Guilt and just punishment.

Solo Wing Pixy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Solo Wing Pixy** on Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:06 am

I recently picked up LA Noire at gamestop and have been getting rather into it in my spare time. For those of you unfamiliar, the game places you in the role of a rising detective in 1940's Los Angeles, and you must use detective work to find clues and solve cases. The catch, however, is that it is not always so clear. What I wanted to pose to you guys, is one of these situations. I'll give some context:

After thorough investigation, you come to realize that there are two possible people to pin a murder on, a known child molester and the victim's husband. The two do not know each other in any way and were not working together, so you can only charge one of them. The husband is the father of a young child, has no previous criminal record, but nearly all evidence points to him being the murderer. It is clear that it was a crime without premeditation or habit. The child molester is a low life, has a criminal record and is likely to continue to commit crimes, but nearly all evidence points to his innocence in this case. Only minor circumstantial evidence is provided for the child molester's guilt, but proper maneuvering could easily convict him.

Here's where the difficult part comes in. As the sole decision maker, who do you charge? The man who is clearly guilty, but is otherwise a productive member of society and a good father, who'd likely never commit another crime, or the known criminal, obviously innocent in this case, but more than likely to go on continuing to commit heinous crimes?

I think that it's a difficult question that you have to approach from two angles. On one hand, the one meaning of justice is protecting the innocent, while on the other, it also means punishing the guilty. Is punishing the greater evil really worth letting a killer go? Is punishing every single crime worth letting others continue to happen?

I'm curious as to what you all think on this subject?

Mr_Doomed · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Mr_Doomed** on Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:14 am

Justice is in no way to protect the innocent. The innocence has already been violated and can no longer be protected. Thus, justice is in fact a sort of compensation for the violation of the innocent. By convicting a man of a crime he didn't commit is a violation of that man's innocence. He may not be innocent in other respects, but in this case he is.
If you violate the innocence of that man, you then have to be brought to justice as well as vindication for the innocence that has been lost.

Another contributing factor is that if you have proof that the innocent man is a criminal in his own respects, why not arrest him for the crimes he has committed? That way, justice can be served on two fronts. If you don't even have proof of any crimes that this man has committed, then he should be free to go as someone should be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

So in conclusion, justice is about vindication after the innocence is lost while protecting the innocent is to be accomplished before the crime has been committed.

As a little aside, it is funny seeing me talk like this when you go ahead and read the first quote in my signature. It directly talks about the lack of innocence and justice while I attempt to preach the meaning of each word.

Solo Wing Pixy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Solo Wing Pixy** on Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:40 am

Mr_Doomed wrote:Justice is in no way to protect the innocent. The innocence has already been violated and can no longer be protected.

Fair, but part of locking people up is to prevent them from committing other crimes, i.e. protecting the innocent.

Mr_Doomed wrote:Another contributing factor is that if you have proof that the innocent man is a criminal in his own respects, why not arrest him for the crimes he has committed? That way, justice can be served on two fronts. If you don't even have proof of any crimes that this man has committed, then he should be free to go as someone should be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm responding out of order here, but I believe it can be put more clearly this way.

Trying a man twice for the same crime is not allowed, so there exists possibilities that he could have had a mistrial or something else. Additionally, there are many instances where it is clear that a person is guilty, but because of technicalities, they cannot be charged. Take Al Capone for example. Everyone knew he was illegally running alcohol and committing other crimes, but they could not legally prove it. The ended up charging him with tax evasion. My point is that just because someone is a criminal clear as day does not mean they can be charged so easily.

Mr_Doomed wrote:Thus, justice is in fact a sort of compensation for the violation of the innocent. By convicting a man of a crime he didn't commit is a violation of that man's innocence. He may not be innocent in other respects, but in this case he is.
If you violate the innocence of that man, you then have to be brought to justice as well as vindication for the innocence that has been lost.

Yes, I agree that by legal terms, he is innocent to this charge and cannot be charged, but we're the ones making the decision and it seems to make more sense morally to charge the innocent man to prevent him from committing other crimes that he is likely to commit than to convict the guilty many who would never do it again.

