are not upheld, then there is no reason to follow them - and then everyone becomes little more than self-serving, short-sighted animals.

It is, therefor, the merciful thing to do to enact Justice.

Of course - the law could state that everyone must worship the head of the State. In which case, we'd have to review the content of the laws that form the sense of Justice and their relative effectiveness.

--------

We could also look at the concept of justice in another way - that justice is to produce a result that is "fair."

In which case, Justice and Mercy are essentially the same act. Of course, what is "fair" is relative and subject to personal bias. In this form of the issue, one party is almost invariably selected to receive the business end of some variety of Justice while the other is to receive the rewards of some variety of Mercy.

This is why I never like "yes/no" or "true/false" questions on tests.

There are simply too many ways for the ignorant ****s who wrote the thing to interpret my answer to suit whatever foolishness they are on about. From an academic standpoint, such questions are useless for determining proficiency in understanding or recollective capacity. I literally have a 50/50 shot of getting it right simply by answering... and many questions can be answered both ways depending upon how one interprets the question and how one interprets their agreement to the statement.

For example: "True/False: Electricity is electrons."

I ran into that question, once. The only way to answer it is to ask: "Just how stupid are the people who wrote this test?" Yes, Electricity has to do with Electrons. It's not neutrons, or something. On the other hand, electricity is a much more specific idea regarding the movement of electrons and their respective charges - so, no - Electricity isn't simply "electrons."

Whether the question is correct or incorrect depends upon whether or not the person with grading authority considers to be the level at which we are testing (or... the level of his/her own understanding...)

But I ramble between yawns.

Yeah, I didn't like receiving yes or no answers and then be told what my personality is, that's oversimplifying and stupid. Of course, they should keep things simple but not simpler than they are, however there is no room for any complexity in their results or any contradictions of personality on their tests. I was told I was an INTJ yet I only related to some of the descriptions of the personality type. I either need to test again for more complex questions to bring out my distinct personality or dismiss this current result.

 

[Songbird Supreme]

I value Norman more than anything <3

You must be registered for see images

 

[Aim64C]

Yeah, I didn't like receiving yes or no answers and then be told what my personality is, that's oversimplifying and stupid. Of course, they should keep things simple but not simpler than they are, however there is no room for any complexity in their results or any contradictions of personality on their tests. I was told I was an INTJ yet I only related to some of the descriptions of the personality type. I either need to test again for more complex questions to bring out my distinct personality or dismiss this current result.

Personality tests are best administered through scenarios and a provided range of responses.

It's not 'easy' - but it helps to reduce errors associated with semantics.

After sleeping on it, I think what the question was trying to get at was the idea between "Lawful" and "Permissive."

In other words, is it more important that the law be upheld even if it is harsh, or is it more important that the law be dismissed if it could cause harm to the person.

For example, the law states that a fine is to be paid of $300 for an offense and a single mother violated the law. Should the fine still be instated (with the option for a payment plan that is usually provided by law)? Or should it be dismissed?

From a structural standpoint, this means: "Is it more important that a judge rules based on the law, or is it more important that the judge take whatever action he/she sees fit to make things turn out 'fair' in his or her estimation?"

Obviously, most of us don't get too bent out of shape about a judge deciding to dismiss a misdemeanor or traffic fine. There's a difference between "Lawful Good" and "Lawful Stupid" - a judge exists to be given an amount of authority over how the laws apply to the situation and juries are given the authority to completely nullify a law in a criminal case (though suggesting it is a good way to get you thrown out of court or a mistrial called on the case).

That said, what about when we start getting into charges of fraud, misdemeanor crimes, etc. If a judge can start dismissing the cases of people he/she likes or that comply with a certain agenda he/she has regarding a law he/she doesn't personally agree with... then we've given a single judge the authority to overturn the authority of multiple lawmakers and voters who placed that law into the system.

Perhaps the judge is correct and the law is not necessary or does cause more harm than good - but the question is should the judge have the authority to apply her authority within the strict confines of the law's provisions, or if she should be able to justify over-reaches of authority based upon appeals to 'mercy' and 'humanity?'

Perhaps I am taking this well beyond what the authors of the test intended for their personality test. I'm sure there is a reason they chose to use the words "mercy" and "justice" instead of words I would have chosen.

It is also likely there was another, similar question that used different language or that used "mercy" and "justice" in a different manner.

It's how I would have designed such a test (if limited to very simplistic answers). You set up questions to cross-analyze various other answers and attempt to place what the test taker within a category of not just what he/she thinks, but also how he/she views various concepts. Is "justice" and "mercy" more personal to this person, or is it more social to them? Do they answer differently if we use the words "lawfulness" and "permissiveness?" What about "Obedience" and "Rampancy?"

A lot of these tests claim a relatively high degree of accuracy... but... *shrug* - the human mind/experience is the final frontier. Forget space.

It's kind of like tests to gauge intelligence. If the person is smarter than you, and knows what you think is right is actually wrong... then how the hell are you going to test for it? Or what if their answer is more complicated than you can understand (if we are doing a written test)?

It's a question I find myself asking as I contemplate plot lines that include genetically and cybernetically enhanced people who are supposed to be blisteringly intelligent. ... How the hell am I supposed to write that, particularly if a couple of them are key characters in the ensemble cast where we get a window into some of their thoughts?

Or, assume I'm one of the people who comes across them. How am I supposed to be able to gauge just how intelligent this person is. Real-world experience could show that this person is able to intuitively develop working theories in ways that I couldn't even follow. And since it obviously produced a working solution - I can justify classifying them as above my own intelligence... but there's no test I can think of where I could actually be able to put some kind of metric to it.

I'm sure just about any question they answer that I believe is wrong could be reinforced with evidence I am either not aware of or a line of logic that includes factors I'd never considered as being relevant (but are, and completely change the 'correct' answer).

It's like any plot that includes "super advanced aliens." The ones that pull this off the best are the ones that simply don't bother to explain why the aliens are doing what they are doing. The ones that do almost always attempt to insert our lowly ant-logic into the equation and give human reason to something that is clearly not human and behaves in ways that any logical human being with those kind of assets would find every reason to do something else.

Classic example:

[video=youtube;Wj9q8rwYo84]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj9q8rwYo84&list=PLiWzMOLohpMmyaUhp8hva3Vxa8Y9jsLRD&index=3[/video]

Which is why it's best to leave the techno-gods that -are- a natural disaster be simply mysterious techno-gods of destruction and leave it at that.

But I've digressed horribly.

 

[Babadook]

Anyway, recent news: Pistorius was released for good behavior, having spent only 10 months in jail for murder.

Justice or...?

You must be registered for see links

 

[Norma Louise Bates]

You must be registered for see images

I'm already home. Norman and I are watching TV together.

Sheriff Romero is a such a nice guy. Very stern, but nice. Norman and I feel safe under his watch. Besides Norman and Dylan, he is one of the few good people I've ever met. I'm proud to call him a friend.