Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
There's a very clear difference between a "safe" system and a
"just" system. It would be illogical to use the fact that we have a
relatively safe system to justify the fact that we do not have a
just one.
i don't disagree, but "safe" for whom, and "just" for whom?
that's my issue... "safe" for criminals isn't safe for law-abiding
citizens, and "just" for a crook that got away with a technicality
isn't "just" to the victims.
And of course, if we do not have a just system, what do we have
in the end? What's to stop them for throwing a ton of vaguely
justified policies or destroying you via litigation in the name of
the law?
that IS possible, and indeed, it has been done. but i don't
think the death penalty was ever an issue in all this.
While I may not have come into brush with our country's human
rights violations, I dare you to say that we have a system that's
even vaguely commited towards prociding equality, fairness and
justice to their political opponents, let alone their people.
we have a long way to go in promoting political plurality, but i
do believe that as far as criminal justice is concerned, the
interests of the people, in terms of equality, fairness and justice
DO come first.
Of course, we could easily say that such total control is
acceptable if security is what this way of rule gives us, ... they
both have virtually absolute control and are free to implement
their will.
and again, though i'm no pro-gov't stooge, i don't see how we
can accuse anyone of something that they have not done. thats not
"fair", or "just" now is it?
in defamation suits, yes. with regards to political opponents, yes.
the govt ought to be ashamed but in criminal cases? is there a
precedent?
Justice is not arbitary, it is a basic right to all human
beings, deny that and you can JUSTify anything.
i'm not advocating arbitrary justice. i'm advocating strictly
enforced, no-nonsense justice.
do human beings have any intrinsic rights inalienable to them other
than their core bodily functions? all other so called "rights" are
socially constructed. i don't think its helpful to see justice in
terms of 'human rights'. it is more in terms of institutions, which
grants those rights and at the same time, enforces the rules
against those who do not respect these rights.
while i agree that it is important that checks must exist in these
institutions to ensure that such rights are uphelp, i don't see it
in the extreme light that u do because i do not see it in terms of
a narrow pillar that everything rests on. its not just about
rights.
in theory, with the current monopoly on power, the gov't can pretty
much do anything and everything it wants... but it can't... because
various interests have to be balanced, a sense of stability and
normalcy has to be maintained and foreign perceptions have to be
managed. a big wayang? but of course. what isn't?
hitler could pull it off not because he disregarded "justice", but
because he disregarded institutionalised procedures. emergency law
allowed him to do everything. sh|t-happens when institutions are
bypassed, corrupted, or collapsed.
can we picture that for Sg? in terms of policies, yes. in terms of
criminal justice? no, i don't think so.