I suppose it translates somewhat to a bigger picture. Another great play on this situation is the end of the Watchmen(spoilers) where Ozymandias sacrifices millions of people in order to secure global peace, while Rorschach insists on punishing every crime, even this one, even though exposing Ozymandias would break the peace. The underlying point I think I am trying to make is: "Is it okay for some injustice to go unpunished if it serves the greater good?" Do the ends justify the means, so to speak? Or is the greater good not worth getting if even one innocent has to suffer? I myself am conflicted, which is the reason why this case in LA Noire as well as the end to Watchmen seemed so powerful to me. I am honestly not sure which way is the right way.

Jookia · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Jookia** on Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:57 am

This is really a no brainer: You convinct the person who did the crime.

TheFinalOne · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **TheFinalOne** on Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:15 am

The problem lies in deciding the future. Will the child molester commit another crime? Will the husband? Just because the child molester did the lot of bad things does not mean he will never stop. And just because the husband never committed a crime before, it does not mean he will go back to his old ways and suddenly become good again.

"Is it okay for some injustice to go unpunished if it serves the greater good?"

Well, it was a murder, wasn't it? Someone just stop existing. If it would have been a smaller crime, perhaps like stealing a bread, once maybe you could let it go, if you were certain it would be for a greater good. But a murder is just too big.

Think from the perspective of the child molester. He did a crime, he served the time. Why should he be sent away for not doing anything wrong. Scapegoating is the worst offense in my view. Perhaps because I have seen so much of it.

Solo Wing Pixy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Solo Wing Pixy** on Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:38 am

Fair points, but what if the child molester had not been arrested? What if there was no legally obtainable proof that he does, even if everyone knows? Would it not be a greater service to society to pin the crime on him just to get him off the streets rather than the husband who I said did not commit the crime out of habit or premeditation. Yes, he killed her, but he's not a serial killer. He did it out of anger, and it's obvious that it's a one time deal. Additionally, he has a daughter who, despite what he has done, he still loves and cares for. If you arrest him, you're taking from her her father so shortly after she lost her mother, all to protect the rights of someone who is multitudes worse.

I'll agree that the simple answer is to arrest the guy who did the crime, but surely this blanket statement can't possibly be enough? Sometimes it seems that the ends do justify the means. Maybe sometimes we have to go outside the law in order to protect the greater good.

On moving to the bigger picture, what do you guys think about what I said about Watchmen? Ozymandias says he killed millions, "to save billions" which is true, but the cost was so enormous, can it really be the right thing?

TheFinalOne · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **TheFinalOne** on Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:47 am

If he can prove that by killing these people, he did in fact save the others; that each one of the million had to die and that this was the best way to go about saving billions, then yes, it was the "most correct" thing to do.
Killing is never the right thing to do.

Mr_Doomed · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Mr_Doomed** on Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:35 pm

Think of it this way. We can look at it from the moral view if you really want to, but the criminal justice system and morals don't always go hand hand hand. The criminal justice system looks at things from a case by case basis and to extend the reach of that system then becomes unjust. When something is unjust, it becomes immoral as well because it is doing intentional harm to "the other" who is not what you accuse him to be.

Going further into morality, I like to look with the same principals as virtue ethics. We can look at it as a means to an end or that the end justifies the means, but really, it can't always apply in every situation. There is a way that is pretty consistent in every situation. Ask yourself "what does this say about me?". To commit the crime of accusing the wrong person, it says that you don't believe in justice, which is directly against what the criminal "justice" system is trying to do.

If you don't have proof, you can't convict the criminal, even if they did do it. It is just wrong and nothing can justify it. The burden of proof is on the one making the conviction and not the other way around.

Sench · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Sench** on Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:30 pm

I get what you're saying, but I'm feeling lazy, so I'll just share my decision: convict the child molester. It's probably unjust, but the topic of justice is very controversial; objective justice probably doesn't exist. So I'll take the responsibility of this unjust decision in hopes that the world becomes a little better.

TheFinalOne · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **TheFinalOne** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 2:57 am

And then if the husband kills their daughter/son, then what?

"Oh, but he is not a serial killer/child molester, he was just angry. Let him go and let us find another scapegoat."

Good job upholding the law, murderer.

Solo Wing Pixy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Solo Wing Pixy** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:20 am

It's a risk some people might be willing to take.

