Can revenge ever be considered a form of justice in modern times?

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

In modern times justice is considered to be more harmonious, and restorative but what if these two ends can not be achieved? Do we resort to a more primitive and barbaric form of Justice in order to honor its principle? or do we simply sacrifice justice in order to remain civil, and keep with our more modern values?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yes.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Yes.

So you think Justice should be our highest value no matter what tradeoffs one must make?

[Vepres]

No

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yes.

So you think Justice should be our highest value no matter what tradeoffs one must make?

With the exception of liberty, justice ranks right up there near the top, yeah.  I don't condone revenge on a routine basis, but you asked if it could ever be considered a form of justice......I say it can.

[John Dibble]

Justice is a point of view, a perspective. What is just to one man may seem unjust to another. So obviously revenge can be considered a form of justice by at least some people.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Justice is a point of view, a perspective. What is just to one man may seem unjust to another. So obviously revenge can be considered a form of justice by at least some people.

correct but the criminal of the 18th and 17th century were often subject to punishments that were harsher than the crime. For example in Britain being charged with conspiracy to form a union was often punished with the penalty of death. Today it could be possible that any time spent in prison may be considered a form of torture but some individuals standards.

[John Dibble]

Justice is a point of view, a perspective. What is just to one man may seem unjust to another. So obviously revenge can be considered a form of justice by at least some people.

correct but the criminal of the 18th and 17th century were often subject to punishments that were harsher than the crime. For example in Britain being charged with conspiracy to form a union was often punished with the penalty of death. Today it could be possible that any time spent in prison may be considered a form of torture but some individuals standards.

What exactly does that have to do with what I just said, or the question at hand? You asked about revenge. That union death penalty thing has nothing to do with revenge. Revenge is personal, that's more of a "just business" type of punishment for the benefit of industry.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Justice is a point of view, a perspective. What is just to one man may seem unjust to another. So obviously revenge can be considered a form of justice by at least some people.

correct but the criminal of the 18th and 17th century were often subject to punishments that were harsher than the crime. For example in Britain being charged with conspiracy to form a union was often punished with the penalty of death. Today it could be possible that any time spent in prison may be considered a form of torture but some individuals standards.

What exactly does that have to do with what I just said, or the question at hand? You asked about revenge. That union death penalty thing has nothing to do with revenge. Revenge is personal, that's more of a "just business" type of punishment for the benefit of industry.

you are saying that revenge can be a form of justice, but is it still justice if some ones humanity is threatened? Is it justice if it is unfair. Revenge is not the only kind of value that is weighed when it comes to justice. In fact the Issue of fairness, and some other core principles go hand and hand with justice.

[John Dibble]

Justice is a point of view, a perspective. What is just to one man may seem unjust to another. So obviously revenge can be considered a form of justice by at least some people.

correct but the criminal of the 18th and 17th century were often subject to punishments that were harsher than the crime. For example in Britain being charged with conspiracy to form a union was often punished with the penalty of death. Today it could be possible that any time spent in prison may be considered a form of torture but some individuals standards.

What exactly does that have to do with what I just said, or the question at hand? You asked about revenge. That union death penalty thing has nothing to do with revenge. Revenge is personal, that's more of a "just business" type of punishment for the benefit of industry.

you are saying that revenge can be a form of justice, but is it still justice if some ones humanity is threatened? Is it justice if it is unfair. Revenge is not the only kind of value that is weighed when it comes to justice. In fact the Issue of fairness, and some other core principles go hand and hand with justice.

Fairness is also a matter of perspective. What, do you think everyone agrees about what is and isn't fair? You'd be deluding yourself if you did.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Justice is a point of view, a perspective. What is just to one man may seem unjust to another. So obviously revenge can be considered a form of justice by at least some people.

correct but the criminal of the 18th and 17th century were often subject to punishments that were harsher than the crime. For example in Britain being charged with conspiracy to form a union was often punished with the penalty of death. Today it could be possible that any time spent in prison may be considered a form of torture but some individuals standards.

What exactly does that have to do with what I just said, or the question at hand? You asked about revenge. That union death penalty thing has nothing to do with revenge. Revenge is personal, that's more of a "just business" type of punishment for the benefit of industry.

you are saying that revenge can be a form of justice, but is it still justice if some ones humanity is threatened? Is it justice if it is unfair. Revenge is not the only kind of value that is weighed when it comes to justice. In fact the Issue of fairness, and some other core principles go hand and hand with justice.

Fairness is also a matter of perspective. What, do you think everyone agrees about what is and isn't fair? You'd be deluding yourself if you did.

I realize that when considering what is fair vs unfair is perspective based,but the concept of fairness is still something that we consider.

[John Dibble]

Justice is a point of view, a perspective. What is just to one man may seem unjust to another. So obviously revenge can be considered a form of justice by at least some people.

correct but the criminal of the 18th and 17th century were often subject to punishments that were harsher than the crime. For example in Britain being charged with conspiracy to form a union was often punished with the penalty of death. Today it could be possible that any time spent in prison may be considered a form of torture but some individuals standards.

