Is vengance just?

[Kiljan Arslan]

I would like to know what you all feel about vengance? Is it just or is it nothing but another wrong being commited?

[roy34543]

Vengeance is caused by the human need for revenge, Generally speaking its not just unless it gains the world anything in general, such as killing a dangerous murder etc.
Vengeance for a post in the forums when someone disagrees with you is pointless, and therefore is morally wrong, i would say vengeance for lets say, a person stealing from you once and will never steal again is morally wrong too.
But its a ntural human emotion so i cant blame everyone for it.

[The Sixth Wizard]

"Vengeance" is a matter of one's personal opinion. Justice by law is a punishment set by the majority instead of just one person and should be used instead of personal vengeance. I believe that people are clear-minded enough to make the right laws, or at least learn from mistakes that will be made.

Personally I believe everyone should have the chance to change, and that nobody is beyond hope of redemption. I don't believe in the prison system. But that is just my opinion.

[Ruin]

Vengence is a human instinct to correct wrongs, even if this means commiting another. The legal system is itself half an half legalised vengence and prevention. When morality is objectified vengenece becomes morally an 'evil' deed, but is a neccissary evil to many. However, morality is seldom objective, and I have seen many people change from passive to extemely agressive when a deed has been commited on themselves or someone they are near to (even to the extent of a complete reversal of opinion on the death sentence)

[Captain Arrrgh!]

Revenge is a sweet, succulent fruit.

[Cyphon88]

Just is really a contingent valuation.

What is just to one person, isn't to another.

That said, personally vengeance is not something i personally believe in. A wrong does not right another wrong.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I would like to know what you all feel about vengance? Is it just or is it nothing but another wrong being commited?

In my personal opinion certainly not. Emotion is not the basis of justice.

[Kritias]

Vengeance; sweet even when served cold -- just how I like it.

[Dayman]

No, it is not.

[Denny Crane!]

I would certainly say our justice systems are all orientated to a certain extent towards vengeance.

I don't believe its moral, I don't believe in revenge.

[Sephynos]

Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money.

Interesting quote!! Love it!

[Cluny the Scourge]

The thirst for vengeance is a powerful motivating force - an engine that drives people into proactive movement to change their lives and ruin those of their enemies. That energy, that dynamic potential, is potent and should not be suppressed with weak slave-philosophies that espouse timidity and meekness. For my own part I would gladly destroy all of my enemies if/when the power comes into my hands to do so.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Reading Gulliver's Travels, it raises a decent point - our system always punishes those for stepping out of line, but never rewards those for keeping in them. It is, therefore, not justice, merely vengeance, for justice should imply a two way street, not merely a negative response to a crime but a positive one to legality.

[Spiff]

vengeance isn't particularly just, i think, but then defining what justice is isnt exactly an easy task.

That is to say, when most people say something is "unjust" it is akin to banging your fist on the table, appealing to a presumed sense of right and wrong. But then different people have different ideas on what that is.

If you subscribe to a Hartian perspective of a legal system then you may say that law is devoid of moral content, with a primary sense of justice coming from simply treating like cases alike and different cases differently - and respecting the rule of recognition.. but then there is a debate between natural and positivist law.

[Maverick]

I would certainly say our justice systems are all orientated to a certain extent towards vengeance.

I don't believe its moral, I don't believe in revenge.

Liberal gibberish.

They're called correctional facilities and not penitentiaries anymore for a reason. The word "justice" implies equitable--the punishment should fit the crime. However, since our society values individual liberty over every other civic virtue, the bureaucracy entitles criminals to more rights than victims at the expense of the greater good and the interests of justice. Morality is a contract, when one party breaks a contract the other is not expected to honor it. That being said, we hold ourselves up to artificial standards that say we can't do x, y and z regardless. Apparently one of the things we can't do, according to enough people like yourself is kill. Ted Bundy broke that social contract and tortured, raped and murdered some 50 girls. Relatively speaking, Bundy's execution was a very humane act considering his crimes--even if we ignored the artifical standards we probably couldn't inflict equitable pain and suffering through torture. The consequences were: a dangerous criminal is off the streets permanently, closure for victim's families, deterrence and hundreds of thousands saved for more socially relevent causes than the perpetuation of evil incarnate.
Not to forget that the entire system was in Bundy's favor the entire time, not just the fundamental presumption of innocence etc. but all the technicalities, misdirection and legal doublespeak were in his favor and he won several stays of execution etc. before they could nab him.

