Punch Q & A: Just what is justice?

Sarah says:

07:38am | 06/05/11

Thank-you Erick. Well said. There is always an extenuating circumstance for any and every situation and scenario in life.

sol says:

09:18am | 06/05/11

Yeah! Screw those people who spend their lives researching and considering things! My half baked ideas are more valid because I have an anonymous handle on some forum!

Muttley says:

09:25am | 06/05/11

Lol, nice try Sol. But if you cant see the validity of what is being said, that perhaps a life of intellectual solitutude removes one from the realities of life, then anything else said will be wasted on you.

Erick says:

09:38am | 06/05/11

Speaking of justice, did anyone else notice the sexist discrimination in the raid? The men were targeted and killed, yet women only suffered if they got in the way of crossfire. Osama and his son were executed, but his wife and daughter were spared.

I’m waiting for the feminists to demand equal treatment.

dancan says:

10:37am | 06/05/11

So what you’re saying is, “do as I say, not as I do”?

Adam says:

11:03am | 06/05/11

Couldn’t agree more. OBL was an enemy combatant in a war. He got killed because he demonstrated hostile intent towards a SEAL and was given a burial in accordance with his religion. End of story.

“If you oppose capital punishment in principle, then you cannot support its use in any situation”.

I take it he meant to say “If you adopt a one size fits all policy, then follow it blindly without regard for the circumstance or contemporary environment, it is bound to come back and bite you on the ass”.

Reggie says:

11:19am | 06/05/11

How strange that Erick should finally reveal himself as an anarchist who sees leadership as the work of the devil. I shall expect to see a question-mark at the end of every sentence you utter from now on young man.

I am also a little concerned that he regards his view of “reality” as the correct one.

Naverly Klitgaard says:

11:30am | 06/05/11

Don’t bother, sol. Erick is one of the great satirists of our time. In one post he decries “ivory-tower” domination and champions the rise of the internet (perhaps with himself leading the charge) as an antidote. In the next post he’s exposing a grievous injustice in the non-killing of women. The guy’s a hoot.

Although if he could take some lessons from the model of manhood of Navy SEALs, the toughest of tough men who kill for a living, but can still exhibit discretion and restraint even at moments of heightened intensity, his comedic repertoire would benefit. Who knows, he might even become a better man?

Peter Norden says:

11:42am | 06/05/11

My comments reflect 40 years direct experience working in the criminal justice system, both in Australia and overseas.  I was asked to comment on the manner of death of bin Laden, and whether it could be equated to the dispensing of justice or be seen as equivalent to capital punishment.  It may be seen as an act of war, but not justice as is commonly defined, at least in western democracies such as the U.S., the U.K. and Australia.

St. Michael says:

11:57am | 06/05/11

@ Naverly: “Although if he could take some lessons from the model of manhood of Navy SEALs, the toughest of tough men who kill for a living…”

The myth of US special forces being “the toughest of tough men” is largely bullcrap that said US special forces troops (and especially Rangers) tell each other to justify the things they do to get where they are.  See here for an article on the rangers, which has some application to all the other SOCOM forces: http://www.johntreed.com/ranger.html

On SEALS, at an objective standard, that is to say the results-oriented world, one of their representatives doesn’t seem to be so tough: http://johntreed.com/headline/2010/09/03/leadership-lessons-for-the-military-from-deadliest-catch-reality-series/  (the reference to a SEAL is towards the bottom, though you need to read the whole thing to get the full context.)

Also here about SEAL involvement in the pirate rescue: http://johntreed.com/headline/tag/defense/

It also appears that the SEALS are no tougher or more impressive than any other US elite force like the Rangers or the Air Force’s commandos.  I say that because when SOCOM was asked why the SEALS went as opposed to anybody else, the answer is effectively “Every special force gets rotated through.  It was just their turn”.

Are you shitting me? That’s the selection criteria for a primary school teeball competition, not ‘the right black ops team for the right job”.

Unless, of course, as I say, there’s no discernible difference between a SEAL, a Ranger, or a USAF Air Commando, and you might as well use any of them.  About the only significant difference between SEAL training and regular SpecForce training is the SCUBA course.  As far as I can tell, OBL’s hideout wasn’t underwater.

It’d be nice if US Special Forces were the supermen the US military makes them out to be.  Sadly, they’re not.

Naverly Klitgaard says:

12:23pm | 06/05/11

@St. Michael,

Thanks for that encyclopedic exposition on my one-line, informal comment.

They’d have to have the biggest dongers, though?