The husband might go on to kill the daughter, but it is far more likely that the child molester will continue to ruin people's lives. Just as well, it's not all about upholding the law. One half of the decision is breaking the law by wrongly convicting a man. It's more about morals, like should a policeman kill a man that just went on a killing spree, but dropped his weapons and surrendered when the police showed up? That happened in Norway with Anders Breivik. The man killed 80 some children in a shooting spree, but when the cops showed up he surrendered, and the police were forced to take him into custody instead of shooting him. He clearly deserves to die, but because the death penalty is very rare in Norway, he gets to live, albeit in prison. Our laws aren't perfect, so the question is not, "is it legal to pin this crime on this man, even though he didn't do it, but he did do other crimes that we can't get him on?"

I think it ties into vigilantism, because while going out and killing criminals is illegal, many people feel that that is a just course of action. And I get the whole, "he might stop being a criminal now" argument, but in giving him a chance for redemption, you are giving him an equal chance to continue committing crimes. The broad argument here I think is whether some should die for the good of others or the good of others is not worth even a single life? Is there even a compromise? Or are those the only two extremes?

TheFinalOne · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **TheFinalOne** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 4:34 am

If people stop trusting in the ability of those capable of handling law and order, then what is the point? Throw those rulebooks out and let anarchy rule the roost.

One thing is for certain. If you do this this once, you will keep doing it again and again and again. Some time later, the street will be full of "I mean good" spouse/children/parent killers and the jails full of people you consider lowlife and incapable of being good. Have a nice day then.

Jookia · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Jookia** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:51 am

Are you seriously suggesting to let somebody who killed somebody walk free just because you want to see somebody else be imprisoned for a crime you can't prove happened?

Solo Wing Pixy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Solo Wing Pixy** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 11:54 am

Not saying it didn't happen, just saying that maybe because of technicalities, you'd be unable to pin the guy who did it. It'd be like if police illegally searched his place and found evidence that he did it, but they couldn't use it in court because they got it illegally, or if he's arrested for a bunch of crimes, but a mistrial lets him off free and he can't be tried for the same things, even if he admits to them.

Obviously, It wouldn't apply to every case, but is a crime of passion that happened in the heat of the moment when one man loses control worth punishing when you could just as easily convict a habitual criminal who otherwise would still be free? It would be great to get them both, but if you could only get one, isn't frying the bigger fish more important?

Let me pose a new question. If the evidence was equal for both parties and the decision fell to you, who would you charge if you could only charge one?

Mr_Doomed · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Mr_Doomed** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 5:58 pm

So to commit a crime to convict someone of a crime is right? I think it is completely fair that when the police illegally search a house they cannot use the evidence against them. This is because it is a crime against the person's right to privacy to search a house illegal. It isn't to protect the criminals, but rather, the innocent. That is way we have laws. He have justice in order to make up for the innocence that is lost.
And if the person mistrial and then is found innocent in the new trail then the guy is innocent and obviously didn't do it. That is the reason for the mistrial in the first place.

Freimeier · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Freimeier** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:52 pm

Just to clarify a few things; the official statement of our pseudo-democarcy is that punishment is supposed to do the following:
1.) Educate the criminal.
2.) Make an example of the Criminal.
3.) Protect Society from the criminal.

In my opinion however, punishment will never achieve good. Positive reinforcement, forgiveness and kindness are the only things that will result in long lasting peace. The whole concept of punishment is extremely flawed and unethical; at least in it's current form.

Now to the question; there is no way to answer that. Everyone has to find an answer for himself. Are you for instance an idealistic objectivist? Charge the child molester. Are you an utilitiarist? Charge the father. If I was forced to punish either of them however, I'd probably chose the father, because if charging the child molester, you'd only make it worse for him, resulting in more violence and suffering. Don't get me wrong, punishing the father will make things worse for him as well, but he isn't as far " down " as the child molester is, he can cope with it.

VindicatedPurpose · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **VindicatedPurpose** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 11:13 pm

I'm a bit confused here. The husband has no previous criminal record, but suddenly all the evidence points to him. I'm not a mathematics person, but that doesn't really add up, even if it is just a game. I've strayed from my main point enough.

