PercyBoleyn said:
the clockmaker said:
Considering that it is a sociological and philosophical point of view
Why should we use it then? The purpose of the law isn't to cater to your sensibilities.
the clockmaker said:
twice so far you have just said 'nuh-uh' without any sort of meaningful point behind it.
Twice you say? The first time I called you out on your bullshit, the second time I asked you to prove your claims.
the clockmaker said:
Surely, if my point is just petty bullshit, you, as the more enlightened side can come up with something. Perhaps it would help if I rephrased,
I have already come up with something. It's called asking for evidence.
the clockmaker said:
The law relies on peoples faith in it. When offenders go unpunished, that damages peoples faith in the law, therefore it is to the benefit of a just and lawful society for retribution to be one of the considerations in the function of law.
Firstly, the law relies on law enforcement and not the people's faith to function. Secondly, you said that if offenders go unpunished people's faith in the law diminishes which I can agree with in principle but the problem is that you're implying Breivik will go unpunished which he won't. Thirdly, you use these two erroneous claims to reach the conclusion that retribution is necessary for a just and lawful society without explaining why.
The Norwegian legal system is focused on rehabilitation and it has served them extremely well. What possible reason could they have to change the basis of it now?
Ah, so he can use more than one sentence at a time, much better, here we go.
1-The law is based on the social mores of the society in which it is based, something which I said in my first post. For example, we, as a society, think that murder is wrong and therefore it is catered it to in the social and philosophical basis of our law. So, any discussion of the law cannot exist in a vacuum and must consider the social and philosophical views of those concerned. That is why we should use them and that is why the purpose of the law is to cater to all of our sensibilities.
2-In your first post, you simply said that my point of view was bullshit, you apparently do not deny this. That is not a acceptable argument and does not foster discussion, in your second post you asked me to prove a point of view, not facts, not statistics. Can you prove that what Brevik did was wrong? I mean, I know that it is and you know that it is, but while you can construct an argument as to why you think it is you cannot prove it. In niether post did you present anything resembling a counterpoint.
3-Again, asking for evidence of what? I put forward a sociological point of view, it is something that does not respond to proof as it has not got an end state of correct or incorrect. You say that execution is wrong, I say prove it, you may be able to make a convincing argument, but you cannot prove it.
4-Law enforcement is important in ensuring that the law is followed, that is true, but a society that does not have faith in the law will not follow the law. Look, for example at the concealed weapon laws in Victoria, it is enforced, that is true, but the people do not have faith in how it is enforced and so it a fairly ineffective law.
The police and other law enforcement agencies are there to enforce the aberants of society that do not obey the law, most people of society obey the law whether there is a direct threat of immediate police response or not. If the law functioned soley on law enforcement and not people's faith in the law, then crime would be rampant anywhere that there was not direct supervision. I am not claiming that it is an all or nothing affair, only that one of the things that the law relies on is peoples desire to obey it, which comes from their faith in it and their recogion that it reflects their social mores (which links back to point one of this post).
If you had read my first post, (which, to be entirely frank I am begining to doubt) you would see that I never actually even remotely claimed that Brevik would not be punished, only that under the goals that I think the law needs to fulfil, (Protection, Deterrant, Rehabilitaion, Retribution and Reflection of Social mores (again linking back into point one of this post)) it would be reasonable to consider the death penalty in this case amongst others. I am not saying 'KILL KILL' I am simply pointing out that it could be something to consider.
Now, finally, you claim that I errounsly link two statements (my biggest clue yet that the only thing you saw in my initial post was the word retribution as I had far more than two statements supporting that argument) to reach my conclusion. I pointed out that the five goals that are nessecary for a just and lawful society are the ones stated above, in my oppinion at least, from there, I pointed out that the death penalty fufils all of these goals that can be fufilled in cases where it is clear to the relevent legal authority that the offender cannot be rehabilitated. You claim that I do not explain how I came to that conclusion when you quoted one (
one) word out of a six hundred and sixty two word post explaining how I came to that position.
As a last point, in my mythical first post, which you should really get around to someday I said "This is why, in my oppinion, in certain circumstances the judicial killing of prisoners who have commited extreame offences and are then deemed to be incapable of reintergration into society is reasonable and just." (recreated spelling errors and all) just below the point where I say that the law must support the social mores of the society that birthed it. From this, and combined with the upper part of the post responding to someone claiming that the US was an underdeveloped nation, you could gather that I was giving a generalised defence of the idea of the death penalty, not claiming that Norway needs to have it. Norwigen society is not one that supports this penalty and so would most likely not be suitible for it.
