 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007Justice or punishment?
I keep hearing that Saddam Hussein received justice. Didn't he receive punishment instead and his victims justice? >I keep hearing that Saddam Hussein received justice. > > Didn't he receive punishment instead and his victims justice? Surely you don't believe that his victims received justice? >>I keep hearing that Saddam Hussein received justice. >> >> Didn't he receive punishment instead and his victims justice? > >Surely you don't believe that his victims received justice? I think the idea is that justice was done to his victims by Saddam's trial and punishment. The word "justice" has a variety of related meanings.  SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > >>I keep hearing that Saddam Hussein received justice. > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I think the idea is that justice was done to his victims by Saddam's > trial and punishment. ... except that it wasn't. He was never tried for most of the crimes he was accused of (including the ones that had the most victims). athel > > I think the idea is that justice was done to his victims by Saddam's > > trial and punishment. > ... except that it wasn't. He was never tried for most of the crimes he > was accused of (including the ones that had the most victims). This truth appears to allude to a difference of style between English and American criminal law, which English lawyer (and judge) Norman Birkett expounded after his experience as a reserve judge at the Nuremburg International Tribunal 1945-46. Where capital crimes were concerned, the usual English method was to focus the prosecution on the single best case. This usually produced a conviction, so the criminal received the maximum penalty for one crime, and after his death the others could be posthumously ascribed to him as well. By contrast (Birkett said about the Nazi trials) the American method was over-anxious to pile up all possible evidence about all possible crimes -- which Birkett denounced as practically unnecessary and exposing the prosecution to extra risk of successful rebuttal (cf. Goering's victories in debate with US prosecutor Robert Jackson.) In Saddam Hussein's case, it looks as if the Iraqi prosecution followed the English style: they focussed attention on one particular capital crime -- and thus secured a conviction and the maximum penalty, which could not have been exceeded even if there had been convictions for other crimes as well. You see a similar difference in sentencing. British courts may sentence convicted men to lifelong terms or very long terms of imprisonment (spy George Blake was sentenced to 40 years.) They do not (like US courts) sentence people to impossible terms, e.g. life plus 150 years. The difference amply sustains earlier posts that "justice" is found in several distinct varieties. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >British courts may sentence convicted men to lifelong terms or very >long terms of imprisonment (spy George Blake was sentenced to 40 >years.) My understanding (mostly from reading The Magistrate's Blog) is that British courts do not have the option of a true life sentence; what is called a life term isn't really. >They do not (like US courts) sentence people to impossible terms, >e.g. life plus 150 years. Such a term is not impossible if the life sentence carries the possibility of parole. Even when it doesn't, the 150 years may be for a separate count in the complaint (or indictment) which could still stand even if the life sentence were overturned. Belt and suspenders to keep the bad guys in jail. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness wollman@csail.mit.edu had it: > >British courts may sentence convicted men to lifelong terms or very > >long terms of imprisonment (spy George Blake was sentenced to 40 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > British courts do not have the option of a true life sentence; what is > called a life term isn't really. Magistrates don't, but judges do. When sentencing somebody to "life", the judge will allocate a "tariff" which is the length of time which must be served in prison before the prisoner may apply for release under licence. These tariffs are calculated according to guidelines - the judge has some discretion but not a great deal. The longest tariff is "whole of life" which means no option for parole. But in one sense, "life" is the right name - a life sentence never leaves a person. If he commits a further crime at any time while out on licence (for the rest of his life) he can be recalled to continue serving the life sentence. SignatureDavid ===== Nope. Gravity under Vista got worse. Back to XP. > > > I think the idea is that justice was done to his victims by Saddam's > > > trial and punishment. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > were concerned, the usual English method was to focus > the prosecution on the single best case. ... Very interesting and helpful posting. I was vaguely aware of most of what you say, but it is useful to see it set out coherently. a. > > > I think the idea is that justice was done to his victims by Saddam's > > > trial and punishment. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > penalty for one crime, and after his death the others could > be posthumously ascribed to him as well. This seems likely however there is that fact that it is highly unlikely that the USA would want to see him tried for many of the worst autrocities since he would likely be testifiying about US support for gas warfare, etc. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ John Kane, Kingston ON Canada >>>>I think the idea is that justice was done to his victims by Saddam's >>>>trial and punishment. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > autrocities since he would likely be testifiying about US support for > gas warfare, etc. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ Yup, the list of unindicted co-conspirators was an embarassment. --Jeff SignatureThe shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same. --Stendhal The athel...@yahoo entity posted thusly: >> >>I keep hearing that Saddam Hussein received justice. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >... except that it wasn't. He was never tried for most of the crimes he >was accused of (including the ones that had the most victims). What does that matter? All it took was one victim to be specifically named. All his victims, named or not had justice done. > The athel...