Prohibitive Law vs Protective Justice

[nyse]

I tried unsucsessfully to explain and discuss this in a thread that became overly long and convoluted. I'll attempt to streamline the root concept.

Prohibitive law focuses on the rule itself as opposed to dealing directly with the wrongful action. (Eg the court is concerned only with a killer having broken the sanction against murder: the fact that a person suffered and died is immaterial.)

Protective Justice could do what we wish (and often think) that law does.

 

[Jez]

I tried unsucsessfully to explain and discuss this in a thread that became overly long and convoluted. I'll attempt to streamline the root concept.

Prohibitive law focuses on the rule itself as opposed to dealing directly with the wrongful action. (Eg the court is concerned only with a killer having broken the sanction against murder: the fact that a person suffered and died is immaterial.)

Protective Justice could do what we wish (and often think) that law does.

Hm, I'm confused. What is the difference, to you, between protective justice and prohibitive law? Why do you think that to the courts, and as you're saying- "prohibitive law", the act itself is immaterial outside of the fact that it breaks the law?

 

[VTChEwbecca]

I tried unsucsessfully to explain and discuss this in a thread that became overly long and convoluted. I'll attempt to streamline the root concept.

Prohibitive law focuses on the rule itself as opposed to dealing directly with the wrongful action. (Eg the court is concerned only with a killer having broken the sanction against murder: the fact that a person suffered and died is immaterial.)

Protective Justice could do what we wish (and often think) that law does.

You've still explained nothing. You can repeat over and over why you think Prohibitive Law is bad, but you've never been able to detail HOW protective justice is a) different and b) HOW it works.

You also refuse to read responses to your "system" and immediately assume that those who ask you good questions are "squirrels," without taking the time to actually read and reflect upon their questions/comments. No system is perfect - not even yours, whether you can accept this fact remains to be seen. If you truly want to be part of an intelligent discussion, you'll have to uphold your end of the deal by posting intelligent responses, instead of rewriting what you've already said and calling others names.

And most of the people I know have not broken laws simply to get back at the "rule." They've done so for money (many cases I know), they've done so to gain something for themselves, they want to hurt someone else, etc. Ask a drug dealer why he/she sells drugs and you will not get the response "I was breaking the RULES because someone is trying to prohibit me from selling these drugs!" It's all about the MONEY for them. There are a multitude of reasons people break laws, and I'm sure there are those who break laws because there are laws. However, the great majority have other reasons and your system does not seem to contain a great deal of difference between Prohibitive Justice and Protective Justice. Perhaps you could FULLY explain this difference and not in some round-about way that keeps restating the fact you think people only break laws to break the rules.

 

[nyse]

You've still explained nothing. You can repeat over and over why you think Prohibitive Law is bad, but you've never been able to detail HOW protective justice is a) different and b) HOW it works.

Have you ever seen the movie 'Who the Bleep do we think we are'? In one section they tell of how, when Columbus first approached America, that none could see the ships approaching, because they were so alien to the native's knowledge. This seems to be the case in this topic. If I can tell you what the ship looks like, then you should be able to see it for yourself.

You also refuse to read responses to your "system" and immediately assume that those who ask you good questions are "squirrels," without taking the time to actually read and reflect upon their questions/comments. No system is perfect - not even yours, whether you can accept this fact remains to be seen.

How can you know that until you understand? I'm not looking for perfect--I just want to see it better than it is.

A law is thing but it exists only on the mind (and on paper). When you break a law, like assault, you're concidered to have broken that thing. Your conscience doesn't object to your kicking a thing, like a rock (or a law), but you would feel badly over kicking a pain-feeling dog (or assaulting a person). Protective justice removes the inanimate thing (the law) from the equasion. Striking a person is no longer concidered to be hurting a law, it is treated as an unwarrented act of violence against a protected person.

