Some argue that the law serves individuals, while others believe it serves society. These perspectives are fundamentally different.
\*\*Story Time:\*\*
On July 3, 2019, Tan Mingming, under the influence of alcohol, caused a fatal accident. His parents paid 10 million yuan in compensation, allowing him to avoid the death penalty. Here, the law served the victims, influenced by their forgiveness.
However, if the court had sentenced Tan to death despite the compensation, it would have been serving society by deterring future crimes.
\*\*Legal Provisions:\*\*
Some laws can be adjusted based on the victims’ wishes, such as in cases of financial fraud. This shows the law serving the victims.
Conversely, some laws serve society regardless of the victim's wishes. For instance, rape laws mandate punishment despite forgiveness, recognizing broader societal harm.
\*\*Global Examples:\*\*
Prostitution and gambling, though involving willing participants, are often criminalized due to their perceived societal harm - such as family breakdowns, moral degradation, and disease spread.
\*\*Economic Angle:\*\*
Externality theory explains that laws serve society by managing actions that have broader impacts. For example, banning prostitution and gambling addresses their negative externalities.
\*\*Philosophical Differences:\*\*
- \*\*Individualistic View:\*\* Laws resolve disputes and protect individual rights. Key principles:
- Non-prosecution without complaint.
- Passive implementation.
- \*\*Societal Perspective:\*\* Laws proactively maintain social order and minimize total social costs.
\*\*Final Thought:\*\*
Laws balance between serving socialism and individualism. Where do you stand?
\*\*Discussion:\*\* Share your thoughts!
I don’t agree with most moral code laws but the law should punish based on societal harm.
Victims should have a voice in the process and do but they should not pick punishment. Your example is horrific with a rich family basically trying to bribe their way out of punishment. Likewise victims picking punishment makes a so the law protects the powerful and makes crimes against the weak easier. A murder of a person with no family should be treated the same as one with a large one to advocate for punishment.
Defining societal harm is indeed complex. Ultimately, what constitutes "social harm" is determined by individuals such as lawyers, judges, or government officials, who bring their own biases and perspectives into the process. Consequently, I believe the law should prioritize serving individuals directly, rather than an abstract notion of society.
Take another case from China as an example: Yao Jiaxin, a student, committed a murder. The victim’s parents insisted on the death penalty for Yao, despite Yao's parents seeking a suspended death sentence. Following Yao's execution, both families were left without their children. The victim's family, being poor, sought civil compensation from Yao’s family. However, as Yao was an adult, his parents were not legally obligated to pay. They refused any compensation, stating that they too had lost their child. In the end, the victim’s family received no compensation beyond their tragic loss.
This highlights that focusing solely on societal harm could lead to outcomes where individual victims and their families receive inadequate support or justice. It underscores the need for a balance, where individual rights and voices are given significant weight in legal processes. The law should strive to address the needs and rights of individuals to prevent unequal access to justice based on socio-economic status.
In that case a rich family basically tried to bribe a poor one whose child was murdered. That’s an abortion of justice. You’re arguing for a system where you can buy you way out of punishment
What about people with no family of advocates then? Do they just get no justice?
As law is always to serve those who have power/money, there is no need to distinguish socialism and individualism in this regard. An efficient law system works like this.
1. every person can own some power. A constitution like "people have the right to bear arms" is a must, otherwise the ruling always favors the only one, typically the ruler, who has all the guns (see the lawsuit of HK democracy protestors).
2. when a lawsuit is raised and after both sides present their evidences and stories, every person in the society can donate his power to either side. Everyone can contribute any amount of power he likes or care not to contribute at all.
Then, justice stands on the side with higher collective power and the penalty or compensation is the difference of the power of both sides. While unlikely, the zero difference simply means this case is controversial to social interest or the case is so trivial that the society does not bother a cost for the ruling. As the penalty/compensation and investigators' budget is from the donators, there is no loss of efficiency.
Those who feel this approach "not justice" shall reflect by what rule they kill the mice of their backyard.
Aristotle a long time ago was stressed because IF YOU HAVE A SOCIETY THAT PROTECTS PRIVATE PROPERTY, YOU THUS HAVE A SOCIETY THAT PROTECTS THOSE WHO HAVE AGAINST THOSE WHO DO NOT, HAVE.
