>
> > But *you* put forward the argument I knocked down.
>
>I did not use the word vengence nor refer to the idea. You introduced
>that concept. Here's what I said:
>
>> we still need a model for removing dangerous people
> > from society so that they do not harm the rest of us.
I see. But I pointed out that punishment is not a model for preventing harm, because the harm is already done before the punishment is inflicted. Therefor, prevention of harm is not the real reason, vengeance is.
I addressed your argument. You haven't addressed my counter-argument.
> > Though I wish you'd make up your mind whether it was a compelling
>> motivation or a straw man.
>
>Straw man. I didn't mention vengence.
No. You pretended that punishment is motivated by prevention. I didn't accept your premise. You don't like that.
> > If you want to put up the other two straw men/compelling
>> motivations for having a criminal justice system, I'll
>> attempt to knock them down too.
>
>If you read what I wrote you'll see that the second motivation is
>protecting society from the Manson family.
Punishing the Mason family doesn't do a damn thing to protect their dead victims and it does nothing to protect the victims of the next mass murderer to come along either.
> The third motivation is
>making it so that killing somebody has consequences.
I'll get to that later.
>
>>
>> These conditions are a natural part of human nature, it is true.
>> Greed is in fact rational behaviour in an economic system based
>> on insecurity and competitiveness. In a socialist system it would
>> be regarded as deranged behaviour, though that isn't to say it
>> would entirely cease to exist. But so what? If some poor bugger decided
>> to eat too much, who does it hurt but him?
>
>What if with my own hands I build a new kind of computer from parts I
>find in dumps over six years and my neighbour covets it?
Don't give it to him if it means that much to you. Why should anyone care about two neighbours squabbling over possession of junk?
> > Jealosy and hatred are of course emotions, which cannot be dealt
>> with legally in any case.
>
>Jealosy and hatred are two emotions that cause people to commit
>violence. If there are no consequences for violence then there will be
>more of it then if there are consequences.
There are obviously going to be consequences for violence. One of those consequences, as you point out, may be more violence in the form of retaliation. You are implying that it is only the threat of legal retaliation that prevents violence being rampant. I don't accept this, there are many other things that act to constrain people. Such as what their friends, colleagues and neighbours will think of them.
It may be true that some people restrain their impulses to some extent on account of legal sanctions, but I think you are exaggerating the effectiveness of official revenge. But to the extent that revenge does cause people to stay their fists, don't you imagine that the possibility of non-legal revenge would be just as effective a deterrent?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas