DogGunn, your problem is that you constantly state your opinions as facts.
"Retribution is and always should be a part of the justice system."
^^THAT IS NOT A GODDAMN FACT
[QUOTE=geel9;35759497]DogGunn, your problem is that you constantly state your opinions as facts.
"Retribution is and always should be a part of the justice system."
^^THAT IS NOT A GODDAMN FACT[/QUOTE]
Also retribution is the antithesis of the American justice system.
And that's not an opinion. It's in our goddamn constitution.
[QUOTE=geel9;35759497]DogGunn, your problem is that you constantly state your opinions as facts.
"Retribution is and always should be a part of the justice system."
^^THAT IS NOT A GODDAMN FACT[/QUOTE]
That is a fact. Retribution will always be used as an element in sentencing crimes of a serious nature. Regardless of if you're willing to accept that as truthful or not is up to you.
I don't believe in retribution in all cases, specifically in restorative justice, however it's not always possible to operate under such methods.
When I state that retribution will always be apart of sentencing (not always should like you suggested, big difference ey?), this is because sentencing in serious criminals involves the need for the court to denounce the act or omission...
[QUOTE=Lankist;35759746]Also retribution is the antithesis of the American justice system.
And that's not an opinion. It's in our goddamn constitution.[/QUOTE]
Aight, you tell yourself that in all the judgements in which retribution was cited as a reason for the judges decision in sentencing a convicted was actually in breach of the constitution.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;35767952]That is a fact. [/QUOTE]
source please.
if it's a fact then you should have no problem finding one.
-snipped court citations proving the importance of retribution in other jurisdictions-
This isn't Australia, buddy.
[editline]30th April 2012[/editline]
You can't fucking quote australian legislation and pretend it has any goddamn bearing on the American justice system.
[editline]30th April 2012[/editline]
In the meantime, our American Bill of Rights begs to fucking differ.
You find vengeance being the topic of justice in American legislation, then you come back here.
post after post
Bill of Rights. Prisoner's Rights. Appeals Process. The very existence of Defense Attorneys, whose sole job is to ensure the justice system administers conciliatory justice and not barbaric retribution. Fuck, ensuring the justice system is non-retributive is MY job. So don't come in here with a fucking highschool diploma and tell me how the world works.
Now that you're done trying to have be prove a negative, you go right ahead and prove your fucking point. And I don't want anecdotes. I want an excerpt from the Constitution or the U.S. Code.
Unless you aren't done saying "PROVE ME WRONG."
[QUOTE=Lankist;35771192]Bill of Rights. Prisoner's Rights. Appeals Process. The very existence of Defense Attorneys, whose sole job is to ensure the justice system administers conciliatory justice and not barbaric retribution. Fuck, ensuring the justice system is non-retributive is MY job.[/quote]
If this is the case, how can a state or higher form of power sentence a person to death? Is this not retribution in it's most purest form?
Regardless, if it is your job to work in a legal area, how can you seriously suggest that retribution plays no part in sentencing felons, and that it is outlawed in the bill of rights?
I am also curious, what is your job?
[QUOTE=Lankist;35771192]So don't come in here with a fucking highschool diploma and tell me how the world works.[/quote]
Laughable.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35771192]Now that you're done trying to have be prove a negative, you go right ahead and prove your fucking point. And I don't want anecdotes. I want an excerpt from the Constitution or the U.S. Code.
Unless you aren't done saying "PROVE ME WRONG."[/QUOTE]
You're the one trying to prove a negative. I'm very happy to be wrong... that retribution in any form is outlawed in the United States.
[editline]1st May 2012[/editline]
Oh that's right you're a civil rights lawyer in the US... nice
You know what they say about assumptions.
You found evidence for Australian law. Why can you not find evidence for US law?
[editline]30th April 2012[/editline]
Also, US States that endorse the Death Penalty do so under the pretense of protecting everyone else from future crimes, NOT under the pretense that someone deserves death.
They rationalize the penalty as a preventative measure, not as a vengeful one.
This is because any legal measure whose expressed purpose is to enact vengeful retribution upon a criminal will be stricken down very quickly as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's "Cruel and Unusual" clause.
[editline]30th April 2012[/editline]
For reference, here are the four considerations in defining "Cruel and Unusual"
[I] The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."[/I]
Note criteria two and four. Vengeful punishment is both arbitrary and unnecessary, and is universally considered to be a miscarriage of justice within the American legal system. Hence why rationalizations and leaps of logic are required to keep the death penalty around today.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35771733]You found evidence for Australian law. Why can you not find evidence for US law?[/quote]
No idea where the resources are, doubtful I'd have access to such records and no idea how it's managed because I've had no need to access them, unlike Australian resources.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35771733]Also, US States that endorse the Death Penalty do so under the pretense of protecting everyone else from future crimes, NOT under the pretense that someone deserves death.
They rationalize the penalty as a preventative measure, not as a vengeful one.
