Prohibitive Law vs Protective Justice

[Tasku]

America has already sent 'nutters' to kill children and women--Bush puts uniforms on them and off they go.
[The above is just political stab and not part of my thoughts on justice.]

We agree...

I've said this line so often that now my mind hears it in Ethyl Merman's voice from 'Annie Get your Gun'--"Anything Law can do, Protective Justice can do better." Yes, with P.J. working as it should, the Americans determined he was a threat to their society, and therefore he was locked up. If they could catch and jail him with prohibitive law, then they would with P.J. too. (Perhaps under P.J. he wouldn't have an axe to grind over the law--that he hacks out on people.)

In a perfect world, yes, this system sounds okay...

Those in power can currently make whatever changes they like to the law. Two examples are Hitler's legalizing the holocaust and Bush's homland security act. The difference with P.J. would be that the courts must show WHO is being threatened or harmed. In the case of speeding, the police investigaters could produce some person or people from the neighborhood and perhaps a history of the accidents in that stretch of road. OTOH, with consentual commercial sex, the courts couldn't act because neither party is being harmed or threatened. P.J. would BETTER protect us from those in power also because they wouldn't be lawmakers anymore.

... but in the world we live in, there must be laws. You say, they would not be able to change laws, because there would be no laws. Wouldn't that make those people that run everything untouchable?

Although I have faith in the common man, I have zero faith in men in power, and they will eventually use their power for their own advantage. Bringing the who you mentioned to a court room is no trick, it has been done a zigbillion times before by bribing witnesses, and it will be done in the future.

In PJ there is no law - men in power are the law. No matter how independent these organizations are, those running the organizations will always have their own networks of friends and family and therefore be biased.

There must be preset rules making it harder for men in power to take advantage of their position or they will be jailed.

We can never agree on this. Never.

 

[beer good]

Again I detect sarcasm in lieu of valid argument. Either you are a slave, or you and not: your 'rights' determine which is true.

Right. And there's no sarcasm. And I'm not a slave. Nobody has the right to rape women or "butcher" (your words) children. I can't believe anyone who's not a nutcase or a psycho would seriously believe otherwise. Which are you?

 

[nyse]

... but in the world we live in, there must be laws. You say, they would not be able to change laws, because there would be no laws. Wouldn't that make those people that run everything untouchable?

Why can't you see that you are enslaved to an erronious perception of what law is? You say that there must be law--yet you and everyone else doesn't trust those in power--who MAKE and APPLY the laws. It isn't the corrupt people in power who are at fault. The real culprit is the false and corrupting concept of law--period. Yet you irrationally defend it with obtuse logic.

Although I have faith in the common man, I have zero faith in men in power, and they will eventually use their power for their own advantage. Bringing the who you mentioned to a court room is no trick, it has been done a zigbillion times before by bribing witnesses, and it will be done in the future.

I didn't say they are brought in as witnesses--they are the injured party or parties. Instead of the baliff saying "the people versus Joe Schmo..." or "the crown versus Joe Schmo...", he announces it as "Jane Doe the injured versus Joe Schmo the accused." The Law's imaginary hurt feelings at finding itself 'broken' is no longer the judicial issue.

In PJ there is no law - men in power are the law. No matter how independent these organizations are, those running the organizations will always have their own networks of friends and family and therefore be biased.

No. A justice system that is entirely dedicated to unbiased resolution of harm issues between the two REAL sides of the issue is the law. Under the system of law, all judges and juries are automatically biased in EVERYcase because they are there to uphold the law--in other words, they are on the law's side. The prosecution and the police investigator is also on the law's side. Innnocent or guilty, a defendant stands alone and grossly outnumbered by the weight of society's massed resources and the stacked deck of the court. The bailif should really be saying, "the imaginary law's wounded pride versus Joe Schmo." The theory that gives strength to the law is utter F**king nonsense. When you can see that, then we all might fix the justice system so that it can work right in theory and in practice.

We can never agree on this. Never.

Sigh. So why am I even trying?