Poll About Your Idea Of Justice

[Dave Hounddriver]

This is for those who live in the Philippines and those whose heart lives here. It is about the concept of justice being different here than in the west.In the west there is a concept in justice that it is better to let one hundred murderers go free than to convict one innocent man. It leads to the burden of proof weighing heavily on the prosecutor.The same western country that has that form of justice will, according to news articles, send smart bombs to the Philippines to take out suspected terrorists plus any collateral damage because they seem to believe that the good of the many outweighs the rights of the few. This is also the concept behind vigilantism.Which is the best form of justice for a developing country and why?

[Mike S]

Interesting topic Dave .... but although the US SENDS Smart bombs to the Philippines they do not force them to use them ..... any more than the small arms ...helicopters and ammunition forces the Phils to use those ...... but i for one would love to see the US pull everything (except me) back into it's borders and refuse to help or support any other country ..... to each his own I say ..... sink or swim ..... no aid ... no guns ... no advise no nothing ..... let someone else take over for a while ..... China .... North Korea ..... Somalia are a few that come to mind ..... time we all learned a new language anyway .... English is just to easy ..... I wanna try Swahili or maybe Chinese ..... and I'm not trying to be funny here I'm serious ... enough is enough ..... time to try a different form of government .... Judicial System and way of life .... IMHO

[Old55]

What do smart bombs from the States have to do with justice in Philippines? Do you know for a fact AFP has that weapon, used it or acquired from the States?

[Dave Hounddriver]

What do smart bombs from the States have to do with justice in Philippines? Do you know for a fact AFP has that weapon, used it or acquired from the States?

To answer part two first, I only stated:

according to news articles

To answer that question with a question, though: Do you deny that the US uses Smart Bombs in countries other than the US?That leads me to the first part of your question. If the justice system in the US forbids the US of a Smart Bomb within their own borders, then why does that same justice system allow the use, therefore summary execution without trial of the targets, in other countries?My topic was not meant to be about the US. I used the Smart Bomb as an illustration of how justice works in 3rd world countries: Vigilantes, Smart Bombs, Locked up without trials. All those things are done because the rights of the individual are secondary to the good of the nation. Or do you think not?

[Old55]

Thanks Dave, no problem.... Keep in mind sometimes it takes me awhile to figure stuff out. :hystery:

[Jake]

I tend to lean on justice of the jungle, the so called Davao Death Squad. Currently the Philippines justice system is on trial now and it reinforces the assumption the hoodlum in robes and law enforcement needs a drastic overhaul. There is no jury system and therefore only one judge to sell his/her verdict. Witnesses are either bought or made to disappear. After the final verdict, the court of appeals will get a piece of the action too. I won't bother to cite my resources -- they are too numerous from many news media. As I mentioned before (many times) -- guns, goons and gold is the law of the land. Personally, I would rather take care of my own business. The arrow runs silent and runs deep.......

Edited November 16, 2012 by Jake

[i am bob]

Ok, there is a problem with the questions you are asking in the poll and the examples you have given later.As the questions and the selections listed stand, I believe that this reflects a civil justice. The crime you see around your city. The stuff on TV with the cops chasing after the bad guys. Think Dragnet! Further down you are using examples that are not civil justice but more of military law and rebellions / terrorism which is a form of warfare. Different ideas, different ideals, different justice systems and rules prevail. Why? Civil law deals with people in a settlement of any form need to follow rules and regulations to ensure that all is fair between those who live there. Warfare is the all out destruction of a noted enemy and overthrow of the people against your ideals. The rules here are in place to maintain civility in our actions - to keep either side from just killing off the other side and it's peoples indescriminately. But the acceptible actions are still different. So - if you are asking about civil law? #1 It is better to let 100 guilty men go free rather than to convict 1 innocent man.But if you are asking about military law - #2 The good of the many outweigh the rights of the few. But only within specific parameters.

[Dave Hounddriver]

But if you are asking about military law

Hmmm. One would think that military law would only apply when there has been some declaration of war, police action, martial law etc. I don't see that happening, do you? Think of it another way: The US declared a war on terror. They made Canadians have passports to come to US because it was said Canada may be harboring terrorists. If they took it one step further and Smart Bombed a suspected terrorist (take Wiebo Ludwig as an example) and happened to take out one of your friends in the process, would your opinion change?On further consideration I can accept your point when the military justice involves armed service personnel. Example: When Canadian soldiers were killed by 'friendly fire' it was a military justice case. So I guess I am undecided about this myself and it is interesting that the poll is running almost 50 50.

[i am bob]

But if you are asking about military law

Hmmm. One would think that military law would only apply when there has been some declaration of war, police action, martial law etc. I don't see that happening, do you? Think of it another way: The US declared a war on terror. They made Canadians have passports to come to US because it was said Canada may be harboring terrorists. If they took it one step further and Smart Bombed a suspected terrorist (take Wiebo Ludwig as an example) and happened to take out one of your friends in the process, would your opinion change?On further consideration I can accept your point when the military justice involves armed service personnel. Example: When Canadian soldiers were killed by 'friendly fire' it was a military justice case. So I guess I am undecided about this myself and it is interesting that the poll is running almost 50 50.

This is where the fun comes in... As in what the ? As long as a person has a military ID on them, military law is taken into consideration. So sometimes a person holding a miltary ID may fall under military law and sometimes under civilian law - depending on the action to be considered. I still carry a military ID even though I have been retired since '96 and the classification identified on my ID is no longer an active classification... And I'm still subject to both civilian and military law. And I believe that, other than those having a dishonorable discharge, all other present and former military members are under the same circumstances. Anybody who partakes in any action (such as terrorism) that would entail involvement of military members - both present and former members - and/or cause a police action in a military manner can and will fall under that same catagory. That is what makes this so difficult to answer. And I'm not even going to try and bring into the equation the Coast Guard or the various militias and reserve units of each country.Don't you just hate it when something that should be simple just ain't? :hystery:

[earthdome]

But if you are asking about military law

Hmmm. One would think that military law would only apply when there has been some declaration of war, police action, martial law etc. I don't see that happening, do you? Think of it another way: The US declared a war on terror. They made Canadians have passports to come to US because it was said Canada may be harboring terrorists. If they took it one step further and Smart Bombed a suspected terrorist (take Wiebo Ludwig as an example) and happened to take out one of your friends in the process, would your opinion change?On further consideration I can accept your point when the military justice involves armed service personnel. Example: When Canadian soldiers were killed by 'friendly fire' it was a military justice case. So I guess I am undecided about this myself and it is interesting that the poll is running almost 50 50.

This is where the fun comes in... As in what the ? As long as a person has a military ID on them, military law is taken into consideration. So sometimes a person holding a miltary ID may fall under military law and sometimes under civilian law - depending on the action to be considered. I still carry a military ID even though I have been retired since '96 and the classification identified on my ID is no longer an active classification... And I'm still subject to both civilian and military law. And I believe that, other than those having a dishonorable discharge, all other present and former military members are under the same circumstances. Anybody who partakes in any action (such as terrorism) that would entail involvement of military members - both present and former members - and/or cause a police action in a military manner can and will fall under that same catagory. That is what makes this so difficult to answer. And I'm not even going to try and bring into the equation the Coast Guard or the various militias and reserve units of each country.Don't you just hate it when something that should be simple just ain't? :tiphat:

Bob, this may be true for the Canadian military but I highly doubt it is true for those who have served in the US Military. For the US military an enlisted person is no longer under the UCMJ after the service and inactive reserve time is over. A commissioned officer is in the inactive reserve for life and may still fall under the UCMJ when inactive.