This is because any legal measure whose expressed purpose is to enact vengeful retribution upon a criminal will be stricken down very quickly as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's "Cruel and Unusual" clause.[/quote]
Thank you for the civil answer. This answers my queries, and makes much more sense then just "it being wrong".
[editline]1st May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lankist;35771733]Hence why rationalizations and leaps of logic are required to keep the death penalty around today.[/QUOTE]
I see.
However, could a criminal in the US not be imprisoned for their actions, so as long the term is not unreasonable?
If retribution of any sort is illegal under the Constitution, does the sentence not become illegal as soon as the judge utters words that denounce the crime?
DogGunn, retribution is not the same as denounciation, and it's not the same as damages or compensation. You can look this shit up in a dictionary. There's a HUGE difference between declaring something as wrong, and avenging it. How the fuck do you not see that? The last two pages of your posts have been based on this assumption that any negative statement a judge makes is somehow equal to revenge for the crime, and it's utter bullshit.
[QUOTE=Numidium;35775342]DogGunn, retribution is not the same as denounciation, and it's not the same as damages or compensation.[/quote]
Never suggested it was... nor was there any attempt to. And before you go and quote the last post by me, don't.
[QUOTE=Numidium;35775342]How the fuck do you not see that?[/quote]
lol
[QUOTE=Numidium;35775342]The last two pages of your posts have been based on this assumption that any negative statement a judge makes is somehow equal to revenge for the crime, and it's utter bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Not in the slightest. Please don't swoop in and try and claim you were right all along. As soon as Lankist came in and proved I was incorrect about something, it makes sense, at least in the United States of course. Not a single post by you argued the topic that it progressed to, that being the Bill of Rights.
For you to come in and suggest something as stupid as that is amazing.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;35777188]And before you go and quote the last post by me, don't.
[/QUOTE]
Why not, it proves my point.
This is what you said.
"[B]Damages or compensation is a form of retribution[/B], particularly if it's being paid to the aggrieved party. "
This is what I said.
"DogGunn, retribution is not the same as denounciation, and it's not the same as damages or compensation."
This is what you said.
"[B]Never suggested it was... [/B]"
Yes, you did. That's exactly what you did. You think you can just tell me not to quote you because you know exactly how fucking dumb that post was? I know you're annoyed because you're getting shit on from all sides, but looking at what you've posted so far, I wouldn't expect much else.
He's admitted he was wrong and redacted his position amicably.
Let it go, bro. Don't chastise someone for being wrong when they have the sense and the balls to admit they were wrong. That's counter-productive. The kind of person who actually says "I was wrong, thank you for explaining it" is rare enough without continuing to assail them after the fact.
This is the guy that declared my points and my opinion irrelevant because he's older than me. And now he's tucking his tail and expects me not to point out something like that, while [B]STILL[/B] calling me stupid in the same post? Fuck him.
so, in order to demonstrate how vengeful retribution is wrong, you've decided to engage in a vendetta because someone called you a kid
yeah that's cool
[editline]30th April 2012[/editline]
do you not see the contradiction, here?
is it just me?
Vendetta? One post. That he asked me not to make while calling me stupid. Come on.
Let it go, dude. He learned something today and rescinded his position. His mind has been changed, in some small way at very least. If he wants to go "tail tucked between his legs," there's no point in doing the text equivalent of chasing him down in the street.
I don't know what else you hope to achieve here, but you aren't going to.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35778315]
do you not see the contradiction, here?
is it just me?[/QUOTE]
Yeah I see it, but I don't really care. I wasn't even gonna make another post here. But he could've said that he was wrong in what I pointed out as well, instead of trying to forbid me to point it out while insulting me.
I don't hope to achieve anything, I just don't stand there and let him spit on me while he's running away.
I halfway expect him to post umad bro or somethin now.
I loosely define retribution. Wouldn't a fine for littering be considered "retribution"?
Most of the prison population in the world is there for drug related reasons.
So legalize it all or something.
[QUOTE=Numidium;35778234]Why not, it proves my point.
This is what you said.
"[B]Damages or compensation is a form of retribution[/B], particularly if it's being paid to the aggrieved party. "
This is what I said.[/QUOTE]
Yes, restitution is a form of punishment, as well as restoration. Is this news to you? Especially if the amounts are punitive in nature.
[QUOTE=Numidium;35778234]"DogGunn, retribution is not the same as denounciation, and it's not the same as damages or compensation."
This is what you said.[/QUOTE]
I didn't say that, so it helps if you take that out of quotes.
[QUOTE=Numidium;35778234]Yes, you did. That's exactly what you did. You think you can just tell me not to quote you because you know exactly how fucking dumb that post was? I know you're annoyed because you're getting shit on from all sides, but looking at what you've posted so far, I wouldn't expect much else.[/QUOTE]
You're right - I don't have a full understanding of the US judicial system and it's protections, and it's my mistake for getting into an argument about it, but when you try and quote stuff which was never said, it really doesn't help your point. Infact, what was your point?