What exactly does that have to do with what I just said, or the question at hand? You asked about revenge. That union death penalty thing has nothing to do with revenge. Revenge is personal, that's more of a "just business" type of punishment for the benefit of industry.

you are saying that revenge can be a form of justice, but is it still justice if some ones humanity is threatened? Is it justice if it is unfair. Revenge is not the only kind of value that is weighed when it comes to justice. In fact the Issue of fairness, and some other core principles go hand and hand with justice.

Fairness is also a matter of perspective. What, do you think everyone agrees about what is and isn't fair? You'd be deluding yourself if you did.

I realize that when considering what is fair vs unfair is perspective based,but the concept of fairness is still something that we consider.

And I'm sure some guy who has his daughter raped might think it perfectly fair to sodomize her rapist with a thorny tree branch before putting a bullet through his skull. People who try to get revenge generally do think their revenge is fair.

You asked only whether revenge could ever be considered justice in modern times - clearly it can be. Whether it should be allowed or not is an entirely different question, one you didn't ask.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Justice is a point of view, a perspective. What is just to one man may seem unjust to another. So obviously revenge can be considered a form of justice by at least some people.

correct but the criminal of the 18th and 17th century were often subject to punishments that were harsher than the crime. For example in Britain being charged with conspiracy to form a union was often punished with the penalty of death. Today it could be possible that any time spent in prison may be considered a form of torture but some individuals standards.

What exactly does that have to do with what I just said, or the question at hand? You asked about revenge. That union death penalty thing has nothing to do with revenge. Revenge is personal, that's more of a "just business" type of punishment for the benefit of industry.

you are saying that revenge can be a form of justice, but is it still justice if some ones humanity is threatened? Is it justice if it is unfair. Revenge is not the only kind of value that is weighed when it comes to justice. In fact the Issue of fairness, and some other core principles go hand and hand with justice.

Fairness is also a matter of perspective. What, do you think everyone agrees about what is and isn't fair? You'd be deluding yourself if you did.

I realize that when considering what is fair vs unfair is perspective based,but the concept of fairness is still something that we consider.

And I'm sure some guy who has his daughter raped might think it perfectly fair to sodomize her rapist with a thorny tree branch before putting a bullet through his skull. People who try to get revenge generally do think their revenge is fair.

You asked only whether revenge could ever be considered justice in modern times - clearly it can be. Whether it should be allowed or not is an entirely different question, one you didn't ask.

how could the man argue that it is fair if the punishment does not fit the crime? One of the many things that works in conjunction is fairness.

[John Dibble]

how could the man argue that it is fair if the punishment does not fit the crime? One of the many things that works in conjunction is fairness.

If he thinks painfully sodomizing and then putting a bullet through the skull of his daughter's rapist fits the crime, he'll think it's perfectly fair to do so. What, do you think that when people try to get revenge they think they're being unfair? Sure, other people might disagree, but that's the whole point - it's subjective.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

If you don't believe revenge can ever be considered a form of justice in modern times, you haven't paid attention to jury findings.

Juries loathe "unfair" revenge, but they'll let a lot of sh**t slide depending on what was done to the person or his family, regardless of what he does to exact revenge.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

how could the man argue that it is fair if the punishment does not fit the crime? One of the many things that works in conjunction is fairness.

If he thinks painfully sodomizing and then putting a bullet through the skull of his daughter's rapist fits the crime, he'll think it's perfectly fair to do so. What, do you think that when people try to get revenge they think they're being unfair? Sure, other people might disagree, but that's the whole point - it's subjective.

do you think it is fair?

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

If you don't believe revenge can ever be considered a form of justice in modern times, you haven't paid attention to jury findings.

Juries loathe "unfair" revenge, but they'll let a lot of sh**t slide depending on what was done to the person or his family, regardless of what he does to exact revenge.

Well I have always viewed our courts as a civil form of revenge, and thus in the most extreme examples I would have to say that our justice system sometimes infringes upon the core principle of justice....which would be "is it a fair ruling, or is it not". The concept of fairness basically raises the question of "did the bad guy get what he deserved?".

[John Dibble]

how could the man argue that it is fair if the punishment does not fit the crime? One of the many things that works in conjunction is fairness.

If he thinks painfully sodomizing and then putting a bullet through the skull of his daughter's rapist fits the crime, he'll think it's perfectly fair to do so. What, do you think that when people try to get revenge they think they're being unfair? Sure, other people might disagree, but that's the whole point - it's subjective.

do you think it is fair?

I can't say I wouldn't be tempted to do the same if I had a daughter and someone raped her, but it's certainly not what I'd consider a civilized system of justice that should be endorsed by any government. But that's not the question you asked, so my personal subjective opinion isn't really relevant to the answers I've given thus far.