Actually, Iraqi Atheist's trust for the justice system is quite disturbing.
Wanting suspected murderers to be tried is disturbing? how?
Why does someone have to be punished for committing a crime?
1-Exclude him from society to protect the public from him. After all, he's an individual who has shown tendency to commit crimes. We have precedence.
2-Punishment could be a deterrent for potential criminals.
What good does that achieve?
Justice.
Statistics seem to suggest that it actually has negative effects.
Do you mean rehabilitation is more important than punishment? even if that's the case, I still want murderers to serve some time in prison. Even if not for punishment, for public safety.
And I'd like to see the statistics.
If you believe in punishment, at least provide justification for it, instead of attacking others for not swallowing the claims of those who wish to protect the status quo.
- Justification for punishment: public safety, deterrent for potential criminals, and above all justice. If you infringe on the right of others (in Moat's case the right to life), you have forfeited some of your rights. End of story.
- I didn't attack Q-Man. I respect the man immensely. He has influenced my views to a great extent. I didn't even attack his views on the police. I attacked his priorities.
- I want to change the status quo. If you had read some of my posts, you would know. I'm more libertarian than most of the members. I advocate the legalization of all drugs. I even argued for the decriminalization of incest among consenting adults, a stance even Q-Man was uncomfortable with.
So please don't label me a protector of the status quot with not basis. Just because I'm not an anarchist, doesn't mean I'm for the status quo.
There's nothing disconcerting about distrusting authority. It's a trait that'd do humanity much good.
I love distrusting the state. I lived most my life under Saddam's Stasi. But I don't have an absolute unconditional distrust.
Oh, and I find it quite ironic that atheists and agnostics believe in something without providing evidence for it; taking it for granted, telling the opposing side to "provide evidence" while clearly they're the ones who need to provide evidence.
Show me that the justice system works.
I don't need evidence and I'll tell you why.
To you, the primary aim of the justice system should be rehabilitation. Therefore, you look for statistics about the effectiveness of the justice system in rehabilitating criminals and integrating them back into society.
Personally, I too believe in rehabilitation but I also believe in punishment and justice. I don't look at the subject from a purely consequentialist standpoint.
Topic: Raoul Moat facebook page LOL