inquisitive01

That's YOUR opinion, and is akin to saying something like the following:

1). Bob is a con artist and has stolen many things from many people, but no justice should be used against Bob (i.e., he should not be punished for stealing).

2). Jane decided to drive one night after getting drunk and, while on the road, she had a head-on collision with another car which killed 2 people. Jane should be left alone, should not be punished, and should go free to do the same thing again.

My point here is that God's justice was not aimed at every single person, but only at those considered unjust... which you seem to be omitting for some reason. :huh:

eh

It's got nothing to do with opinion. Modern justice (at least in this part of the world) has nothing to do with revenge. Justice seeks to do several things. These are deterrence, protection of society and rehabilitation. Revenge, or getting even with the offender fits much better in the medieval era.

Nice, 2 strawman attacks. Surely, you can do better. In the one example, Jane has commited a serious crime, and so modern justice demands that:

a. Society be protected from her actions
b. There is a deterrant to prevent others from doing what she did
c. Jane be rehabilitated before re-entering society.

Where in the world you got the idea that modern justice is about letting people off the hook scott free, I don't know.

Irrelevant. The point is that God's justice is actually revenge, having nothing to do with modern notions of justice.

As I said, some theists have a different interpretation of the atonement. My attack is one the interpretation that God's nature requires him to be just, which in this case means providing infinite punishment for sin. Don't buy that version? Then this isn't your argument.

inquisitive01

You can "picture" it that way if you like. However, I disagree. Aren't you forgetting:

d. Revenge?

I'm sure the family and friends of those killed by Jane will be out for BOTH justice and revenge (i.e., they might say something like "we should make Jane pay for this crime").



I don't know where in the world you got that. Please show me where I said modern justice was "about letting people off the hook scott free." :huh:



Once again, that's your opinion (along with the old "irrelevant" argument so common with atheists).




Frankly, I don't know what you're talking about with this. Is "one" supposed to be "one," or some other word?

Anyway, in an earlier post, you said "what we have here is pure revenge." Like I said before, that's YOUR opinion.


Perhaps, but don't call me "Surely." :down:

Xrikcus

No, he said "modern justice demands that". Modern justice does not (not should it) demand revenge... victims may do so, but Justice doesn't. In fact, you support that comment with:

ie they are not one and the same thing.

I should add that there is a flaw in modern Justice in that Jane would be punished for the deaths of the people she hit, but that was not her crime, drink driving was her crime (it's a serious crime, but I feel the distinction is important). I cannot help but feel that manslaughter is a nonsensical crime it's entirely dependent on the arbitrary results of a crime rather than the crime itself.

inquisitive01

No, justice just allows revenge. Btw, I'm not seeing "demands that" anywhere in eh's post. Am I missing it somewhere? Thanks for answering for him, though. :huh:




It sounds like you saying something like "Had the 2 people that were killed not ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time, then Jane would not have killed them with her car." Well, we do know that one cannot drive well when intoxicated (response times are reduced, etc.). But are you saying that manslaughter is not a justified crime for Jane simply because of mere chance?

What if Jane had not been drunk (or "high" for other drugs... yes, alcohol is a drug), but simply drove her 2,000-lb. (or so) vehicle at speeds of over 100 m.p.h. and then ended up hitting these 2 people and killing them. Would manslaughter be justified then (even though those killed could have been somewhere else while Jane was driving, but weren't)?

Xrikcus

You know... I don't have the faintest idea, that sentence makes no sense even in my comment overall!

The rest stands though.

Anyway, the point was not to answer for him, it was to give another opinion from his side on the justice and revenge issue. It was a response to you, just attempting (and failing, I'll grant you) to link it to his. Teach me for posting early in the morning.


Yes, exactly. Or, more generally, I can't think of an occasion when manslaughter is a justified charge. I really don't see why the pure luck of having hit someone makes the crime any different, if it was a bad enough crime that the chances were high someone might die (as drink driving) then it should have a strong sentence anyway, why make it different from a layer of pure luck?

No, manslaughter wasn't, but dangerous driving certainly was, and (assuming evidence was available which clearly is the problem) should be treated the same, and severely, in both cases.

So, to clarify that, I'm not suggesting reduced sentences, in anything more severe sentences for when you don't hit someone, I'm just saying that I don't think the hitting of a person was the crime.

It's a bit off topic though, something that might provide an interesting discussion elsewhere sometime.

Xrikcus

Ah wait, no, it DOES make sense!

He DID say "Modern justice demands that..." and modern justice doesn't demand revenge, so revenge cannot come in that list, which was the point I was making! Hence your d was invalid, and therein lay my point on the matter.

You're right that in many cases modern Justice does allow revenge though.

Jack the Bodiless

Yes, that seems reasonable. Jane performed a criminal act (driving while intoxicated), which involved an unacceptable risk of killing people. It would be just to provide a punishment for that act which doesn't depend on whether she actually killed someone: her intent, her recklessness and her culpability is what should be punished, not bad luck.
Again, it seems reasonable that Jane should be punished for her decision to drive recklessly, regardless of the means by which she became unable to control her vehicle. Driving fast while tired, or with a cold, should be just as serious as driving fast while drunk. However, while tiredness and a cold may impair reactions just as much as alcohol does, the drunk is probably more likely to drive too fast. And the cold is harder to avoid: Jane would be less culpable, because she couldn't simply have chosen not to get a cold before driving. She might have been able to choose not to make that journey, however, and certainly could have chosen to drive more slowly.

eh

As someone already pointed out, that has nothing to do with justice whatsoever. When a criminal is sentenced, the courts do not consider revenge as a factor. The families desire for revenge isn't justice, as you seem to acknowledge with the statement BOTH justice and revenge.
You implied it with those idiotic strawman attacks. As if denying revenge as a valid notion in justice somehow means everyone gets off scott free, as in the case of Jane and Bob.
Of course. When theists post a response that has nothing to do with the actual argument, "irrelevant" is the only appropriate reply.
Replace the typo "one the" with "the one".
No it isn't, at least not when we compare the notion of justice to the Christian God's justice and they bear no resemblance.

Does God's demand for infinite punishment of sins have anything to do with protection of society? Nope, the sinner is dead and can't possibly hurt society. Does it have anything to do with rehabilitation? Clearly not, since eternal punishment renders that pointless. Does it act as a deterant? Since such a punishment has never actually been observed by the living, I doubt that would qualify here either. Then again, some feeble minded theists are actually afraid of this boogeyman, so one might be able to argue it has at least some effect.

So Shirley, the Christian God's notion of justice bears little resemblance to the modern notion. It is however identical to the notion of revenge, and that was my point.

inquisitive01

Xrikcus, yes, he did say "demands that" prior to the a-b-c list. However, doesn't justice demand that someone press charges against the person (thus, making them pay for the crime... which sounds like revenge to me)?

Jack the Bodiless, as the laws stand, manslaughter is a crime with various punishments available. That's just how the laws are (nothing I can do about it, in other words). Because of this, all of the possible charges that could be brought against Jane might include wreckless driving, DUI, and manslaughter... each contributing to the consideration of punishment(s) (sentencing).

Also, I believe at least some states (I think New Jersey would be one) have gotten tougher when it comes to being too tired to drive, though it seems it would be difficult to determine just how tired a normal driver (not an OTR driver) is.




Justice allows revenge (duh!), just as you seem to be allowing yourself to feel "larger" hiding behind your computer screen referring to me as "Shirley" and referring to what I typed as being "idiotic." Now, was that really necessary?

Hey, try previewing your posts to prevent potential problems with those typos.