[QUOTE=DogGunn;35778445]Yes, restitution is a form of punishment, as well as restoration. Is this news to you? Especially if the amounts are punitive in nature.
I didn't say that, so it helps if you take that out of quotes.
You're right - I don't have a full understanding of the US judicial system and it's protections, and it's my mistake for getting into an argument about it, but when you try and quote stuff which was never said, it really doesn't help your point. Infact, what was your point?[/QUOTE]
My quotes were structured so that I named the speaker before the quote.
[I]This is what you said.
"Damages or compensation is a form of retribution, particularly if it's being paid to the aggrieved party. "[/I]
Speaker is adressed, quote is quoted. Reread my post.
[QUOTE=Numidium;35778526]My quotes were structured so that I named the speaker before the quote.
[I]This is what you said.
"Damages or compensation is a form of retribution, particularly if it's being paid to the aggrieved party. "[/I]
Speaker is adressed, quote is quoted. Reread my post.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough.
And no, not once did you ever suggested anything along the lines of:
"retribution is not the same as denounciation, and it's not the same as damages or compensation."
You suggested that retribution was wrong, and that was the argument we were having.
Only once did you mention that retribution is not the same as compensation, however restitution or compensation can be punitive. But nevermind, this argument should be over by now.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;35778553]Oh, I see what you're saying now. one sec[/QUOTE]
God damn it dude. You're doing this shit on purpose. I listed two of your quotes in which you directly contradict yourself to show how stupid they were. You misquoted them in your reply to make it seem like I'd ascribed something to you which I had said. I explained the way my post was built, so you could understand it, but it seems you either still don't or you're trolling me.
I'm gonna explain it to you again so you understand my post.
This is what YOU said: "Damages or compensation is a form of retribution, particularly if it's being paid to the aggrieved party. "
This is what I said: "DogGunn, retribution is not the same as denounciation, and it's not the same as damages or compensation."
This is what YOU said: "Never suggested it was... "
The "never suggested it was" is referring to my post, in which I stated what you had said in the first post of yours I quoted. So, you did indeed suggest that it was. I'm pointing out your inconsistency. Is it that hard to understand three seperate quotes and their correlation?
[QUOTE=Numidium;35778618]
This is what I said: "DogGunn, retribution is not the same as denounciation, and it's not the same as damages or compensation."
This is what YOU said: "Never suggested it was... "
The "never suggested it was" is referring to my post, in which I stated what you had said in the first post of yours I quoted. So, you did indeed suggest that it was. I'm pointing out your inconsistency. Is it that hard to understand three seperate quotes and their correlation?[/QUOTE]
Again, the sentiment by you was never suggested. You only recently referred to denunciation after the discussion between you and me was over, so there's no point in me replying to it, especially if you're claiming to have quoted yourself saying something during an argument.
Only at one point did you suggest that retribution is not compensation... which didn't adequately reply to what I said, [url=http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1179894?p=35746305&viewfull=1#post35746305]since I said damages[/url], not compensatory damages.
So to quote something that was not said and then to suggest you made a post indicating that is pathetic, trying to swoop in and claim credit that I was wrong on something.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;35778553]
And no, not once did you ever suggested anything along the lines of:
"retribution is not the same as denounciation, and it's not the same as damages or compensation."
[/QUOTE]
I COPY&PASTED THAT. It's a DIRECT QUOTE. I said EXACTLY THAT. It's on this page. For fuck's sake man. You want another DIRECT QUOTE from last page? By me?
"Compensation is not the same as retribution."
[editline]1st May 2012[/editline]
You're probably gonna tell me that the difference between damages and compensation is vast, even though they translate to the same word in my language, whatever dude. I'm not even gonna post here anymore.
[QUOTE=Numidium;35778736]I COPY&PASTED THAT. It's a DIRECT QUOTE. I said EXACTLY THAT. It's on this page. For fuck's sake man. [/QUOTE]
Again, not once did you ever refer to that in your argument.
If you were referring to what I said to Lankist, it wasn't directed at you. It was rather a question, one which wasn't worded completely. It was done at 5am. I was questioning a courts ability to enforce anything punitive in nature.
[QUOTE=Numidium;35778736]You want another DIRECT QUOTE from last page? By me?
"Compensation is not the same as retribution."[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1179894?p=35746305&viewfull=1#post35746305"]Which didn't reply to what I actually said. [/URL]This implied I was referring only to compensatory damages, which is silly, since I had said only the word damages, and had not referred to compensatory damages.
So, you've again suggested I said something I didn't.
[editline]1st May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Numidium;35778736]You're probably gonna tell me that the difference between damages and compensation is vast, even though they translate to the same word in my language, whatever dude. I'm not even gonna post here anymore.[/QUOTE]
Well yeah, like non-compensatory damages?
Regardless, I shouldn't have brought that up since it's not used in sentencing, ex restitution.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