I don't think "revenge" is the appropriate word... economically, politically and socially it made sense, whatever you want to call it. It's difficult for me to imagine anyone that keeps current and is aware of what goes on in the world to conclude we are too lenient on crime. Someone here got 3 years (opportunity for early parole after 1/3rd of sentence served) for raping his own daughter and putting the video on the internet. Because we consider ourselves civilized or are very naive and ignorant we won't go so far as to make the punishment fit the crime... torture, mutilation, public humiliation etc. Therefore I think it would be extremely noble and humane of us, against our natural instincts for revenge (as opposed to artifical morality, however well established it is) to execute this man with a minimum of pain and put the money that would have went towards his incarceration (50-150,000) in trust for his daughter who will need at least that much for psychiatric help alone.

a primary sense of justice coming from simply treating like cases alike and different cases differently

Does that extend to individuals? For example, Bundy rapes, kills, decapitates and :wub:s into the skull--obviously what I consider cruel and unusual is vastly different from Ted Bundy. What legal theory would take this into account?

Anyways, my answer to the main question: "is vengeance just?" is vengeance is just when it serves the interests of justice in good conscience.

Before you shout I'm just rationalizing murder, I agree. At least my rationale includes social, political and economic factors and not just some rhetoric based on feewings or celebrities and other liberal ivory tower types who have never been victimized and so can buy into the whole Jesus peace thing that worked out so great for him... Pragmatically speaking, being "tough" on crime is good for the individual and the state but we must of course be democratic about it and let the ignorant masses decide public policy for better or worse.

[Spiff]

Does that extend to individuals? For example, Bundy rapes, kills, decapitates and :wub:s into the skull--obviously what I consider cruel and unusual is vastly different from Ted Bundy. What legal theory would take this into account?

In the Hartian sense I believe the punishment for the above crime could be in theory anything that the 'officials' say it is, the principle is that everyone who commits that crime must be treated in the same way, i.e "like cases alike". If one person committed that crime and was sane they should receive different treatment to another person who committed the same crime but was insane.

The "officials" is this theory are whoever sets the law - for example a King, the rule of recognition dictates that whatever he says is the law is valid.

But then it was a while ago i read that chapter...

[Cluny the Scourge]

In the Hartian sense I believe the punishment for the above crime could be in theory anything that the 'officials' say it is, the principle is that everyone who commits that crime must be treated in the same way, i.e "like cases alike". If one person committed that crime and was sane they should receive different treatment to another person who committed the same crime but was insane.

The "officials" is this theory are whoever sets the law - for example a King, the rule of recognition dictates that whatever he says is the law is valid.

But then it was a while ago i read that chapter...

Descriptive theories of law aren't very useful to anyone. They amount to nothing more than saying 'It is the way it is.' The question 'Is vengeance just?' clearly invites normative debate, not descriptive analysis.

But I would definitely spend the rest of my life hunting down anyone if they killed a friend or family member of mine, even if I didn't like that family member much. Family is family, and nobody hurts those I care about.

That's a helpful warning. If I ever decide I need to kill someone related to you, I'll make sure I take care of you at the same time.

[Nikephoros II Phokas]

In the Hartian sense I believe the punishment for the above crime could be in theory anything that the 'officials' say it is, the principle is that everyone who commits that crime must be treated in the same way, i.e "like cases alike". If one person committed that crime and was sane they should receive different treatment to another person who committed the same crime but was insane.

that brings up an interesting question: what is sanity? bundy was considered sane because he knew what he was doing and knew it was "wrong" but his crimes infer something terribly wrong with him, if not insanity then what? sanity in the legal sense is only concerned with mens rea, requisite intent etc and by that definition bundy is sane but under a broader definition he was clearly not right in the head. personally i think we, or juries are too concerned with motive which opens the window for crazy stories about other personalities and "temporary" insanity etc. people just don't want to believe serial killers enjoy what they do and do it willingly. my pronlem with this is that juries have bought that garbage before, i mean seriously does temporary insanity actually exist outside the courtroom?

A child rapist rapes two 3 year old girls. Does he deserve to die?



IMO; Yes. If worst could be made, then also another yes.

i agree. the way i look at it is that if someone is willing to rape a little girl, what crime against humanity is that person not capable of? obviously that person has no conscience, no internal right and wrong and so that person can never, ever live in society again in my opinion. that said i agree it's a strain on the economy to house these people in prisons when there's no reason to prolongue their existence.

[Thanatos]

Generally no, because it's vigilante justice.

But I would definitely spend the rest of my life hunting down anyone if they killed a friend or family member of mine, even if I didn't like that family member much. Family is family, and nobody hurts those I care about.

[Murfios]

A child rapist rapes two 3 year old girls. Does he deserve to die?

IMO; Yes. If worst could be made, then also another yes.