Plain and simple logic with no display of any punditry. Marvelous orator. Have watched her speech on Genetic Engineering, it was also delivered very well.

Sara is good speaker. I think this system is still present in all parts of the world even in USA where few days ago a man was sentenced to death by electrification.

my family were subjected to a crime, the consequences of which will stay with us until we die. I have such powerful feelings, ones of personal feelings, that had that person been living in my house at the time of the discovery of the crimes, I could not be held responsible for my actions, even today, 25 years later, due to the terrible outcome. Nevertheless, even at the beginning, I did not believe in retributional justice, rather in rehabilitation. Our prisons in the UK, largely brutalise prisoners: how can that possibly produce a prisoner who can fit back in to society?! I believe there is no will to improve the system because the governments are not prepared to address general poverty and the abuse of the poor via the benefit system and the low paid. Nonetheless we are not supposed to behave like animals, and this is how some prisoners are treated. Take a look at the Norway documentary, and ex con cody you rube channel and it may enlighten. Realistically though, the will to change the barbaric system has to come from a heartfelt feeling, and unfortunately, our governmental system is anything but (with a few good uns in there of course).

RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE IS A SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE BASED ON THE PUNISHMENT OF OFFENDERS RATHER THAN ON REHABILITATION.

SARA YOU ARE REALLY ORIGINAL IN YOUR SPEECH. THIS IS WHAT I FEEL AS A DEBATER.

Retribution only continues the cycle of evil. Society should deal with its own problems and none of us is exempt. I can see why it was necessary in the distant past, because the situation was dire.

A very well argued case

Great speech!

You only get false dichotomy these days - retribution vs restoration. Punishment for the sake of punishment vs rehabilitation of the offender. The concept of restitution has gone out of the window entirely. State invent new crimes and use that to pursue their own goals while right and left argue about whether the "perpetrator" should be killed or given victim's money to rehabilitate them.

Justice for bad people must contain an element of revenge on behalf of the victim. That's not barbaric. It embodies the crucial idea that those that commit evil will suffer evil. Remove this idea, and you remove a cornerstone of morality that every civilization has upheld.

@tuthofty5726

4 жыл бұрын

I agree somewhat but what of the acknowldgement that the perpertatror themselves deserve sympathy and a chance of rehabilitation. I'm interested in the victims perspective on countries that priotize rehabilitation. Are they dissatisfied with it to the point where it effects their happiness? Why do you think retribution plays a part in our justice system?

@tuthofty5726

4 жыл бұрын

I agree with Socrates viewpoint that one cannot truly commit wrong. I think theres a verse in the bible that says those around you are different versions of yourself. That you could've easily been in that position

@spicymeatballs2thespicening

3 жыл бұрын

@@tuthofty5726 whoops, did I just run into a public area and open fire until everyone in my sight either fled or died on the spot, all because I can't cope with mondays? Silly me, at least I didn't "truly commit a wrong"

@tuthofty5726

3 жыл бұрын

@@spicymeatballs2thespicening I think an "act" can be wrong (although I think morality is subjective) just that the person commiting said act doesn't truly know it's wrong otherwise they wouldn't do it. Before somebody commits an act that they later end up regretting, its either due to compulsion, lack of foresight, or a justification in their head etc. that causes it.

@spicymeatballs2thespicening

3 жыл бұрын

@@tuthofty5726 So you're telling me it's impossible for someone to know they're doing something evil and not care, by continuing the act? Since the beginning of civilization, true evil has always stemmed from people who do not care whether their actions are immoral or not.

Wake up...the UK gov sacked David Nutt...time to wake up Oxford with economics...

Disagree when it comes to financial crimes. Financial criminals must repay 100% of their theft or it encourages more financial crimes.

@jennosyde709

2 жыл бұрын

The problem is, this could easily result in reoffending, particularly for those from poor socioeconomic backgrounds. It is ripe for economic inequality and would incentive further financial crimes to cover their former.

@raybod1775

2 жыл бұрын

@@jennosyde709 True, I was thinking of big time thefts that go into hundreds of thousands or more in big time thefts like Madoff.

@jennosyde709

2 жыл бұрын

@@raybod1775 I do think there is a valid argument to be made about reformative justice, however, where even if not financial contribution that said individual is still able to make some sort of contribution back towards the ones that they have harmed. Although it does have to be able to take into account where socioeconomic differences or other forms of system inequalities might come into play.

Sara is wrong about the purpose of a justice system and her restorative justice beliefs shine through. For one, she's only thinking about justice in a large scale society but you can't understand the nature of justice from just looking at large-scale societies even if those are the most common. For example, in a situation of three people on an island where person A hates B but loves C, A murders B but wouldn't ever murder C, there may be no reasonable chance of that crime happening again in this small community, nor might there be any significant amount of victimization for the ones left alive. B doesn't have any amount of satisfaction or dissatisfaction any longer and C might not care all that much. Yet everything in our being convicts us that A deserves punishment. That is the component that Sara must intentionally ignore. Victim satisfaction is a subjective matter that can vary wildly, and some people might just be completely dysfunctional in what amount of victimization they feel. A mentally handicapped person may not have a reasonable sense of the gravity of the crime committed against them or a loved one. So what matters is not victim satisfaction but proportional punishment based on what one deserves.