St. Michael says:

12:38pm | 06/05/11

@ Naverly: I would simply point you in the direction of Freud on that

Naverly Klitgaard says:

01:15pm | 06/05/11

@St. Michael, I hinted “that direction” to you first.

And you know what Freud says about people who use emoticons… it’s not good.

Adam says:

01:21pm | 06/05/11

@ Peter Nordan - Thank for taking the time to reply. I just think that “a law, crime and justice expert” should understand that the standard legal conventions afforded to those in a peaceful, stable society simply do not, and should not, apply on the battlefield as a matter of practicality and necessity. Trying to apply them for comparison reasons is extremely misleading, provides propaganda for the enemy and only serves to hurt your credibility. Furthermore, when you state “my understanding of justice being done is when an accused person is taken into custody, tried and receives the verdict of the court” you fail to recognise that our judicial system simply provides legal outcomes, something very different to justice. So it is little surprise when justice needs to be done Govt’s and citizens alike take matter into their own hands.

Adam says:

01:44pm | 06/05/11

@ Peter Nordan - “My comments reflect 40 years direct experience working in the criminal justice system, both in Australia and overseas”

Another problem. Experience is measured in experiences, not years or geographic localities. This is why Ericks attack on you due to living in a world of “political groupthink and ivory-tower isolation from reality” is so relevant.

Shelly says:

01:48pm | 06/05/11

@Adam - I think the A/professor is confusing the use of justice system with justice. Two very different things.

Adam says:

02:09pm | 06/05/11

@ Shelly - I agree with you 100%.

Adam says:

03:35pm | 07/05/11

It would appear Mr Norden has retreated to the ivory tower of isolation to embrace groupthink with his progressive acadmic mates, rather than sticking around to debate his ideas in the real world.

Will says:

08:40am | 06/05/11

I agree with you, but the nutters will have their theories regardless. Any photos will be scrutinised in detail, facts misrepresented to create a theory only the paranoid and irrational could believe. Human beings will place more emplhasis on information they deem supportive of their preconceptions. So loonies will grasp desperately at straws while the rest of us go on living our lives.

The Original Oz says:

09:45am | 06/05/11

@Will - “facts misrepresented to create a theory only the paranoid and irrational could believe. Human beings will place more emplhasis on information they deem supportive of their preconceptions.”

Sounds the Global Warming “Sky is falling” brigade to me.

Duff says:

02:20pm | 06/05/11

@Original Oz - it must be weird to live in your world where up is down, black is white and scientists are the irrational, paranoid ones.  Back here on Earth, we tend to think they know what their talking about and are fairly objective.

Muttley says:

09:29am | 06/05/11

That just means the application of the death penalty should be changed, not discontinued. Do you seriously believe that individuals such as Ted Bundy or Timothy McVie didnt deserve death? You may believe so but i dont.

St. Michael says:

10:45am | 06/05/11

@ Muttley: at the risk of quoting Gandalf, though it’s JRR Tolkien really: “Many live that deserve death; many who deserve life are dead.  Can you hand out both?”

Although I think Geoffrey Robertson quoted an author correctly on this one: “If you would teach others to revere human life, you must first revere it yourselves.”

Killing in a firefight in what appears (giving, as you would hope, the SEALS the benefit of the doubt) to have been a tactical decision based on OBL not surrendering is one thing.  Even Geoffrey Robertson concedes summarily executing hijackers on a plane with hostages under their guns is acceptable because they deserved it.

Institutionalised killing, with all of its associated risks, is another thing entirely.  For every oh-Christ-it’s-obvious-you-leftie-moron-his-name-is-Ted-Bundy, there are a good five to ten people whose “deserved” death is questionable or a miscarriage of justice.  I don’t see why, in avenging the lives of innocent people, the justice system should kill both the perpetrator and risk the death of more innocent people via the fact the death penalty is final and the justice system fallible.

St. Michael says:

10:56am | 06/05/11

P.S. On a tangent, you don’t have to go to the US for examples of “near miss justice” in terms of overturning death sentences via DNA or exposing error in the justice system.  Australia’s got plenty of its own.

Just in WA, ask Andrew Mallard, John Button, and Darryl Beamish about errors in their unrelated murder convictions.  IIRC Beamish actually *was* given the death penalty but it was automatically commuted to life when WA abolished it.  Had WA not done so, he, or indeed any of them, would have been swinging from a rope long past.  All were innocent of the crimes they were accused of, and wrongly convicted.  In each case their convictions were overturned as miscarriages of justice, and not for mere errors in the trial process, but from variously being set up by police or better evidence which disproved the backward science of the time.

