How invested are you in the notion of justice, as in punishing people for doing wrong? Consider somebody really really awful, or who at least serves as a Jungian Shadow figure for a lot of people. Say, Osama bin Laden. Or you could reach back into the past and pick Saddam Hussein, or Augusto Pinochet or Slobodan Milosveic or anybody or group of people who caused enormous pain and suffering. Everybody's got at least one or two. Now, here are your choices:

(1) Evil person or group of people continue on doing what they're doing for a number of years while we (aka "the good guys") continue our struggle against them. The good guys spend a lot of resources trying to chase down the Evildoers in a military way. Sooner or later, after more loss of life all around, and after much expenditure of resources, evil person or group of people is caught, brought to trial, and accorded his just deserts.

(2) Next week, evil person or group of people is simply removed from the scene, but without any adverse personal consequences to themselves. However--and don't argue with me about this, because I'm the king of my own hypothetical world--the harm they do stops immediately, and they don't do anything similar in the future. He/she/they are no longer in charge of anything, no longer engage in their nefarious activities. Maybe they were bought off with a couple of zillion dollars, or were given an earthly harem of 72 virgins, or whatever. They disappear into private life to enjoy the rest of their lives in freedom and prosperity, and die happily in bed. So if those were the choices, which do you pick?

For myself, I'd take option (2) in a heartbeat. I wasn't always like this, but as I grow older my impulse toward revenge and punishment (aka "justice") is more and more often outweighed by a practical and (to my mind) more useful desire simply to have harm and suffering stop.

As an example, in my better moments I don't think it's all that important that as an outcome in and of itself Osama bin Laden is "brought to justice." It's enormously important, however, that he be stopped from his acdtivities that result in harm and suffering for others. If he (or Evildoer of your choice) goes scot-free, and in return it would save tens of thousands of lives and injuries and blighted lives, then that's an easy tradeoff to make, at least for me. Note that this doesn't mean I don't feel outrage, or that I don't want malefactors punished. But somehow those impulses have become secondary to just getting things fixed up.

Now, let me try to pre-empt a particular type of objection/argument. I know that there are practical reasons one could adduce to justify why it would be better to (for instance) undertake a carpetbombing campagin against northern Pakistan until we find that snorking bastard bin Laden--that he is an important symbol and thus his capture/death would deal an important blow to the Islamic fundamentalist movement, that he might have information we could use, etc., etc. And these all have some merit, to different degrees. However, I tried to construct the hypothetical example to exclude such considerations, because the point here is about the extent to which people are attached to the idea of retributive justice, so if possible, let's try to stick to that. (Besides, I also know that a lot of people who really are VERY attached to the idea of retributive justice will also adduce those same good and very practical reasons to justify it.)

I think that you miss the point of justice, which you link to revenge and punishment.

Justice is not about revenge. If it were, we would let he family of a murdered person torture the murderer to death or some such, but we don't.

Justice is about, well, being just. It is about being fair and treating everyone equally. It is about making sure that no-one gets special treatment or worse treatment for arbitrary reasons. It is about making sure the law applies equally to everyone and that everyone gets the same chance to defend themselves and respond to accusations.

If you look at any of the people that you mention, the rational ones anyway, you can follow their greivance back to an instance where they felt they or someone else was treated unfairly. In many instances, you could do better to solve their problems by working with them to come to a just and fair solution.

Now I will admit that there are some instances where the person is not rational due to either personality defects or the poison of ideology. In those cases, neither your solution nor mine will work.

If you really want to stave off harm, you should work towards fair and impartial justice and the abolute rule of law. Even for the people that you consider "evil".

I want all your money, and the a nice thank you card each year on the anniversary of my act of life giving non-violent benevolence.

Oh darn you qualified it with conditions and scenarios. I was all ready for dragging and charring entrails while still alive in a very public forum like a spectator sport. Perhaps the new Super bowl half time show.

