THINQon : Revenge or forgiveness?

THINQon is a platform for a more intelligent web. It aims to replace the ruling paradigm of the web – that of sharing and gathering information – with a sharing and achieving of understanding. Instead of the Q&A model it offers an experience. A platform for discovery of ideas, people, and yourself. Continue >

This topic is a continuation of:

The zealous advocate? - The zealous advocate?

Mike Strong

Revenge or forgiveness?

Latest Post: October 15, 2011 at 11:50 AM

15 followers

Recently a black man at the age of 68 was caught in Spain for a crime he committed 40 years ago. He was arrested and is about to be extradited to the US. Since he committed his crimes he seems to have led a quite life in a remote village in Spain with a family he formed.

Emily Andrews asked whether it is ethically necessary, to acquit a person when it is clear they are guilty but the law, strictly speaking, does not obviously allow for a conviction?
I'd like to ask the opposite. Can't we forgive?

George Wright murdered a person 50 years ago, and hijacked a plane 40 years ago. The hijacking was as part of the Black Liberation Army. I specifically mentioned him as a black man as it seems to me to be similar to cases where after a war there is amnesty to both sides. Murdering terrorists are freed as part of a peace treaty, and the fight between the blacks and whites was close to a war in those days. (Some information about the case can be read here: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/27/nation/la-na-new-jersey-fugitive-20110928).

We should also remember it costs a lot of money to catch, extradite, try, and incarcerate them here in the states. Money which may be put to much better use. Should such cases be pursued?

Here is a scene which speaks to the problem, from the movie Faster. Background: The black guy was involved in the murder of The Rock's brother. He later repented his sins, has become righteous and a minister. How do we want our law system to act?:

Reply to:

John barri

October 12, 2011 at 8:31 AM

35 followers

Most countries have laws which limit the period in which an offence may be prosecuted. There is a very specific legal term for this which escapes me at present. It is notable that in most countries, murder is not such an offence. The offence is prosecutable at any time.

While there is a cost of prosecuting so called 'cold' cases and from some perspectives those costs may not make sense, from the perspective of justice, a serious offence, such as murder, should never be allowed to slip under the radar. By not prosecuting, you are saying to other would-be murderers, all you need is to evade capture for x many years and you are home free, so commit your crime but just have an infallible get-away plan because in the end, society will not care enough to do anything about you.

I would argue that society should always care and the the cost of delivering justice is almost irrelevant.

Postscript (October 13, 2011 at 1:16 PM):

Ok - the term I was looking for is 'a statute of limitations'.

Reply to: or

Mike Strong

In response to John barri

October 13, 2011 at 10:01 AM

15 followers

How can you say John that the price of justice is irrelevant? Shouldn't society always provide drugs to the ill? Isn't it just as important to feed the hungry? In a perfect world society could deliver health-care, food, education, and justice, but concessions always need to be made.

The term you were looking for is statue of limitation. I understand and agree that the law shouldn't have a statue of limitation on murder, but I also don't think that having a 40 year statue of limitation will decrease the deterrent factor for murder. I just think it is useful that the murderer would not be able to speak openly about the crime which I think could be very unpleasant.

I hear what you say John, but as in the zealous advocate discussion, isn't following the law to incriminate a person sometimes worse than not following it? In movies the cop usually lets the criminal who is a good guy get away. We want the cop to let them go. We understand that the world is better of with that person free than behind bars. I think there should be a place for forgiveness in the law. I'm also aware that it would be misused.

Reply to: or

John barri

In response to Mike Strong

October 13, 2011 at 6:15 PM

35 followers

OK - my position on the question of the application of law is that it should seek truth and justice. Truth, in that admissions and plea bargaining should not in themselves be taken as sufficient to determine guilt - there must also be substantial corroboration of provable fact, and justice in that the needs of justice for victims (sometimes all of society are victims) should be sought. I'm not advocating the pursuit of the letter of the law, which sometimes is not at all just.

Plea bargaining is one of the tactics used by authorities world-wide to bully accused persons to accept guilt for lesser charges in the face of the threat that they could not predict the trial outcome of greater charges bearing greater penalties. Accept a charge that will put you in prison for 10 years, say, or risk of being found guilty of a greater charge that could result in your execution - great way to determine truth and administer justice. And the justification? - plea bargains save public money! I cannot accept that. What if there was no guilt at all, only a folding under greater threat? It has happened, I am sure.

Denying trial and preventing justice running its full course denies truth and justice. I reiterate, there should be no price tag attached to truth or justice.

By the same token justice should be proportional. A greater penalty for a greater crime and a lesser penalty for a lesser crime. We are not talking of petty theft here, we are talking about murder, in the case under discussion, and generally about many more very serious crimes where administrative decisions obscure the truth and the application of justice in the interest of curtailing costs.

And let us not confuse the provision of basic necessities for indigents with the justice that I was defending. You cannot say - gee, if we have the one we must deny the other. That is a self-serving argument coming from a very focused position. Having both is not or should not be, mutually exclusive. In fact, social justice or injustice is directly related to the existence of adequate criminal justice or its lack thereof. You cannot, for example, have a functioning democracy without a functioning judicial system. A judicial system which only pursues the application of the law and not the determination of truth and justice is by my definition dysfunctional and any democratic system it purports to support must also be dysfunctional. I believe that to some extent at least, this is what has happened in the USA - hence the occupy Wall Street protests. Do you know that this is even spreading to South Africa? People are mightily pissed at the injustices society heaps upon them. As the saying goes - the worm is turning.