@falsexgrindx378

2 жыл бұрын

"Everything in our being convicts us that A deserves punishment." Really? Everything in who's being? Your being? My being? Who says so? This sentiment seems more like an emotional reaction than a reasoned moral estimate. Also, by what metric can one objectively determine "what one deserves?" We certainly recognize today, for instance, that "an eye for an eye" is too barbaric a sentence to be issued literally, but even taken as metaphor, how does one determine what punishment is equal to a crime? If examined honestly without cutting corners, determining a "fair" punishment for a crime would necessarily entail having to consider infinite variables (which is obviously impossible), no matter the size of the community or society the crime occurred in. And of course, there's the ever-salient point of "what is the actual utility of punishment?" Deterrence? Sometimes, perhaps, but even granting that, it then follows to ask, how much punishment is enough to deter without it being overkill or needlessly cruel? Does it make the victim feel better? Perhaps, yes, but is that really essential to justice? And If it is essential, are there not other ways to compensate the victim's well-being, without having to resort to kicking anyone else down? Surely, the answer to that question is yes.

@philosopherhobbs

2 жыл бұрын

@@falsexgrindx378 , so you think that in the example I gave, everything is fine? This isn't necessarily an appeal to emotion. Just as everything in us says that one plus one has to equal two and any mathematical model that says otherwise has just gotten things wrong, so goes our intuition about cases like the one I gave. Even if it were an appeal to emotion, that's not a problem given that ethics has always cared about the place emotion plays in ethical thought. Doing nothing to B leaves everyone thinking and feeling as if B has “gotten away with it.” You can say that that's “barbaric” but what's your reason? Why should we not trust such a fundamental intuition about wrong-doing?

@falsexgrindx378

2 жыл бұрын

@@philosopherhobbs 1+1=2 is not just something that "everything in us says" is correct. We can verify that 1+1=2 objectively and impartially. Emotions are inherently temporary and unstable, so making long-term and un-temporary judgement calls (such as jail-time, torture, death penalty, at cetera) based purely on emotion is, at best, irrational and, at worse, deeply immoral. No one us saying that B should suffer no consequences for their actions, but those consequences ought to improve B's future behaviors, fix the damage caused by B, or ideally both. "An eye for an eye" is barbaric because, in the literal sense, it entails forcefully removing the culprit's eye in return for the eye that he removed from the victim. This solution does not fix the damage done by the culprit, but only spreads the same pain to another individual. Hence, it is barbaric and effectively useless.

@philosopherhobbs

2 жыл бұрын

@@falsexgrindx378 , how can you verify that it is necessarily true that 1 + 1 = 2? I don't think you understand the issue here. Our best models that allow us to prove such a sentence are full of claims about sets, modal logic, and more that are individually far more controversial than the initial claim. The temporality of emotions is irrelevant to their epistemic value to ethics. What's sad is that you offer that as a criticism and then give a list of “un-temporary” things ('perpetual' is the word you were looking for) most of which are obviously not perpetual. If you think taking emotions into account is irrational, then say why because I'm not impressed or intimidated by you calling such a view irrational or immoral. Every major ethical thinker from Plato and Aristotle to Hume and Mill has said something of the relevance of emotions to ethics. I haven't even committed myself to the view that our judgment about retributive justice is emotional; you said that. To me, it is probably just an intuition on par with the obviousness of one plus one necessarily equalling two. If you agree that B should suffer some consequences for his/her action, then you've already committed yourself to a form of retributive justice called 'Weak Retributivism'. Go read something like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on retributive justice to get an actual academic perspective on this topic. The view that the consequences should improve B's future behaviors is just question-begging. The proponent of retributive justice believes a proportional punishment is a good in itself. Whether that improves the culprit's future behavior is secondary even if important. In the case I described, the damage B caused to the victim can't be fixed because the victim is dead. B's future behaviors can't be improved either because it's built into the case that B isn't going to do anything in the future to harm B or the other person remaining on the island. So you can't even justify punishing B on your own grounds and must appeal to some form of retributivism or admit that nothing should be done to B. I don't know why you keep bringing up this eye for an eye objection. For someone that held that view, your bald-faced assertion that it's barbaric is just question-begging. To describe something as “barbaric” is to assert something like the thing being done is immorally violent. There is certainly violence being done in removing someone's eye, but why think it's immoral? Your “reason” is that the solution doesn't fix the damage done by the culprit. If that's an objection to the “eye for an eye” view, then it's an objection to every view since the damage done to the victim's eye can't be fixed; certainly it can't be repaired by punishing the culprit. Finally, you're just begging the question yet again by assuming that restorative justice is the right view. Fixing the damage done, making the culprit behave better, and having “useful” consequences are all secondary goals for the retributivist at best. The first is impossible to fully accomplish because some things can't be restored (time, life, destroyed limbs/organs, property with sentimental value, etc.), so it's clearly not required for justice to be done. You pretend to be the one using reason and you try to characterize the retributivist as emotional, irrational, or immoral, but you haven't provided a single reason to think any of these things. Worse, when you do try to provide a reason, you just beg the question.