The evidence part is a bit shaky seeing as how evidence can simply be planted, and if you're going to convict the husband based on those grounds then that's the justice system. Even then, the justice system hasn't been perfect, and you'd have to turn a blind eye.

As for the child molester, a large number of people would convict him simply because he's got a track record of ruining people's lives. Does he really care that he's ruining people's lives? Probably not, so putting him in prison would be the better choice seeing as how it'll "protect" society from any future crimes.

Returning to the father, if he was truly guilty and he's willing to repent for the sake of society then the only possible way to rehabilitate him/punish him is simply through suffering. Suffering is the true punishment, it is the ultimate salvation.

However, I think you've answered your own question. It's always been the greater of two evils that needs to be dealt with.

Waenos · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Waenos** on Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:16 am

Imprisoning people and such is not about punishment. Or if someone thinks it is, there is something wrong with that person. There is no reason for revenge, ever. The purpose of the so-called 'punishment' is to prevent further crimes by giving criminals disincentive to commit crimes. And in the case of imprisonment, to directly prevent the ones who already did commit a crime from committing one again.

To quote Arthur Schopenhauer:

"...the law and its fulfillment, namely punishment, are directed essentially to the future, not to the past. This distinguishes punishment from revenge, for revenge is motivated by what has happened, and hence by the past as such. All retaliation for wrong by inflicting a pain without any object for the future is revenge, and can have no other purpose than consolation for the suffering one has endured by the sight of the suffering one has caused in another. Such a thing is wickedness and cruelty, and cannot be ethically justified. ...the object of punishment...is deterrence from crime.... Object and purpose for the future distinguish punishment from revenge, and punishment has this object only when it is inflicted in fulfillment of a law. Only in this way does it proclaim itself to be inevitable and infallible for every future case; and thus it obtains for the law the power to deter..."

Justice is solely about protecting the innocent. Not about punishing the guilty in the slightest.

Mr_Doomed · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Mr_Doomed** on Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:28 am

If crime wasn't about punishment or revenge, we wouldn't have impact statements or allow victims families to speak at a a parole hearing. In some cases, we wouldn't put people in jail.

The fact is, people want vindication. They want to see a life for a life. Most people don't care how angry you were when you did the killing or if you have a past. Every criminal has a first crime. It is better to take them into jail and give them the rehabilitation (that being said, this is the 40's we are talking about in the game) and make sure that he is safe for society than taking the risk.
With the molester, you are risking peoples innocence, but with the murderer we are risking peoples lives.

I want to see consistency in the criminal justice system. If the crime was actually committed, they should bed the one punished. I don't believe that using a man, however inhumane you may think he is, as a scapegoat is right. Not now and not ever.

Lets put another scenario out there. You are a bother to society. You like do make graffiti on walls around town and play pranks on people. You've stolen a couple of times from the local convenient store. You are the one who is being put on the spot and used as a scapegoat. Is it right that you are going to be put away for 25 years for something you didn't do because the police think that you deserve to be in jail more than the actual criminal does? Would you ever believe in justice again? What would you do when you got out?
And at what point does the crime become bad enough that you would place the man in jail for the crime he didn't commit?

TheFinalOne · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **TheFinalOne** on Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:34 am

They want to see a life for a life.

You are wrong. People don't want life for a life. When people are angry, and hence irrational, they might agree that killing someone would be the way to go.

Guilt and just punishment.

a topic in Discussion & Debate, a part of the RPG forum.

Guilt and just punishment.

Re: Guilt and just punishment.

Re: Guilt and just punishment.

Re: Guilt and just punishment.

Re: Guilt and just punishment.

Re: Guilt and just punishment.

Re: Guilt and just punishment.

Re: Guilt and just punishment.

Re: Guilt and just punishment.

Re: Guilt and just punishment.

Re: Guilt and just punishment.

Re: Guilt and just punishment.

Re: Guilt and just punishment.

Re: Guilt and just punishment.

Re: Guilt and just punishment.

Re: Guilt and just punishment.

Re: Guilt and just punishment.

Re: Guilt and just punishment.

Re: Guilt and just punishment.

Re: Guilt and just punishment.

Post a reply

Make a Donation

Who is online