America's Image Abroad

[Closet Desire]

R.I.P.?

Maybe it's time for this thread to die a peaceful death, but I want to pose a question for anyone to answer as rationally and objectively as possible. So I don't single anybody out I'll take two cases from opposite sides of the Atlantic which are sensational enough that everybody probably knows something about it.

Several years ago, in England, two young boys (12-14? I don't recall exactly) were videotaped taking a young toddler out of a shopping mall and out to some railroad tracks where they brutally bludgeoned him to death. I think the parents of the victim expected the boys to remain prison/detention the rest of their lives. The higher courts, including Brussells, disagreed and ordered that they must be freed on their 21st birthdays. It caused an incredible controversy. As some extra factors to consider, you are considered old enough to consent to sex at 16, drink alcohol at 18, and leave school to work at 16 in England.

Very recently, in Florida, a 12 year old boy killed a 6 year old girl while, he claims, demonstrating wrestling moves. He was certified as an adult, tried as an adult, and sentenced as an adult to serve life in prison without any chance of parole. As most of you know, few first time murderers in the US are sentenced without the possibility of parole unless it was pre-meditated. Governor Jeb Bush has denied clemency for the boy, now 14, citing that his behaviour while in prison isn't good enough to consider leniency. As some extra factor so consider, the age of consent for sex in Florida is 18, the age to buy alcohol is 21, and the age to leave school is 18.

Now...how do you decide which legal system in terms of these spectacular cases was fairer? What criteria do you use? Who decides? Me? I'm staying out of this one...just want to hear some opinions.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

They were both fair to their particular culture.
Neither would work for the other and again we compare apples and oranges. When I go abroad, south and west, people love me and my country. I find it difficult to find people who dislike me because I am american and I have not a single chinese freind that has not begged, cajoled, pleaded for me to sponser this that or the other relative or family member,

and that gets us back to the original point.

Maybe the foreign media paints us badly,

but every culture is beginning to see the media for the manipulative beast that it is, even in "free" America.

 

[Closet Desire]

There is another side...

...to the media. It does feed what the general public wants to see. Don Henley called it "dirty laundry" and the popularity of certain shows like "The weakest link", "big brother", "Jerry Springer", and a host of others seems to reinforce this. They don't call it a news show for nothing. When the Chinese announcers reported on the collision between the US and the Chinese fighter, they told the "public" what they knew they wanted to hear. It is sort of a which came first...the chicken or the egg?

I'll keep my word and remain mum on the "fairness" question.

 

[Problem Child]

Re: Problem Child

I hate to disappoint you but your arguments aren't even worth the effort of a reply.

Awww....how will I find the courage to go on living?

sheesh.

 

[Texan]

a couple of thoughts

Fairness and justice are totally different things.

Fairness can easily be defined by that 3000-year-old saying "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" or "let the punishment fit the crime".

Justice is much more complex. Justice assumes the existence of an authority. That authority might come into its position through election, coup, birth or tradition depending on the governmental system. The authority assigns (or assumes upon itself) the functions of making laws, establishing penalties for breaking those laws, and the enforcement of the laws. The laws may or may not be fair, but they are still the law under a system of justice.

The authority could establish a law that prohibits "singing in public", (not a bad idea considering my singing abilities). The penalty for violation of that law could be "life in prison" or worse. If someone were to then break the law and be caught and sentenced to life in prison, it would be COMPLETELY JUST. It might not be fair, but it would be just.

This misunderstanding of what justice really is, contributes to the feelings in every country that their system of justice is better than all others. (mentioned by someone earlier in this thread) Each of us learns to live our lives within the constraints imposed upon us by the laws of our own country. We then measure the crimes and punishments of other legal systems against the "norms" of our own.

The American legal system of trials and appeals is very slow when compared with most other countries (the McVeigh case for example). Some would not see this as "fair" to the victims of the crimes or their families. It may not be "fair" but it is "just".

 

[lavender]

 

[Texan]

lavender.. I'm truely impressed

I had no idea there was anyone on this board that had any idea of different theories of justice. I love to read Locke and Rawls on distributive justice, as it relates to ownership, property rights and acquisitions. Or the criticisms of Noziak concerning the rights of the poor to the production of the wealthy. I also enjoy reading Zehr's comparative models on restorative vs. retributive justice in the criminal justice system.

