Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Revenge for all or for none!



Revenge! OK, I'll come out with it, I have exacted revenge in the past. Details by request only. According to thinker Jon Elster," Some norms are sources of massive unhappiness, by imposing behaviour that can be pointless, difficult, expensive, or dangerous. This is true of trivial norms such as rules of etiquette as well as of very consequential norms such as codes of honour and of revenge". I am not sure at all why he would call revenge a norm, when it is more of an individual's reaction to another individual. 

Anyway I have always been a bit embarrassed about my tendency to revenge, as if it showed a lack of maturity: everyone knows it's pointless to seek revenge, it does not make one whole. When I have taken revenged, I feel a certain shame, and some amount of satisfaction. But when I have not, my regrets last forever! I'm thinking of owning it. For the Greeks it was the most natural thing in the world. There might be more closure, when revenge is exacted. The Russians think it polite to walk on someone's foot if they walk on yours: no hard feelings! 

If somebody steals something from us, we find it normal that they return it or make some kind of amend. We have the law on your side. But what about the offenses that are not reprehensible by criminal law:  if someone ignores our pleas for help when we're in a crisis? Criticizes our children? Cuts the line to get on the Brooklyn Bridge? Why should there not be some kind of pay back? Because, when you think of it, someone might have a better reason to steal (need) or smoke weed (fun) than to refuse a helping hand in a time of hardship (can't be bothered). If we're not going to exact revenge for those personal wrongs, let's not exact a cruel revenge for the law-breaking ones either - I'll support that motion.






Thursday, September 29, 2016

The truth according to a lawyer



Pierre Olivier, a lawyer, discusses truth in court. He presents the situation of a pedophile who denies the facts despite the overwhelming evidence that has been gathered against him. Olivier's role as a defense lawyer is to explain to the accused that if he denies, he will get 15 years in prison, if he admits he will fare better with only 8 maybe. But sometimes the accused does not want, or can not, recognize the facts. He needs to continue to deny to preserve his perception of himself, to protect his family's illusions. Pierre Olivier maintains that the lawyer must not push him to confess his guilt, because this could result in suicide, either of the accused or of his family, one of his children for example.

I was shocked. If I put myself in the place of the victim, I think I would need, more than a "punishment" for the perpetrator, that the crime be recognized, that my victim status be confirmed by the accused. Does the perpetrator's family entitlement to protection prevail over the victim's need for the truth to be told? Maybe for the defense lawyer.

It is a difficult subject. Our legal system comes to us from the Romans. Is might be time to review it and to improve it.



Contributed by - - Arabella Hutter


Posted by - - Arabella Hutter