• RaskolnikovsAxe@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Well, that understandable drive for retribution - which blinds us to principles of equality and justice - is exactly why we don’t let victims administer justice or mete out punishments.

    • Matty Roses@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      the principles of equality and justice

      “The law, in its infinite wisdom, prohibits both poor and rich alike from sleeping under bridges”.

      • RaskolnikovsAxe@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I think you’re making my point.

        France was talking about systemic inequality, and he’s right: Systems claim to be fair and equal but they still make systematic errors. So why would we add an irreversible punishment, plus a vague ‘elite’ category that invites political targeting and misclassification?

        • Matty Roses@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Because we’re only discussing applying it to those most likely to be able to tip the scales of justice in their favor. That’s exactly the point.

          • RaskolnikovsAxe@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Again… To do that, you need to classify everyone accordingly as elite or not, which is subject to systematic error. Which is why we should just choose not to do it, since the death penalty is irreversible, and killing an innocent person runs counter to the way in which a liberal democracy chooses the values that structure its justice system - that is, that we prefer to run the risk that a guilty person go free to avoid, as much as possible, that an innocent person suffers.

            If you prefer a justice system built on different fundamental values, maybe you prefer China, Russia or Saudi Arabia.