For me, it's just a mental exercise. I have no career or professional interest in the subjects. In my earlier posts, I was just trying to make the point that the word "fairness" doesn't really belong in discussions of justice systems. This comment was in the context of CD's questions about the differing punishments handed out by courts in England and in the U.S.

Deep down inside, I'm actually Borkean in my beliefs in "Natural Law" and I favor the ideas of John Locke about the value of "tradition" in the establishment of laws.

Now, I feel like I've bared my "philosophical soul".

 

[lavender]

Hey we Texas chicas have brains on occasion

 

[Closet Desire]

I'm fascinated...

...except for reading some of the works that you've mentioned from a liberal arts slant, I've never studied law (oh...I know how to take bad debts to court and read/write contracts, but that's it). It's enlightening to know that law, like my "profession" has its cannon of intellects and philosphers under the surface and that the opinions we hear from people learned in law have a real tradition and foundation. As you noticed I was only grasping at a vague notion that systems are different, but viewed as fair and/or just by those who live within them (sort of like people who consider blood pudding edible or the heads of finches in brandy a delicacy).

Thanks for commenting...yep...still mum.

Problem child...nothing personal...just said I wouldn't reply to your "argument". I think you'll live to rant another day. By the way, McVeigh didn't get a mistrial, waived his appeal, and will be killed on Monday by the "state".

 

[lavender]

 

[p_p_man]

echelon

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/process/echelon.htm

I'm not sure how accurate the article in the Christian Monitor is.

Echelon is a listening post (e-mails, faxes etc) for members of the UKUSA system.

The five agencies in the system are Canada, UK, New Zealand, Australia and USA.

I can't see how it can be used against the EU and in turn the EU can't find any information on it if one of the member states (UK) is also one of the 5 agencies running Echelon. I've posted another link which gives more of an accurate pictue.

As I've understood Echelon (and I posted about it a couple of weeks ago the USA provides the satellite system and the UK provides the actual listening system (at Fylingdales, Yorkshire).

Two weeks ago it was headline news in the UK but suddenly disappeared from our screens and newspapers. I'm not suggesting anything sinister (after all we had other news like the General Election to concentrate on) but I did find it curious at the time.

 

[lavender]

 

[p_p_man]

It was...

...Problem Child's fault. Got me all riled up...!

 

[Ally C]

The Mirror crack'd?

I came across the folowing article from a British newspaper I found at work, and it reminded me of this thread. It's from a newspaper called "The Mirror" (Friday, June 15, 2001).

-------------------------------------

"George Dubya Bush continued his triumphal tour of Europe yesterday, a disgrace to his countrymen and an embarrassment to a civilised continent.
It must be very bewildering for the man. He has visited so many new countries, many with names he can't remember or pronounce.
He got the Spanish Prime Minister's name wrong, and he thinks the Secretary-General of NATO is Lord Robinson.
But that doesn't stop him lecturing the European Union on the absolute right of the United States to pollute the rest of the world in the pursuit of profit.
Not to mention the Pentagon's unfettered freedom to put the world peace at risk by engaging in its Son of Star Wars programme.
Readers may recall that I predicted a Bush win in the presidential election last autumn, because he is an ideal to which so many Americans aspire: rich and powerful, without giving up any of his stupidity.
But Dubya is good for one thing. He has woken up the people of Europe to the fact that the USA is a military, economic and cultural imperialist superpower.

[...]

Dubya's abuse of this monstrous power has compelled people to think about our relationship with the United States.
Nobody really minds if the Americans go around killing each other in their own country. It's their house and they can defile it to their heart's content."

------------------------------------------------

There was lots more of the same, but I'm sure y'all get the picture. This is only one newspaper's view, which I don't share. Just thought it would give you lot on the other side of the pond some perspective, as it's always interesting to come across reportage from a source which you may not be aware of, but which many others elsewhere are. Another newspaper yesterday (I forget which one) backed America no end (and heavily attacked the French). There always has to be a 'bad guy' it seems. I wonder what our US friends make of the above article? It certainly gives one answer to the thread question which has already been touched on in this thread. The reason I brought all of this back up was to offer a 'bigger story' than the individual ideas of various posters.

 

[p_p_man]

No change there then...

As posted by Ally C...

"Another newspaper yesterday (I forget which one) backed America no end (and heavily attacked the French)."