Mallard’s is probably the most high-profile, because for 12 years the WA justice system resisted with all of its might against the possibility that Mallard was innocent.  It took an eastern States court—the High Court—to actually see the conviction was wrong (and, it is rumoured, it only took ‘em five minutes to figure it out).  The CCC found improper conduct against two highly-ranked police officers that resulted in the conviction, and the guy who was questioned over the death after the appeal—a convicted murderer—topped himself in prison a day or two later.

“The Good Wife” protraying breathless, dramatic uncovering of new evidence 5 minutes before the lethal injection is administered is stupid.  It ignores the hundreds of cases where the new evidence is uncovered 5 minutes (metaphorically) after the lethal injection is given.

Ben says:

11:15am | 06/05/11

Although Mallard did admit to the crime.

St. Michael says:

12:01pm | 06/05/11

@ Ben: what, you mean after 8 hours of persistent questioning most of which was not on videotape, or the fact he’d just been released from Graylands (Mental) Hospital?

And no, he didn’t admit it.  He spoke in the third person about a hypothetical person who might have done it and how they might have done it.  The videotaped interview is that of a guy who’s half off his rocker on drugs and mental problems, not a confession.  So don’t try that line.

Not to mention that the weapon he “said” he “used” in the killing was shown conclusively in forensic testing to not have been capable of inflicting the injuries he said they did.  Indeed that fact was not revealed to the jury at trial by the DPP Prosecutor—a major reason for the miscarriage of justice, though it wasn’t the only one.  The CCC took the prosecutor to the cleaners over that.

Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

12:25pm | 06/05/11

Summary execution? ? ? It is the American way

Reggie says:

08:28pm | 06/05/11

One of the advantages of being the instigator of an undeclared war is that you can always suggest the injured party has over-reacting to some incident and then the conspiracy theorists go into overdrive to assist.

Justice in such circumstances becomes irrelevant.

Hitler’s biggest mistakes in WWII was to declare war on the US, driven only by the expectation that by late December 1941 he would see his armies dominant in his undeclared war on the USSR. Australia never declared war on Germany, Robert Gordon Menzies simply toed the British line on our behalf and then got side-lined for his efforts, leaving someone more practical to clear up the Japanese mess.

Japan declared war on the US by its actions, but who attacked the Twin-Towers and crashed all those aircraft?

Mark Smith says:

10:43am | 06/05/11

The end is the only thing that can justify the means. How else is a means to be justifed but by it’s results. Stalins ends did not justify his means, that is why he is reviled.

No one should be killed in cold blood, ya right lets all get angry before we kill someone, thats much better. Kind of like the Law of Alfred the Great, where it was allowable to seek revenge in hot blood by going around with a group of mates, but no more then thirty & killing those who had harmed you.

The modern democratic way, is for people to elect leaders & pay taxes. The taxes pay for brave men to kill the enemies our elected leaders decide must die to protect us. That is the modern democratic way.

Seanr says:

09:07am | 06/05/11

Agreed Hamish, as Erick said hopefully the spread of the internet will reduce the influence of ivory tower fools like this one.

acotrel says:

09:48am | 06/05/11

@Hamish
’ We’re not talking about some run-of-the-mill criminal here, we’re talking about a military enemy.’

It was said after 9/11 - one bad day and all our ethics, and values were forgotten?  Your statement (above) is probably true, but where is your proof? The ends don’t always justify the means.  I even saw a US officer talking about how the use of torture may have lead them to Osama.  WHAT IS THAT?  What have we become, and are you really comfortable with it?

acotrel says:

09:57am | 06/05/11

@Hamish
‘Detention and trial wasn’t an option. This should be obvious to a dole-bludging high school dropout let alone a professor. ‘

So you believe the allies in WW2 wouldn’t have loved to seize Hitler, and bring him to trial? We’ve just missed the ultiimate propaganda opportunity by killing Osama.

St. Michael says:

10:47am | 06/05/11

@ acotrel: to be fair, there was disagreement amongst the Allies about what they should do with the top-level Nazis they caught at the end of WW2.

Ironically, it was Stalin who pushed for trials, and Churchill who simply wanted them lined up against a wall and shot.

Hamish says:

11:08am | 06/05/11

acotrel, you mean the ethics of a precise assassination which only affected the guilty and not the innocent? The ethics of saving lives and eliminating threats at the minimum cost of loss of life? By torture do you mean waterboarding? Pretty shitty form of torture. You don’t even get hurt. I’m not at all happy with how cowardly and unsure of our own morality the west has become. Case in point, the above article. I’m very uncomfortable that a large proportion of westerners, such as the professor above, seem deperate to find an enemy to surrender to. I’m very scared of how weak, pathetic and unsure of itself enlightened civilisation has become.