And most of the people I know have not broken laws simply to get back at the "rule." They've done so for money (many cases I know), they've done so to gain something for themselves, they want to hurt someone else, etc. Ask a drug dealer why he/she sells drugs and you will not get the response "I was breaking the RULES because someone is trying to prohibit me from selling these drugs!" It's all about the MONEY for them. There are a multitude of reasons people break laws, and I'm sure there are those who break laws because there are laws. However, the great majority have other reasons and your system does not seem to contain a great deal of difference between Prohibitive Justice and Protective Justice. Perhaps you could FULLY explain this difference and not in some round-about way that keeps restating the fact you think people only break laws to break the rules.

In some (definately not all) instances, people ARE breaking laws to protest the system--because it's possible to do so. So for one benefit, protective justice eliminates that possibility[/P] because the offence is no longer concidered to be against the law.

 

[nyse]

Hm, I'm confused. What is the difference, to you, between protective justice and prohibitive law? Why do you think that to the courts, and as you're saying- "prohibitive law", the act itself is immaterial outside of the fact that it breaks the law?

This is exactly why I was talking about slavery concepts in the other thread.

If someone beats up your sister, you pound the crap out of him BECAUSE he hit your sister. The courts deal with it differently. You and most people presume the court is dealing with your sister's hurt but it definately isn't. The judge is only concerned on whether the mauler broke a law against assault. The king's rules are deemed important and punishment is assigned for that only. Any harm to the person is never the real issue. If a man can contrive to harm your sister in a manner that doesn't match the definition of a law--he may do so freely.

On the other hand, protective justice allows us to collectively care for all our sisters directly--while also finally freeing ourselves from serfdom to the law.

 

[sparkchaser]

Have you ever seen the movie 'Who the Bleep do we think we are'? In one section they tell of how, when Columbus first approached America, that none could see the ships approaching, because they were so alien to the native's knowledge. This seems to be the case in this topic. If I can tell you what the ship looks like, then you should be able to see it for yourself.

Actually, it is called "What the *bleep* do we know?"


I've heard this but I don't necessarily believe it and neither do a lot of other people. In fact, I was not able to find anything supporting that statement the movie made.

 

[nyse]

Actually, it is called "What the *bleep* do we know?"

You're right. I stand corrected.

I've heard this but I don't necessarily believe it and neither do a lot of other people. In fact, I was not able to find anything supporting that statement the movie made.

Frankly, I'm not sure if I believe the Columbus thing either. However, from the difficulites I've had in drumming in a very simple concept, I have to think that something other than intelect is blocking comprehension

 

[Tasku]

Frankly, I'm not sure if I believe the Columbus thing either. However, from the difficulites I've had in drumming in a very simple concept, I have to think that something other than intelect is blocking comprehension

It's not a question of intellect, it's a question of opinion and personal beliefs.

I don't feel I'm a slave, I am a free man, living in a society ruled by majority. In this society the majority of us are willingly obeying laws. The minority, who are breaking those laws will get punished, simple as that. I have no desire to break any laws.

Besides, like VTChEwbecca said, you have yet to answer my question of how this system would be implemented so that it would not be exploited by those in power.

 

[Litany]

You're right. I stand corrected.

Frankly, I'm not sure if I believe the Columbus thing either. However, from the difficulites I've had in drumming in a very simple concept, I have to think that something other than intelect is blocking comprehension

You're not actually explaining anything.

Protective Justice could do what we wish (and often think) that law does.

How?

On the other hand, protective justice allows us to collectively care for all our sisters directly--while also finally freeing ourselves from serfdom to the law.

How?

All you do is tell us that the current system is bad. That's not an explanation of why your system is better or how your system works. If it's so very simple you should be able to come up with a few short bullet points.

 

[Jez]

Hm, I'm confused. What is the difference, to you, between protective justice and prohibitive law? Why do you think that to the courts, and as you're saying- "prohibitive law", the act itself is immaterial outside of the fact that it breaks the law?

This is exactly why I was talking about slavery concepts in the other thread.

If someone beats up your sister, you pound the crap out of him BECAUSE he hit your sister. The courts deal with it differently. You and most people presume the court is dealing with your sister's hurt but it definately isn't. The judge is only concerned on whether the mauler broke a law against assault. The king's rules are deemed important and punishment is assigned for that only. Any harm to the person is never the real issue. If a man can contrive to harm your sister in a manner that doesn't match the definition of a law--he may do so freely.