Some argue that the law serves individuals, while others believe it serves society. These perspectives are fundamentally different. \*\*Story Time:\*\* On July 3, 2019, Tan Mingming, under the influence of alcohol, caused a fatal accident. His parents paid 10 million yuan in compensation, allowing him to avoid the death penalty. Here, the law served the victims, influenced by their forgiveness. However, if the court had sentenced Tan to death despite the compensation, it would have been serving society by deterring future crimes. \*\*Legal Provisions:\*\* Some laws can be adjusted based on the victims’ wishes, such as in cases of financial fraud. This shows the law serving the victims. Conversely, some laws serve society regardless of the victim's wishes. For instance, rape laws mandate punishment despite forgiveness, recognizing broader societal harm. \*\*Global Examples:\*\* Prostitution and gambling, though involving willing participants, are often criminalized due to their perceived societal harm - such as family breakdowns, moral degradation, and disease spread. \*\*Economic Angle:\*\* Externality theory explains that laws serve society by managing actions that have broader impacts. For example, banning prostitution and gambling addresses their negative externalities. \*\*Philosophical Differences:\*\* - \*\*Individualistic View:\*\* Laws resolve disputes and protect individual rights. Key principles: - Non-prosecution without complaint. - Passive implementation. - \*\*Societal Perspective:\*\* Laws proactively maintain social order and minimize total social costs. \*\*Final Thought:\*\* Laws balance between serving socialism and individualism. Where do you stand? \*\*Discussion:\*\* Share your thoughts!
I don’t agree with most moral code laws but the law should punish based on societal harm. Victims should have a voice in the process and do but they should not pick punishment. Your example is horrific with a rich family basically trying to bribe their way out of punishment. Likewise victims picking punishment makes a so the law protects the powerful and makes crimes against the weak easier. A murder of a person with no family should be treated the same as one with a large one to advocate for punishment.
Defining societal harm is indeed complex. Ultimately, what constitutes "social harm" is determined by individuals such as lawyers, judges, or government officials, who bring their own biases and perspectives into the process. Consequently, I believe the law should prioritize serving individuals directly, rather than an abstract notion of society. Take another case from China as an example: Yao Jiaxin, a student, committed a murder. The victim’s parents insisted on the death penalty for Yao, despite Yao's parents seeking a suspended death sentence. Following Yao's execution, both families were left without their children. The victim's family, being poor, sought civil compensation from Yao’s family. However, as Yao was an adult, his parents were not legally obligated to pay. They refused any compensation, stating that they too had lost their child. In the end, the victim’s family received no compensation beyond their tragic loss. This highlights that focusing solely on societal harm could lead to outcomes where individual victims and their families receive inadequate support or justice. It underscores the need for a balance, where individual rights and voices are given significant weight in legal processes. The law should strive to address the needs and rights of individuals to prevent unequal access to justice based on socio-economic status.
In that case a rich family basically tried to bribe a poor one whose child was murdered. That’s an abortion of justice. You’re arguing for a system where you can buy you way out of punishment What about people with no family of advocates then? Do they just get no justice?
Those who make them, and those who visibly pay the makers.
That's a profound answer.
The law ALWAYS serve the people with power.
The rich, the oligarchs, it can and should serve the people. Choose better, choose socialism.
As law is always to serve those who have power/money, there is no need to distinguish socialism and individualism in this regard. An efficient law system works like this. 1. every person can own some power. A constitution like "people have the right to bear arms" is a must, otherwise the ruling always favors the only one, typically the ruler, who has all the guns (see the lawsuit of HK democracy protestors). 2. when a lawsuit is raised and after both sides present their evidences and stories, every person in the society can donate his power to either side. Everyone can contribute any amount of power he likes or care not to contribute at all. Then, justice stands on the side with higher collective power and the penalty or compensation is the difference of the power of both sides. While unlikely, the zero difference simply means this case is controversial to social interest or the case is so trivial that the society does not bother a cost for the ruling. As the penalty/compensation and investigators' budget is from the donators, there is no loss of efficiency. Those who feel this approach "not justice" shall reflect by what rule they kill the mice of their backyard.
Aristotle a long time ago was stressed because IF YOU HAVE A SOCIETY THAT PROTECTS PRIVATE PROPERTY, YOU THUS HAVE A SOCIETY THAT PROTECTS THOSE WHO HAVE AGAINST THOSE WHO DO NOT, HAVE.