@falsexgrindx378

2 жыл бұрын

@@philosopherhobbs You seem more concerned with the functionality of ethical systems than you do with the effectiveness they have when applied in reality itself. Let me be more precise about the 1+1=2 example. When I said it was "verifiable," I didn't mean that 1+1=2 is verifiable as an abstract equation (because obviously, an abstract equation is merely a mental construction, and is thus not actually real). What is verifiable however are real world circumstances that the equation is applied to. If I have one stick, and I pair it up with another stick, you can trust your eyes to know that I now hold a total of two sticks. Understand what I meant there now? My issue was not with factoring emotion into a verdict, but rather with basing a verdict *purely* on emotion, which retributive justice is. It caters to an emotional compulsion for vengeance, to the extent that it wastes time and resources and puts people through more unneeded suffering. Do you really view B's rehabilitation as "secondary" to his punishment? Wouldn't it make more sense to prioritize B's rehabilitation (assuming rehabilitation is an option for B), so that B can get back out into society and continue being productive as soon as can be reasonably expected? Back to his friends, family and loved ones, if indeed B has any? That seems to me the more important goal than whether or not he has spent enough years in a box or suffered enough additional misery. Emotions do and should factor to some degree into a verdict, obviously. To say otherwise would be like saying that physical pain shouldn't matter in a verdict. No one is saying that either. However, prioritizing emotion over all other factors, and considering all other consequences as "secondary" is a recipe for cruel and unusual punishment. Yes, no kind of justice will restore the victim's eye, true, but you're missing the point if you think that's a criticism against non-retributive justice. The point is that, while non-retributive justice won't demand further suffering as a means of dealing with the culprit, retributive justice will demand it: it will demand the culprit's eye be removed as well. Again, I must emphasize, this is the definition of barbaric: violent and unnecessary, especially given that there are far more peaceful and useful alternative options. The biggest criticism I've offered (and I'm not sure how you've missed it) is that retribution demands extra suffering that more humane styles of justice do not. Why indulge a form of justice that requires additional, unnecessary violence or deprivation? On an emotional level, I see it as undeniably cruel; and on an intellectual level, I see it as inefficient and wasteful.

wow.i wish the law in the USA See this Is the right way.

I’m going to be told what justice is by a teenage valley girl with little life experience !?! I don’t think so!!

8:16 i think the word you're looking for is "consistent," not "stuck"

Her argument in a nutshell, just on the other side: "Nooo, restorative justice is just your outdated instinct of wanting to see people better off than they were before, therefore restorative justice is obsolete!"

@Catthepunk

8 ай бұрын

Just that her side is based and the reverse is just cringe

Madem animal jadha my look madem poverty no but her who are my belive no my what but massege no but socity back 25 year enginner low all doctor all is knoldge take my family where subject criem madem

A great orator but an incredible naive speech.

@Catthepunk

8 ай бұрын

How?

I'll keep it short. Weak argument👎. On to the next segment

God offers restorative justice through Jesus Christ the Son of God alone Who sacrificed His life on the cross to uphold the demand of the Father’s law that WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO FORGIVENESS OF SINS. Upon God seeing REPENTANCE, and faith in the shed blood of the Son of God, a sinners record can be forgiven and cleansed from all unrighteousness. However, God will not forgive sins, and He will punish sinners in everlasting torment, if they do not repent and believe. The atonement ONLY APPLIES to born again Christians. All others receive the flames of hell who reject the Lord Jesus Christ and His mercy, and rightly so because they REJECT His mercy and continue in their wickedness..

@rationalmartian

5 жыл бұрын

Sounds like quite a ridiculous, superstitious and primitive doctrine to me. Blood cults are also quite repellent. It is no wonder that most christians downplay this aspect and would argue with you about this. They would insist it was merely allegorical or some other excuse to attempt to distance themselves. Remind me again how blood is magical, or how it happens to actually do or accomplish anything? BTW, is this not supposedly all tied to the fall? The Adam and Eve story makes little sense on it's face, simply as a story. However, it is now the Twenty First Century, we KNOW that no such individuals did or could have existed at all, let alone in a magical garden complete with special trees and with a talking snake/serpent included. Really. How on earth do adults manage to convince themselves of such frankly ludicrously silly and juvenile stories. So if we now KNOW no such a thing could have occurred, what fell? How was there a fall, and why would a sacrifice be even required? Let alone it again makes no sense. We know it did not happen. What was the need of Jesus/Yeshua as the sacrifice if there was nothing to atone for originally?

Open ur mouth Fake accent ha ha ha 😁