One more Q-and-A at BJOL:
One final idea from me, on the issue of "How much punishment is enough." The 'hardliners,' and I, want the same things: Protect society, send a message, cause offender to understand the suffering he's caused. The question is, WHO will calibrate the penalties that you and I (as citizens) pay? (Rice today; you and I tomorrow.) … A judge is (relatively) detached, qualified, etc., at least compared to a lynch mob. Both the hardliners, and I as a "dove," are in danger of applying too much or too little punishment. How many "hardliners" -- in their demands for resignations, etc etc -- wish to be the de facto judges of what the penalty will be? … does this "mob mentality" factor not also argue for leaving the matter to the justice system? - thanks, Jeff
Asked by: jemanji
Answered: 9/17/2014
Exactly. A free market for justice is called a lynching. While I understand that it is dangerous and counter-productive to tell businesses that they can't do what is in their own best interests, it seems to me more dangerous to pretend that the market place will measure out justice in these situations. The marketplace of ideas is often not easy to distinguish from a lynch mob. It is in society's best interests, I think, if businesses are encouraged not to meddle in issues of crime and punishment. - Bill