1-No, I went from we thng murder is wrong to the law needs to reflect the society it is a part of. I mean, at least you're responding to something, I would just prefer it if you were to respond to something I actually said. In a democratic society (at least ideally) the people have values, elect officials who hold those values and then those officials legislate on it. That is part of what makes a law effective, it relfects what people see as a correct law. This is not mob law, this a reflection of what the public wants through law.
Also, the shallow level at which you read that is frankly insulting and shows a lack in willingness to consider any idea that does not conform to your own.
2-=http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/r102chp03 contains a good articulation of the purpose of law. Notice that while reflection of social mores is not there, retribution and denunciation is.
=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law#Objectives_of_criminal_law also articulates those goals.
=In the common law by justice Holmes he states"
"[t]he first requirement of a sound body of law is, that it should
correspond with the actual feelings and demands of the community,
whether right or wrong. If people would gratify the passion of revenge
outside of the law, if the law did not help them, the law has no choice but
to satisfy the craving itself, and thus avoid the greater evil of private
retribution. At the same time, this passion is not one which we encourage,
either as private individuals or as law-makers"
=Pages 15-19 in "The changing purposes of criminal punishment: a retrospective on the past century and some thoughts about the next" give a good explanation of the rationale behind retribution and actually raises some interesting questions about its motivation.
I still stand by the fact that it is lunacy to try and prove a point of view, which I was trying to show by asking you to prove that what Brevik did was wrong. Instead you tried to claim that I was shifting the burden of proof, which would have been asking you to prove me wrong. Instead, I was pointing out that burden of proof does not really apply to value judgements. However, I have found some sources that point out that the goals that I stated conform prettly closely with those commonly accepted in the legal discussion, that law must reflect social mores and one that expands on what retribution actually is. Enjoy, they are quite good reads.
3-See the above, also, you are taking my position to extreames, if you had read my first post you would have seen that I heavily qualified the use of the death penalty, and that it could, under the goals of law as stated by myself and numerous legal papers and institutions fuffil the requirements of an effective law. When combined with the fact that differing nations in differing circumstances require differing legal systems to keep the peace, you can see that differing responses can be called for. American society responds differantly to the law than south african society and Indonesian society responds differantly to the law than Singaporean society. There are far far too many variables to point at a nation and say 'this is better off because of x law' or 'this is worse off because of this law' so I've defered to people who have spent thier lives working in the system and the studies that they have done. Also, I have kept myself civil, I would thank you to do the same.
4-Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done, for people to have faith in the law, they must see that it is being enforced and feel that it is enforcing what they see as the right thing. To be seen to be enforced, the law will most likely have to conform to at least the protection, deterrance and retribution goals of the law. Rehabilitaion does not really come under this one, but is still critical (as I stated in my first post). So, as I stated, the death penalty can, in certain circumstances fufill all goals of the law except for rehabilitaion it can increase faith in the law.
5-In victoria, esp around Melbourne, there is a perception that the punishments for attacks with bladed weapons have not been harsh enough and over the last five or so years, this led to people disobeying that law as they felt safer carrying an illegal weapon the relying on the legal prevention of others doing the same. Although to be fair to the Vitorian government, recent police blitzes and hardened punishments have reversed the trend.
6-Basic observation of society will show that most people will obey the law, even without the threat of direct punishment, if they think that it is an effective and just law. Most people will not rape women because they see it as wrong to do so, that the law is just. If you removed the punishment for rape, the vast majority of people still would not do it. Most people will obey the speed limit (within reason) even when they are not directly observed by law enforcemnt because it is an effectivly enforced law. I think it was in the changing purposes of criminal punishment that relates an anecdote of ineffective enforcement of a law leading to de-stigmatization of the crime and higher incidences of offending.
7-Crime is rampant in places with no direct supervisionand no faith (although respect may be a better word) in the law. Someone who is a law abiding person does not immediatly become a criminal when the police turn their back. Note that I am not trying to deny the importance of police, only stating that faith/respect in the law as fostered by the law conforming with those goals.
8-The fact that people obey the law because of a combination of their agreeing that the law is just and its enforcement? That's what you are questioning now? really? Look at crimes that are not considered to be against the societies social mores, look at the extreamily high incidence of canabis use, look at the massive instances of public drunkeness in Australia, look at the very lax enforcement of religious law in Indonesia. People obey the law that fits thier society, how can you not see that?
9-I admit that its an oppinion, yes, as I have out and out stated several times. Because this is a forum, for people's opinions, in a thread called 'my opinion'. I think that, however much you disagree with its basis however, you cannot reasonably claim that it is baseless. It is a complex, nuanced isssue that cuts into what we think of as right and wrong, deeply subjective questions. Of course its a sodding opinion.
10-If fundamentalists suddenly took over, that would be a sudden imposition of foreign (in terms of the target culture values) social mores, not a reflection of the native ones. The law would not be just as it would not reflect the parent society.
11-You mean that the wealthiest, most stable countries on the planet have a low incidence of crime? You do know that correlation and causation are two differant things, can you prove your claims? Even then, south africa does not have the death penalty. Mexico does not, it's gone throught the Balkans. Many nations without the death penalty are crime ridden and there are nations with it that are peaceful and prosperous. It may influence it one way or the other, but to look at some of the most well off nations in the world and to single them out because they support your point of view, (as opposed to, I don't know, the fact that they are so well off contributing to their low crime rate) shows that you have looked at this issue is probably the second most shallow manner possible.I have put up a fair amout of supporting material as to why retribution is an important part of the legal system, you have done nothing to support your point of view but become increasingly hostile and repeat your idea that the concept of retribution is bullshit. Remember that. Your first post was simply to call the entire idea of legal retribution bullshit, reducing a six hundred word post into one word so you could attack it easier and then claiming that there was nothing else too it.
Quite frankly, I don't really expect you to make any sort of reasoned response here, you'll probably fall back to the old stand by of 'you don't know what the fuck you're talking about' or 'stop dribbling shit'. So I am asking you, in the spirit of informed discussion, to put forward an actual argument of why you think that the concept of retribution is 'petty bullshit'. If you can't do that, or you are simply going to go all broken record again with insults to my character an intelligence, then I tip my hat and bid you good day.
