uh yeah. This is why we should execute people who we deem unable to be rehabilitated into society. That said, I don't trust the current system to pass judgment on anyone. The whole thing is rotten and needs to be refreshed.
And that's where things go wrong. Without universal agreement, "we" will always be subjective, and it gets really fucking scary with those statements when you absolutely know your enemies would justify themselves with the exact same notion against you.
It just requires a very clear standard and visible enforcement.
We used to have that.
If people know that the punishment for murder, rape, kidnapping, aggravated assault with a weapon, or armed robbery is to be immediately marched out after conviction and strung up in the town square...
People will generally do a good job of steering clear of those behaviors.
Ambiguous enforcement begets dubious behavior. Make stark examples, and the occasions when you need to make them will be rare (eventually).
The thing is, our communities used to be the visible enforcement, and the visible standard. Much like everything else, we outsourced it. When your neighbor is also an enforcer of social norms, you're less likely to squirt a cream filled dildo in his face.
We are very community based animals. The most destructive forces are those that destroy the foundations of our society. The family is the bedrock, but the people we interact with are the cornerstones. Modern society has devastated both.
The thing is, our communities used to be the visible enforcement, and the visible standard.
That kind of thinking legitimizes the leftist perception of an oppressive, bigoted culture.
The Saxons used to appoint their law enforcers (shire reeves, origin of sheriff) by elevating able commoners held in esteem by the community and given the assent of the landholding elite. But when the Normans appeared on the scene they found this system to be far too corrupt and inconsistent. So their addition was the bailiff, which was controlled centrally by the crown, trained and held to a consistent standard, and largely resembles the court we have today.
The Britons initially hated this system for being different but by the reign of King John the stabilizing effect of having a reliable judiciary free of local influence (either the whims of barons or the seething common mob) was generally regarded as a very good thing to be preserved and improved.
Law is an artificial thing, something that we have invented wholecloth. I think to a degree it HAS to be controlled centrally in order for it to actually be impartial, otherwise every community will enforce its own much narrower view of what is acceptable.
uh yeah. This is why we should execute people who we deem unable to be rehabilitated into society. That said, I don't trust the current system to pass judgment on anyone. The whole thing is rotten and needs to be refreshed.
And that's where things go wrong. Without universal agreement, "we" will always be subjective, and it gets really fucking scary with those statements when you absolutely know your enemies would justify themselves with the exact same notion against you.
It just requires a very clear standard and visible enforcement.
We used to have that.
If people know that the punishment for murder, rape, kidnapping, aggravated assault with a weapon, or armed robbery is to be immediately marched out after conviction and strung up in the town square...
People will generally do a good job of steering clear of those behaviors.
Ambiguous enforcement begets dubious behavior. Make stark examples, and the occasions when you need to make them will be rare (eventually).
The thing is, our communities used to be the visible enforcement, and the visible standard. Much like everything else, we outsourced it. When your neighbor is also an enforcer of social norms, you're less likely to squirt a cream filled dildo in his face.
We are very community based animals. The most destructive forces are those that destroy the foundations of our society. The family is the bedrock, but the people we interact with are the cornerstones. Modern society has devastated both.
That kind of thinking legitimizes the leftist perception of an oppressive, bigoted culture.
The Saxons used to appoint their law enforcers (shire reeves, origin of sheriff) by elevating able commoners held in esteem by the community and given the assent of the landholding elite. But when the Normans appeared on the scene they found this system to be far too corrupt and inconsistent. So their addition was the bailiff, which was controlled centrally by the crown, trained and held to a consistent standard, and largely resembles the court we have today.
The Britons initially hated this system for being different but by the reign of King John the stabilizing effect of having a reliable judiciary free of local influence (either the whims of barons or the seething common mob) was generally regarded as a very good thing to be preserved and improved.
Law is an artificial thing, something that we have invented wholecloth. I think to a degree it HAS to be controlled centrally in order for it to actually be impartial, otherwise every community will enforce its own much narrower view of what is acceptable.