Justice vs Lawless Legalese: Retributive Justice vs Restorative Justice
- Dr. Floyd
- Summary: none yet, summary suggestions welcomed and appreciated
- Tags: none yet, tag suggestions welcomed and appreciated
In New York 2022, Lauren Pazienza murdered 87-year-old Barbara Gustern. The murderer assaulted the elder with a shove. The elder fell, hit her head, and died. However, in 2023, instead of a conviction for murder, our corrupt U.S. legal system gifted the murderer a reduced conviction of "manslaughter." Manslaughter is legalese that simply means mitigated murder: a murderer killed someone -- but the circumstances of the killing are supposedly not too bad, and so the court -- either a judge or jury -- reduces the killing from murder to manslaughter. Thus, manslaughter is a degenerate legal travesty because manslaughter lets a court mitigate murder by mind-reading the murderer and deciding, based on that mind-reading, to take pity on the murderer.
Minimal Standard for Legitimate Law: Justice for Victims of Violent Crime
To say the least, law is legitimate only when it secures justice for the victims of violent crimes, and for their loved ones. One way to secure such justice in criminal law, apropos of Lauren Paienza's murder of Barbara Gustern, would be to hold a violent criminal to the eggshell skull standard of tort law -- where a lawbreaker is liable for their victim, as the victim is. To assault and batter an 87-year old woman and thus cause her death: justice requires that such a criminal be fully culpable for the consequences of the criminal act. This is the legal standard of legitimate justice.
Opponents of Justice Call for the Injustice of So-called "Restorative Justice"
Meanwhile, opponents of justice call this legal standard "retributive justice," that is, justice based on retribution. Opponents of so-called retributive justice typically mean the term "retributive justice" as a legalese insult and use the term as an effort to outlaw justice by persuading people of the hysterical myth that retribution as justice is only cruelty.
Degenerate anti-justice activists prefer the non-justice standard that they euphemize as "restorative justice." However, so-called restorative justice is simply injustice: it focuses on "restoring" the murderer (or other offender) -- at the direct expense of justice for the the victim(s). Thus, so-called retributive justice is always at odds with so-called restorative justice: so-called retributive justice is justice by focusing on help for the victim; so-called restorative justice is -- injustice -- by focusing on help for the murderer (or other offender), at the expense of justice for the victim(s).
Conclusion: Necessity of Justice is so Obvious That Even Mormons Notice
Raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons), I often heard church leaders repeat the refrain that "mercy cannot rob justice." Thus, this principle of justice is so obvious that it can be easily understood even by Mormons -- who are all degenerate racists. Meanwhile, so-called restorative justice is not mercy -- and certainly not justice: so-called restorative justice is, again, a degenerate legal travesty, whereby a court -- either the judge or jury -- violates justice by focusing on the murder (or other offender), at the direct destruction of justice for the victim and their loved ones.
–Dr. Floyd