Hitler was totally different. How many Germans would have kidnapped innocent people and threatened to behead them on video if Hitler wasn’t released? It happens in Israel all the time. It’s a traditional Islamic terrorist tactic. Detaining OBL would have put lives at risk. Propaganda opportunity for whom? Osama? Put him on trial so he could grandstand to a global audience? So he could turn the whole thing into a circus? Not to mention the inherent difficulties of how to try him. What kind of court? A US civilian court? A military tribunal? The International, ahem, Criminal Court? Look how difficult it’s been to even detain terrorists at Guantanamo. No, Obama was completely correct to assassinate him. It’s not like Obama’s a cowboy or something and even he knew Osama needed a bullet in the head, not a global pulpit on which to pontificate.

Peter says:

09:28am | 06/05/11

Seanr, it’s usually the same people who oppose the judicial killing of convicted murderers but at the same time have no issues with the killing of innocent unborn children who also try to compare people celebrating the death of OBL with those who celebrated the deaths of the innocents killed on 9/11.

acotrel says:

09:52am | 06/05/11

@Seanr So now paedophiles are equivalent to mass murderers?  When does it get to the stage where we hang people for minor theft?

Seanr says:

10:42am | 06/05/11

“When does it get to the stage where we hang people for minor theft?”, from the sounds of it, would happen a lot quicker if you were in charge than if I was acotrel! To turn your question around in your mind is paedophilia is the equivalent of minor theft?

If you’re trying to say ‘at what point do we stop” well we make a judgement, a line in the sand acotrel. Just because we kill Osama or a mass murder or paedophile does not suddenly mean we are going to start popping off pickpockets, not unless our Western society changes dramatically.

eddie says:

10:52am | 06/05/11

Seanr,
if you support the death penalty, what would you say is an acceptable percentage of innocent people executed ? Would you support the execution of one of your children should they be found guilty of a capital offence?

St. Michael says:

11:08am | 06/05/11

@ Seanr:

“If you’re trying to say ‘at what point do we stop” well we make a judgement, a line in the sand acotrel.”

No, not ‘we’.  You.
Where’s the line in the sand for you?
If you’re going to force the justice system to kill people, you have as much responsibility as anyone else for pulling the trigger.  So you’d better not start attributing responsibility to the anonymous “we”.  That’s a copout.
So: what crimes, and what seriousness within that band?

Seanr says:

12:52pm | 06/05/11

actually St Michael it was not a cop out,  I meant ‘we’ as in society, I make my own judgements and are quite comfortable with them but my judgement alone will not determine anything. I think I gave a couple of examples of ‘my line’.

@ eddie -  As I have said previously it would only be used in rare cases were we could be certain of guilt. Technology should help make sure that innocents are not executed but if there is any doubt then it shouldnt be used as a punishment.
if my children (I do have them) were guilty of those crimes then yes as much as it would distress me I would not object to them being executed.

St. Michael says:

01:09pm | 06/05/11

@ Seanr: “As I have said previously it would only be used in rare cases were we could be certain of guilt.”

By definition, every jury has been convinced beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of an accused when they return a guilty verdict.  That per se means they are certain of guilt, because they don’t have any doubt.  Therefore by definition, every case of “wrongful conviction” has occurred in a case where there is supposedly no doubt of guilt.  The fact of conviction (as with Andrew Mallard) is then used to rebuff all attempts at presenting contradictory or exculpatory evidence after the fact.  In WA at least one judge has admitted openly in speeches that the onus of proof in an appeal is always on the appellant and the original decision is presumed correct.

And “certain proof” doesn’t cover situations where the accused has been framed, especially by the police.  In those instances the evidence usually *appears* overwhelmingly certain because that is the intent of the person—or persons—doing the framing.

Even the archetypical “the jury watched the video where he pointed a gun and fired the fatal shot” is not certain.  A video shows one point of view, and single points of view can be misleading.  The selection of evidence provided always affects the verdict.

Mark Smith says:

03:26pm | 06/05/11

Terrorism stands against Humanity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostis_humani_generis

Well yes, the legal term is “Hostis Humani Generis”. Many law professors, but clearly not P Norden have argued that terrorists are the enemy of mankind. The idea is that like pirates & slavers they are at war with humanity.

The effect? Those who are the enemy of mankind are not entitled to any legal protection & any nation can deal with them as they see fit.