On the other hand, protective justice allows us to collectively care for all our sisters directly--while also finally freeing ourselves from serfdom to the law.

Ok, so the answer to my first question--what is the difference between a protective justice and prohibitive law--the difference is the motive for punishment? In protective justice, a person is not punished because they have broken a law, but rather because they have caused someone harm? Is this what you are saying?

Now, before we continue, I really must point out two things in your response:

1) You are making an assumption about what I think and believe. I do not appreciate that, especially since I am trying to understand what you think and not make assumptions about you. I expect the same respect in return.
Never once did I say anything about my beliefs, whether I agree with you, or whether I disagree with you. All I asked was why you think what you think. For all you know, I may agree with you 100%, but I just wanted to hear your personal reasons.

2) You did not answer my second question. All you did was restate that the courts, as things currently stand, care for nothing other than the fact that a law was broken. If I am correct in what I have said above, then I understand what you are saying (and if I am not correct, then please explain further). What I am asking is why do you believe this to be the case. Those are two completely different things.

So, can you answer my question? And without making assumptions this time?

And for what it is worth, I have not really read the other thread.

 

[helgi]

..I think this is a good thread. I'd never heard of this before.
..as near as I understand, laws are prohibitive, but have protective provisions adjustable by the judge, like in sueing?

..it sounds like the concern is that there are those who are hurt with seemingly no breech of the law by their aggresor, and that the legal system does nothing. But I always thought the law could at least potentially be applied to any transgression, if the transgression is brought to the attention of the court, and explained to be a transgression, and is decided to be grave enough. But I think people will always be beyond effective legal protection for small miscellaneous transgressions.
..I think there should be, and I think there is, a prohibitive law against any serious miscellaneous transgression that harms or causes suffering, and that there is are parties responsible to decide which cases are serious.

 

[BeerWench13]

If it's so very simple you should be able to come up with a few short bullet points.

This was my request in the other thread. Could you give us an outline of exactly how your system would work?

Here, I'll give you a "crime" on which to base your statement.
I find my husband in bed with another woman. In a fit of rage, I kill them both. Proceed.

 

[pearshaker]

This is exactly why I was talking about slavery concepts in the other thread.

If someone beats up your sister, you pound the crap out of him BECAUSE he hit your sister. The courts deal with it differently. You and most people presume the court is dealing with your sister's hurt but it definately isn't. The judge is only concerned on whether the mauler broke a law against assault. The king's rules are deemed important and punishment is assigned for that only. Any harm to the person is never the real issue. If a man can contrive to harm your sister in a manner that doesn't match the definition of a law--he may do so freely.

On the other hand, protective justice allows us to collectively care for all our sisters directly--while also finally freeing ourselves from serfdom to the law.

You're talking about adding emotion into a court of law. The idea of law and order is effectively to judge an act purely in an objective manner. If you add in one emotional or mental element into the decision of whether a person commits a crime or not it becomes too subjective. The basis of common law is to judge each similar case on the same merits, therefore creating no unequal judgements (well the theory is there). Understandibly it would be difficult to have a system where all peoples sensitivities are taken into account.
In the Australian system, and I believe somewhat in the American system (i'm sorry if i'm incorrect, I do not know a great deal about the American legal system), some sensitivities do get taken into account - such as disabled people and crime - eg. a person assaults a person in a wheelchair, and taking advantage of someone unable to get away. Of course in this scenario there are differing factors that are required morally and legally to be taken into account when deciding on punishment. It's not just a matter of "A" assaulted "B" therefore conviction.

One persons idea of justice is very different to another. Of course that's always going to be the case. Everyone has different personalities and sensitivities. This is the reason courts strive to be as just as possible and as objective as possible. And sometimes, unfortunately, law and justice are different things.


In BeerWench13's post - a fit of rage after finding your man in bed with another woman leads on to imply provocation etc... the defence of provocation leads onto imply many emotional and mental implications in deciding whether someone is guilty of outright murder.