@yahoo entity posted thusly: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > What does that matter? All it took was one victim to be specifically > named. All his victims, named or not had justice done. Maybe it doesn't matter all that much to you or me, but it matters a lot to many of his Kurdish victims. a. The athel...@yahoo entity posted thusly: >> The athel...@yahoo entity posted thusly: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Maybe it doesn't matter all that much to you or me, but it matters a >lot to many of his Kurdish victims. Depends entirely on the person, I suppose. Personally, I think I would be satisfied that the bastard paid for his crimes, named or unnamed. > >>I keep hearing that Saddam Hussein received justice. > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I think the idea is that justice was done to his victims by Saddam's > trial and punishment. I don't think so. Bush's victims will never receive this kind of "justice" but I can't see how Saddam's came off better in any respect. I don't think they'll care that they were killed by the less mighty swine. Someone posted: > > I think the idea is that justice was done to his victims by Saddam's > > trial and punishment. > I don't think so. Bush's victims will never receive this > kind of "justice" but I can't see how Saddam's came > off better in any respect. I don't think they'll care > that they were killed by the less mighty swine. I don't know about German law but the concept of "justice for the victim of crime" is brand new in English law i.e. 20 or 30 years old in a system with a 500-year cumulative history. English law used to focus on (1) preservation of the king's peace, order, safety, etc. (2) just deserts for the criminal (whether burning at the stake or a day's community service, according to the tariff availabe for each conviction.) Before approx. 1970 I doubt that the shopkeeper who had been robbed or the family of someone murdered ever believed they had a personal claim to "justice" even after someone had been undoubtedly convicted of the crime. But "the system" allows people to say what they want, and to redefine "justice," which it appears is still being negotiated. This bears on the English tradition of trying only one capital crime, even when several are known. The multiple murderer could not be hanged multiple times. But if (a) he is not going to be hanged and (b) families or victims are recognised to have a claim on the criminal courts for "justice" this may change the way British prosecutors try multiple crimes. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >I don't know about German law but the concept of >"justice for the victim of crime" is brand new in English >law i.e. 20 or 30 years old in a system with a 500-year >cumulative history. The tradition in the common law is that crimes are offenses against the state (as represented by the Crown in monarchies); offenses against individuals are a private matter heard in the civil courts. This is why many crimes that have specific victims also have some parallel cause for action in civil law (e.g., theft || conversion, homicide || wrongful death, etc.); if the victims desire personal justice, they are free to pursue it in civil court. This offers cold comfort to victims today, since most criminals have few assets and would not be able to pay a civil judgment or even attorney's fees. Left with no meaningful remedy in the civil courts, it is not surprising that victims of crime look to the criminal-justice system. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness [ ... ] > The tradition in the common law is that crimes are offenses against > the state (as represented by the Crown in monarchies); offenses [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it is not surprising that victims of crime look to the > criminal-justice system. A decade or so ago a movement arose in the US to establish funds from which victims of crimes could be compensated (by analogy, I assume, to uninsured motorists funds). I haven't kept up, and I have no idea whether such plans worked (or still work), let alone how well. It makes sense in the abstract: Having failed to maintain order, the state should compensate the victims of their failure. But the practical problem remains: Where does the money come from? SignatureBob Lieblich Cutting taxes is no way to generate funds to pay victims of crime [...] > > This offers cold comfort to victims today, since most criminals have > > few assets and would not be able to pay a civil judgment or even [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > state should compensate the victims of their failure. But the > practical problem remains: Where does the money come from? There's a Criminal Injuries Compensation system in Britain. It's funded from taxes, but I assume the Court pursues the culprit if he isn't a man of straw. The Authority's website is: https://www.cica.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=115,1&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL or http://preview.tinyurl.com/exlra The sums paid seem to be smaller than might be awarded in civil proceedings: it's no more than a safety net. My son, it happens, received an award for the loss of two incisors in a random attack about five years ago. We had to produce photographic evidence (grimly hilarious: the photographer took his job seriously) and, IIRC, an estimate from a dentist, but there was otherwise little formality. SignatureMike. >A decade or so ago a movement arose in the US to establish funds from >which victims of crimes could be compensated (by analogy, I assume, to >uninsured motorists funds). Florida has such a plan. http://myfloridalegal.com/victims >I haven't kept up, and I have no idea >whether such plans worked (or still work), let alone how well. I filed a police report of some vandalism to my property some time ago, and received a notice from the state that I could file for compensation from this fund. I didn't file, so I don't know more than that there is a fund. >It >makes sense in the abstract: Having failed to maintain order, the >state should compensate the victims of their failure. But the >practical problem remains: Where does the money come from? From the taxpayers, Bob. Where else? SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >> A decade or so ago a movement arose in the US to establish funds from >> which victims of crimes could be compensated (by analogy, I assume, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > From the taxpayers, Bob. Where else? California also has such a fund. http://www.vcgcb.ca.gov/Victims.htm SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.