Do you think that we should have sort of "family Justice".. or maybe more appropriately family involvement in justice?

Similar questions: sort family Justice appropriately involvement justice.

No, it is barbarous and we have left it in the past for good reason. Actually, for most of human history we have had some sort of "family justice," and it has always been problematic. If a member of my family stole a chicken, or injured or killed a member of yours, you would be within your rights to demand satisfaction (payment).

And if it were not forthcoming in the customary amount, you would be within your rights to call me out and settle the matter by mutual combat. In combat, you would seek the actual damages plus an additional amount (re: tribute) to salve your injured pride and restore your tarnished honor. An offense against your family is not simply the injury of the act itself, but the humiliation of being of treated as an inferior and of subordinate status to me and my family, since a taking by my family implies that I and we are of higher status and therefore have a seigneurial right to do so.So, if the insult is not avenged, your whole family would decline in rank and status relative to my family--where the humiliation would fester and nurse a lingering grudge born by the whole family.

When your honor is always on the line like this, you have to rise to the challenge of even the slightest insult, since to back down is to accept the demotion in rank. In this respect, the system of "family justice" tended to make people, quick tempered, vindictive, quarrelsome, calloused and cruel. Suppose a young man from my clan killed one of yours.

S personal guilt is almost beside the point and next to useless to inquire into. People quarrel, fight and die all the time in our world. He may have been defending his honor or he may have attacked in retaliation for some earlier insult or attack against him, or it may have been by accident.

The mere fact that the young man has killed, even "sadistically," does not necessarily make him an evil person--and even if he were of villianous character, it would not make him any more culpable. I still owe you for a life, for which I may pay you the customary weirgelt (blood money), or I may sacrifice one of the young men of my own clan of comparable worth.It need not be the man who killed, and I don’t hand him over to you. We kill him ourselves, since all we owe you is the life, and not the satisfaction of your cruelty.

There were two main problems with this system: One, was that a very large and powerful family could simply tell aggrieved and injured parties to piss off, and there wasn’t much they could do about it. But then, several years--even generations--later there would be an act of retaliation, which might seem like an act of cowardly sadism taken out of context, but might simply be repayment in kind for earlier similar wrongs. The other problem was that these vendettas, once started, would never end.

Whole families would nurse deep grudges for generations on end, so that living in a community was like living on the edge of a dormant volcano.In Japan, these feuds could go on for centuries until the whole family or clan was wiped out. The Greeks instituted the jury trial; the Romans instituted the office of Tribune and the tribunal; medieval princes became arbiters of the law; and Dutch burghers instituted the professional police force and the justice of the peace--each of them, in their way, sought to take "family justice" out of the hands of the family and place it in the hands of an impartial body who could finally bring an end to these disputes. The Romans, even with their Tribunes, were not able to quench the animosities among the warring families.

The great families amassed large private armies consisting of distant relations, retainers and mercenaries. They would do fiercesome battle, where the defeated would often join up with the victors to prosecute still other vendettas against the rest of the family’s enemies. The Romans suffered 90-years of civil war, before the families became so exhausted financially and war weary that they were willing to set aside their vendettas and accept a dictator or imperator, in the form of Julius Ceasar.

There was an even longer civil war in Japan culminating in a consolidation of power in the Tokugawa shogunate in the 17th Century. In Europe, the Hundred Year’s War and the War of the Roses were, essentially, family feuds--vendettas--carried out by royal families against each other. So, it was in a sense, the social and political instability of the feudal "family justice" system that gave us the absolute monarchy which, in turn, gave us the modern bureaucratic nation state.

Unfortunately, the monarchy was still a family, with all the touchy sensitivity to insult of any other, but with absolute power behind it. Offenses against persons became crimes against the Crown, and were punished by the Crown with even more arbitrary and unrestrained power than under the system of vendetta. Under monarchs and despots, people were arrested, held without charges, tortured, tried and executed, all in secret.

Any verdict of law was rendered after the fact. Henry VIII, for all his good image, had nothing on Josef Stalin. He had both children and adults hanged for such petty crimes as stealing a loaf of bread, or poaching a rabbit on the king’s land (and yet his executing roughly one in 1,000 citizens--about the same rate that we incarcerate today--did not have the slightest deterrent effect on crime).

The American Revolution, and the Bill of Rights that figures so prominently in our criminal law was, fundamentally, a revolt against the arbitrary powers of the Crown. Our presumption of innocence, our reliance on due process, our protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to counsel and bail, and even freedom from cruel and unusual punishment were all in direct response to the excesses of the monarchical privilege. We have evolved instead a system of impersonal bureaucratic administration of justice, which seeks to remove not only the family, but the whole idea that retribution for the family is a primary object of the law.

