May not reply to any comments in a while, but here goes: Prisons and Justice
1. How can a Society have Justice if it cannot agree on what "Justice" is?
2.Personally, I cannot fully support Prisons while the Prison system retains its economic aspect.
3.To follow with an example: If A steals £1million and goes to prison for five years while B murders someone and gets 20, is stealing £1million equivalent to a quarter of a murder? Ridiculous!
4.What if C stole a billion pounds? Do we execute them?
5.We then go into the same argument the right use to "prove" Socialism can't work, in that its impossible can't make Justice equal for everyone.
6.No matter what the crime (and surely it goes without saying that murdering someone is pretty pathetic) committed by an individual,they still have rights before, after and during their sentence.
7.Similar to 2. it is difficult to support the state while it retains its economic aspect on one hand while at the same time denying true economic justice by creating hypocritical forms of criminality on the other in the forms of "illegal immigrants" and "proscribed substances" which, by definition, are already in existence in the society in which they are "prohibited".
8.The Definition of the State, then, is dependent on introducing arenas in or autonomous to the Society which calls itself a State.
9.These Autonomous Arenas are either supportive of the State and its goals (like para-military forces in a Fascist country like Columbia or a more general alternative like landowners, professional politicians or monarchs) or define or justify the State in some way (foreigners, dissidents, criminals etc)
10.By solely focusing on negative aspects of justice we encounter two problems a) Imagine what an awful world it would be if everyone got exactly what they deserved for everything they did wrong
b)Surely the worst offenders are those who promote violence and oppression (the media, the Catholic Church, the Military-Industrial Complex) so we are forced to focus on Institutions and not Individuals.
11. The Bourgeois-Patriarchal State to an extent tolerates offences like traffic offences and rape as the perpetrators usually belong to the preferred or dominant castes and these kinds of offences are not contrary to the aims of domination and submission of certain societal arenas autonomous to and supportive of the state, hence low conviction rates and sentences.
12.Offences often commited by so-called underclasses, like robbery and murder, threaten the economic dominance of the bourgeoisie, hence the reason these crimes are elevated above others (such as forced prostitution or domestic violence) in the organs of the upper classes.
13.Violence, although never truly justified, is often the only recourse for economic justice by much of the "lumpenproletariat" or underclass, basically because the police become increasingly irrelevant the poorer you get, while the rich can always sue for anything they want.
14.The same is also true when legal authorities demand economic restitution: it is as increasingly difficult for the poor to avoid or combat as it is increasingly easy for the rich to avoid or combat for fear of capital flight.
15.Its as easy for a rich man to avoid paying a fine for £10,000 (or to notice it) as it is hard for a poor man who owes £2000 to avoid prison.
1. How can a Society have Justice if it cannot agree on what "Justice" is?
2.Personally, I cannot fully support Prisons while the Prison system retains its economic aspect.
3.To follow with an example: If A steals £1million and goes to prison for five years while B murders someone and gets 20, is stealing £1million equivalent to a quarter of a murder? Ridiculous!
4.What if C stole a billion pounds? Do we execute them?
5.We then go into the same argument the right use to "prove" Socialism can't work, in that its impossible can't make Justice equal for everyone.
6.No matter what the crime (and surely it goes without saying that murdering someone is pretty pathetic) committed by an individual,they still have rights before, after and during their sentence.
7.Similar to 2. it is difficult to support the state while it retains its economic aspect on one hand while at the same time denying true economic justice by creating hypocritical forms of criminality on the other in the forms of "illegal immigrants" and "proscribed substances" which, by definition, are already in existence in the society in which they are "prohibited".
8.The Definition of the State, then, is dependent on introducing arenas in or autonomous to the Society which calls itself a State.
9.These Autonomous Arenas are either supportive of the State and its goals (like para-military forces in a Fascist country like Columbia or a more general alternative like landowners, professional politicians or monarchs) or define or justify the State in some way (foreigners, dissidents, criminals etc)
10.By solely focusing on negative aspects of justice we encounter two problems a) Imagine what an awful world it would be if everyone got exactly what they deserved for everything they did wrong
b)Surely the worst offenders are those who promote violence and oppression (the media, the Catholic Church, the Military-Industrial Complex) so we are forced to focus on Institutions and not Individuals.
11. The Bourgeois-Patriarchal State to an extent tolerates offences like traffic offences and rape as the perpetrators usually belong to the preferred or dominant castes and these kinds of offences are not contrary to the aims of domination and submission of certain societal arenas autonomous to and supportive of the state, hence low conviction rates and sentences.
12.Offences often commited by so-called underclasses, like robbery and murder, threaten the economic dominance of the bourgeoisie, hence the reason these crimes are elevated above others (such as forced prostitution or domestic violence) in the organs of the upper classes.
13.Violence, although never truly justified, is often the only recourse for economic justice by much of the "lumpenproletariat" or underclass, basically because the police become increasingly irrelevant the poorer you get, while the rich can always sue for anything they want.
14.The same is also true when legal authorities demand economic restitution: it is as increasingly difficult for the poor to avoid or combat as it is increasingly easy for the rich to avoid or combat for fear of capital flight.
15.Its as easy for a rich man to avoid paying a fine for £10,000 (or to notice it) as it is hard for a poor man who owes £2000 to avoid prison.
posted by Legal Smeagol at 6:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home