Illarion.org

Ellaron wrote:
Dyluck, when you wrote :

-someone commits a crime against you, and you go judge and execute that person by yourself without needing to prove his crime, despite the fact that you're totally biased since you're the victim, and you consider that 'Right'?

You missed the point that a victim of a crime has more proof than almost anybody else, other than the criminal. If one is the victim of the crime, judges it punishable by death and is able to carry out the sentence, then perhaps it is more right than someone who has to decide on the case based solely on the words of others.

You say that based on the fact that you've already passed judgement that the "accuser" is indeed the victim and the "accused" is indeed the offender. If this were true, then you've already single handedly solved every dispute in the world.

Ellaron wrote:

If someone commits a crime against me and I'm not strong enough to get revenge, it's ok to get my own biased friends to help me? Yet it's wrong to ask Lyrenzia to help me? It's ok to do justice for your friends, but it's wrong to do justice for an innocent victim?

In this case a persons friends will judge the victim and know if he's honourable enough to tell the truth. Granted there will be mistakes but I'm sure the foundation will not be entirely free of them.

Being biased isn't the same thing as being right.
What are you advocating?

Well Dyluck......Lyrenzia is just trying to make it look like something is being done. If Lyrenzia is doing the same thing everybody else is doing then why have it? Quite confusing....

Who is more likely to be able to carry more logs of wood? One person or a hundred?

Do you think a criminal is more likely to get his due punishment if one person thinks he's guilty or if a hundred people, of which many are respectable names, thinks he is guilty?

I agree with you all. We should do..that..? I guess the problem is solved. We can all stop talking about it now. Randelf nods.
______________
Randelf Ironshield
Owner of the Silverbrand Brewery

I'm glad to see you haven't changed in my absence Dyluck.

Ellaron smiles to himself and continues writing.

you wrote:

-someone commits a crime against you, and you go judge and execute that person by yourself without needing to prove his crime, despite the fact that you're totally biased since you're the victim, and you consider that 'Right'?

I took this to mean that a person, "the criminal", commits a crime against another person, "the victim". The victim then judges the criminal and executes him. You then argue that the victim does this without proof. My argument was that no one in that situation, with the exception of the criminal, has more proof than the victim since the victim is actually there when the crime happens and knows, by experience, what happened. All seems alright up till this point. Then you reply by saying:

You say that based on the fact that you've already passed judgement that the "accuser" is indeed the victim and the "accused" is indeed the offender. If this were true, then you've already single handedly solved every dispute in the world.

I have passed judgement on no one. In your own example the victim is the victim. As to the fact that the accused is the offender you at least have a point. If the victim did not see the criminal in the act then he obviously cannot be totally sure. By the same argument your courts will always be wrong unless the judges actually witness the crime being commited themselves. My point stands.

Your last point leaves me confused. I am not saying being biased makes you right. If I have even hinted at that I am sorry as it is not a view I hold. Just as being unbiased doesn't make you right.

You wrote that a victim unable to perform the act of justice, vengance, retribution, whatever you would like to call it, calling on biased friends would be wrong. My point was that the friends would know the victim and be able to "judge" for themselves if he was likely to be telling the truth. I admitted it wasn't a perfect situation. Consider the foundation in action in the same circumstances. A victim the judges don't know, suffers a crime the judges didn't witness, by a criminal they dont know. Do you now see my point? I am not saying your legal system should be scrapped, in fact if you look closely I even complimented it. I am saying that you should be aware of it's limitations. The old system was far from perfect your system is a tiny step closer.

Fine, then what I should have said is "you claim that someone commits a supposed crime against you..."
Sure if the crime really happened, then the victim might have more proof than a third party person, but that would already assume judgment on the case. When I say proving it, I consider it to be a justification by society, which wasn't even possible because our society is so fragmented and it's population poorly defined.

I didn't say our system is more justified than everyone administering their own justice. I said it is just as justified as the old system.

I made a series of questions to argue that our method is just as justified as the old, and you come in here and only say why the old method is justified and supposedly more so than ours, so what are you advocating then? If I'm arguing that both systems are the similarly justified, and you come in here and just talk about how both have the same flaws, then why do you quote me when I never said they didn't?

Dyluck I'm not entirely sure who your reply is directed at so I will assume some, at least, was meant for me.

We can't argue over what you meant to write only what you wrote. My point made on what you wrote stands.

Your last point might not of been aimed at me but I have an opinion, strangely enough.
If you read my writings you will see I actually wrote :

The old system was far from perfect your system is a tiny step closer.

I thought the meaning was clear but perhaps I was wrong. That is my fault for not being clear and I apologize. The old system was not perfect in anyones view. The foundations system is not perfect either but is closer to perfection, by a tiny step, than the old one. If I am still being unclear I am saying the foundations system is slightly better than the old system.[/u]

Ellaron wrote:If one is the victim of the crime, judges it punishable by death and is able to carry out the sentence, then perhaps it is more right than someone who has to decide on the case based solely on the words of others.

Ellaron wrote:If I am still being unclear I am saying the foundations system is slightly better than the old system

This had me confused on your stance, but you say it is the latter, which is of course fine with me.

But my point is, I don't understand why you quote me and reply that both systems have the same flaws when I was already arguing that both systems were the same. I don't understand why you only justify helping friends as an answer to my multi-question quote if you're advocating that our system is slightly better.

Dyluck wrote:If someone commits a crime against me and I'm not strong enough to get revenge, it's ok to get my own biased friends to help me? Yet it's wrong to ask Lyrenzia to help me? It's ok to do justice for your friends, but it's wrong to do justice for an innocent victim?

I do not think that discussing the faults of this system will do any good for the trial, or for the accused. Perhaps if ye could carry it on elsewhere.

Brendan Mason unwraps a roll and waits for the trial to progress

Since all charges have been withdrawn, the first Judicial Trial of the Lyrenzia Foundation is hereby closed.

Dyluck I'm glad some of the confusion is getting cleared up. If we're not carefull we'll end up agreeing on something.

Ellaron smiles and hopes the jest is seen as just a jest.

The two quotes you used were not in oposition to each other as far as I see, based on what you wrote at the time. A situation where a victim of crime, who knows who the criminal is, is able to punnish the criminal, will be fairer than a trial. Why? Because the victim was there, saw what was done and who did it. A trial will be mainly hearsay and little proof if any. I did add the exception that both systems are equal if the victim did not see the criminal commit the crime.

Both systems have similar flaws as well as dissimilar ones. I don't only justify helping friends. I was making the point that your friends are more able to judge if you are telling the truth than some one who has never met you. If I went to the foundation for justice many, if not all, of the judges would not know me personally and therefore not be sure if I were being honest. In that way the old system has a slight advantage.

In a case where no friends were able to come to a persons aid then the unbiased justice of the foundation would be better.