About that Marxism... };>~

Trial and punishment is not about retribution. There are a number of factors which I think you miss:

1) A trial serves as a day or reckoning as relates to the crimes. It creates an acknowledged record of facts surrounding what happened. Not bringing someone to trial removes that element of the justice system and fails to create an official record of fact.

2) Now, as to punishment, there are two factors. In most cases, punishment should be seen as a necessary first step towards rehabilitation. However, where this is absent because the scope of crime is great enough we don't want to risk letting someone out again, then it serves to remove the individual from society permanently (life in prison without parole or death penalty-- I find the latter to be more humane).

The second consideration in punishment is that it is an aspect of society-wide reaffirmation as to the rule of law-- that we are a society which is ruled by our ideals as enshrined in our laws, not by those who hold public office.

So, suppose instead of bringing someone that the present administration holds to be a dangerous criminal to trial, suppose we simply detain them in good quarters, but restrict them to military bases. Suppose we give them opportunities to make money, and give them otherwise most things associated with free life. In this case, we have drastically undermined our ideals of a Free republic, an set in place the infrastructure for tyrany. Without trial, there is no reckoning of facts, and hence there is no opportunity for the accused to assert legal protections.

You might find the Supreme Court opinions on Habeas Corpus released today to be of interest.

Going rate for a professional hit is about $10,000 for a "soft target" without security.

Sorry, but you're out of luck on that one. The deal is that you only get to walk away for the crimes you've already committed.

tsedek:

Going rate for a professional hit is about $10,000 for a "soft target" without security.

And, uh, you know this...how?

You said you would be willing to pay zillions to prevent future violence. If I kill your family, will you then pay me not to kill you? You have to show how your system prevents blackmail.

Fair enough. I will cheerfully concede that retributive justice has value and use. However, the point of my original post was to try to look at it in more abstract moral terms in relation to the costs involved. The thing is, a lot of people value retributive justice in and of itself as a moral value, and for the satisfaction it affords them, above and beyond any of its practical uses. I'm trying to get a handle on how far people are willing to go in this regard--or at least how far they ADMIT they are willing to go.

As for those Gitmo prisoners, don't get me started. Chances that the SC decision will be of use to them are roughly zero as long as the current administration is in place. Given their cynical manipulation of the rule of law to serve any end, the principle involved really ought to be renamed "Maybeas Corpus."

'Scuse me, it's not a "system" or a "proposal." It was intended (with little success, obviously) as a hypothetical moral riddle posed in order to figure out what people's values are. My point is that somewhere along the line it becomes more useful to put a stop to ongoing evil and suffering even if it means that bad guys have to be turned loose without punishment or other adverse consequences. The question is, where? I'm not suggesting this is an easy question or that there is a single answer. If these judgments were always easy or didn't require tradeoffs, the questions would be of no interest.

I gave my own answer in the interest of fairness, but now I rather wish I had not, since people find it more interesting to challenge that than to address the question themselves.

Scenario two has been attempted and flubbed many times. Idi Amin (sp) comes to mind. Perhaps it is in who is implementing it? The Mossad seems to have been mroe successful with the practice.

Scenario one is what happened with Saddam Hussein. Was it worth it, no. You certainly can't have choice C - not get involved in the first place if it boils over into your own territory.

Hmmmm. I need more sex and chocoalte to contemplate this.

So how does this apply to George W. Bush (who I want to see shooting baskets in a prison yard with Secret Service guards in attendence)? Would his prosecution prevent other Presidents from committing equally henious crimes?

Heleva:

Hmmmm. I need more sex and chocoalte to contemplate this.

I may, too, given the general tenor of the responses. Though really, it's not like an excuse is needed for sex and chocolate. Most especially when they are to be enjoyed simultaneously. (Waggle eyebrows and leer.)

I may like your form of Marxism...Just remember I respond to deep philisophical thought better when comepletely sated.

Just keep reminding me that my travel season ends the end of July.