Despite the legal systems flaws - without laws of some sort, it's quite easily arguable that chaos would ensue.

 

[nomadic myth]

This was my request in the other thread. Could you give us an outline of exactly how your system would work?

Here, I'll give you a "crime" on which to base your statement.
I find my husband in bed with another woman. In a fit of rage, I kill them both. Proceed.

I was also thinking about this.

I find my wife in bed with another man. In a fit of rage I kill them both.

Or maybe, I'd like to, but I don't, because some guys in flashing cars and blue clothes will lock me up for a long time because of some law.

 

[nyse]

So, can you answer my question? And without making assumptions this time?

And for what it is worth, I have not really read the other thread.

I can and will answer any questions. But before I do, I want to ensure that all understand exactly how protective justice differs from prohibitive law and what the crux problem in the theory of law.

Law creates an illusionary entity between the perpetrator and the victim. The police and courts only deal with 'damage' to that imaginary shield.

Protective justice has the police serving and protecting the people, instead of upholding the law. The courts are trying cases where people are the injured party.

 

[nyse]

You're talking about adding emotion into a court of law. The idea of law and order is effectively to judge an act purely in an objective manner. If you add in one emotional or mental element into the decision of whether a person commits a crime or not it becomes too subjective. The basis of common law is to judge each similar case on the same merits, therefore creating no unequal judgements (well the theory is there). Understandibly it would be difficult to have a system where all peoples sensitivities are taken into account.
In the Australian system, and I believe somewhat in the American system (i'm sorry if i'm incorrect, I do not know a great deal about the American legal system), some sensitivities do get taken into account - such as disabled people and crime - eg. a person assaults a person in a wheelchair, and taking advantage of someone unable to get away. Of course in this scenario there are differing factors that are required morally and legally to be taken into account when deciding on punishment. It's not just a matter of "A" assaulted "B" therefore conviction.

One persons idea of justice is very different to another. Of course that's always going to be the case. Everyone has different personalities and sensitivities. This is the reason courts strive to be as just as possible and as objective as possible. And sometimes, unfortunately, law and justice are different things.


In BeerWench13's post - a fit of rage after finding your man in bed with another woman leads on to imply provocation etc... the defence of provocation leads onto imply many emotional and mental implications in deciding whether someone is guilty of outright murder.

Despite the legal systems flaws - without laws of some sort, it's quite easily arguable that chaos would ensue.

I have no problem with 'common law'. That system has evolved case by case and it DOES deal with people (or companies) as the plaintant and the defendant. Criminal law is not the same. There, the law interjects itself where it doesn't really belong.

{again, I'll defer answering questions until some of you chime in that you at least see where the base of my argument is.}

 

[nyse]

This was my request in the other thread. Could you give us an outline of exactly how your system would work?

Here, I'll give you a "crime" on which to base your statement.
I find my husband in bed with another woman. In a fit of rage, I kill them both. Proceed.

I could talk about this but the description would be better where there is at least one living victim. How about if you kill one but only wound the next?
Drafting up a point by point descrition of the process will likely take me a couple of days.

 

[Tasku]

I can and will answer any questions. But before I do, I want to ensure that all understand exactly how protective justice differs from prohibitive law and what the crux problem in the theory of law.

Law creates an illusionary entity between the perpetrator and the victim. The police and courts only deal with 'damage' to that imaginary shield.

Protective justice has the police serving and protecting the people, instead of upholding the law. The courts are trying cases where people are the injured party.

Even in our current system making threats to kill another person is illegal. System is protective, as long as you have proof for it for the court.

 

[nyse]

Even in our current system making threats to kill another person is illegal. System is protective, as long as you have proof for it for the court.

Law only protects its own sanctity. Making a threat is breaking the law against uttering threats--it is not protecting a person..

 

[Tasku]

Law only protects its own sanctity. Making a threat is breaking the law against uttering threats--it is not protecting a person..

You're making it seem like the law is an evil entity, that is not controlled by humans. Law is made to protect the society. It is against the law therefore against the rules of society to make a threat against another person even in our current system.