The punishment of crimes is now seen as an affirmation the common morality, and its object to restore a sense of quietude and complacency "justice having been done. " The law is not for private revenge, or for giving satisfaction to the aggrieved. It is for putting an end to the matter, so that the rest of the world can go on unencumbered by the preoccupations of "family justice."

We have done away with dueling, vigilantism, and all other trappings of private justice because we don’t want people taking the law into their own hands, especially for the dubious personal theraputic benefit of revenge. And we have become a less cruel and violent people because of it. Some have argued that we have gone too far.

That we have reduced the victim to a mere witness to a crime against the state. They argue that the victim should be allowed the vicarious enjoyment of seeing the humiliation and degradation of their offender as he is brought to justice, and ultimately punished. It certainly helps the prosecution get convictions when they can show the aggrieved victims descending like avenging furies in a denunciation of their offender.

But it doesn’t undo the crime. All it does is feed our appetite for vindictive cruelty, which is something which it has taken centuries to starve into submission. Consequently, I am horrified by Ronin’s question, which seems to ask, in all seriousness, why we shouldn’t bring back "family justice" and all the vindictive passions of a barbarous past that we have taken such pains to put behind us.

Even stacking the question with "a brutal sadist killing your whole family" or a "psychopath," I have to remind myself that this is bait. The question, at bottom, merely an invitation to fantasize about taking pleasure in cruelty, and the dubious psychological benefits personally putting another human being to death. It is itself a sadistic fantasy.It is a monsterous question, because under its guise of "rooting out evil" it seeks to inculcate "evil.

" It is attempting to make sadism attractive by giving it justification and the color of law. But, if we are to take the bait and enjoy these illicit pleasures, it would plunge us back into the barbarous past.It would return us to the never ending vendetta, the cruelty that shapes and defines a sharply hierarchical society, and it would consign us to the psychological preoccupations of such a society’s sensibility: avenging petty insults, nursing monumental grudges, and fantasizing about taking revenge. These are, by the way, the same preoccupations as a psychopath.

Zuma's Recommendations Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory (Studies in Crime and Justice) Amazon List Price: $22.00 Used from: $11.75 Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison Amazon List Price: $14.95 Used from: $6.73 Average Customer Rating: 4.5 out of 5 (based on 36 reviews) Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies (Reprint Series in Sociology) Amazon List Price: $5.00 Used from: $68.86 Average Customer Rating: 4.5 out of 5 (based on 2 reviews) .

No, my killing that person wouldn't bring back my loved ones. I'd want that person locked up for life, so that ..... no one else would be endangered, but I wouldn’t stoop to his level by becoming a murderer also. In my opinion, that’s justifiable only in immediate defense.In the days right after 9/11, I was filled with revenge fantasies, but I learned from that experience.

No, not if we want to keep lady Justice somewhat blindfolded It would be too much of a conflict of interest to allow victim's families to be involved in the retribution. They would likely execute the person over and over. Sources: opinion .

I see and agree with your point but..... sadly words like retribution or revenge are not in vouge........we are supposed to be evolved beyond that completely viable emotion, we are supposed to be able to pick and chose what we feel,ironicaly the people that espouse such a view are the ones, who when faced with a situation are the first ones who want revenge...........no I on the other hand, rather then throw the switch, would like to see them at hard labor, no chance for parole, and every dime they work for goes straight to my bank account, or charity in my families name, for the rest of thier life the work to promote me and my family.

Yes, I most certainly do! ............ but instead of tossing the switch, I would get every horrible detail and do the exact same thing to him/her/them and..............S L O W L Y Do to them, what they have done. Kind of like "an eye for an eye".

Go ahead and call me a monster if you like, but when it comes to "my" family, I will Protect or in such a case as this I will have Justice. Not "Police," Not Courts, but my own! Please don't bring God into it, because then I would have to ask....Why would God let such a terrible thing happen?

God doesn't have anything to do with it! It's just plain @ss EVIL in those people, same for the Insanity Plea, c'mon wake up! Do you really believe that?

If they KNEW they would die the same Exact way..........The Deaths would be DOWN! Sources: Personal Opinion.

" "can you work in criminal justice as a felon" "The picture does not do this "COFFEE MUG" justice at all.

Can you work in criminal justice as a felon.

The picture does not do this "COFFEE MUG" justice at all.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.