What I'm noting here is that the Red Scare was an attempt by the Legislative Branch to take over the role of the Judicial Branch, and January 6th was an attempt by the Executive Branch to take over the role of the Judicial Branch.
Both were movements to create a Justice System that was envisioned by a 'dear leader' (McCarthy and Trump respectively). Anyone who puts forth a system that doesn't utilize stringent checks and balances and enforcement of those checks and balances is going to find a government by persona where the feelings of that leader dictate what justice is and who it is enacted on.
And like it or not, justice usually means that someone is punished for a transgression.
To show how incapable it is to separate out punishment from justice, let's go over some furry examples on what 'justice without punishment' means:
1) Wasn't your reaction to what the person on the Vancouver convention board is that they should resign from their position? Is a resignation not a "punishment"?
2) Should Levi "SnakeThing" Simmons not be in prison? Is what happened in the Kero the Wolf situation preferable where there were no charges that could be levied due to statue of limitation for putting forth judicial punishment? If you're looking for a lack of systemic punishment, then that would lean more toward the Kero outcome than the SnakeThing one, correct?
3) If it should not be about punishment, then are you against conventions banning those who are on the sexual predator registry? If you are for this then how is that not defined as a punishment?
The reason why it's important to talk about the underlying systems is that if you don't read about the monster you wish to slay or tame, it will consume you. I mean, how can furries discuss what justice means to them if they don't know what justice systems are or what their purpose is?
When you ask "what does justice mean to furries" and you don't zoom out to the systems, then the systems will remain the same or decay and get worse. Only but understanding why things iterate the way they do can you see the gaps and worked to make things better.
Some examples being:
A) I will note is that many in furry leadership for conventions is that tend to be a bit power shy for the most part, for better or worse. Most therefore when someone comes up to them with a major issue of criminality against another attendee, their first response can be is "well talk to the police" (aka: they feel they do not have the authority to get involved directly). This in turn feels dismissive and that the staff is uncaring. So what if instead they have a group of volunteers on staff that can help their guest transition and make the statements to authorities?
A lot of furries may be gun shy about authorities, or may get overwhelmed on what to do. I think those who take leadership positions forget that many furries are younger and may not have had to experience such communications. Assistance and taking the time to help be the bridge to someone with the authority to help more will prevent anger toward the convention for being dismissive overall.
B) Making a police standard where if an officer takes a life on the scene, they are detained and leave in the back of the car. They then go through the process as a normal detainee would go through. If you want to be on the nose you can call it a code 1312. This does two things: 1) It embarrasses the officer involved, so it deters the killing of citizens as a first course of action. 1b) This may give the officer some perspective on what it is like to be on the other side of the cuffs, and may help them reassess their behaviors in the future, both as an officer and a citizen. 2) It shows the denizens that officers are held to the same standards they would be if they were found to have murdered someone at the scene, as in they leave in the back of the wagon.
----
The problem with trying to remove 'punishment' from justice is that it leads to people taking punishment into their own hands. If the article proves anything, it is that. So you have to have a system that curtails our base instincts for punishment and at least gives an opportunity for everyone to defend themselves before punishment is given. Instead of being killed before the process has a chance to do anything, in the case of Mr. Floyd.
It's trying to hit the Goldilocks Zone of justice. It needs to be fair to the accused, and fair to the victims. Even if the outcome of all trials will be weighted toward one way or the other, the process should not be.
What I'm noting here is that the Red Scare was an attempt by the Legislative Branch to take over the role of the Judicial Branch, and January 6th was an attempt by the Executive Branch to take over the role of the Judicial Branch.
Both were movements to create a Justice System that was envisioned by a 'dear leader' (McCarthy and Trump respectively). Anyone who puts forth a system that doesn't utilize stringent checks and balances and enforcement of those checks and balances is going to find a government by persona where the feelings of that leader dictate what justice is and who it is enacted on.
And like it or not, justice usually means that someone is punished for a transgression.
To show how incapable it is to separate out punishment from justice, let's go over some furry examples on what 'justice without punishment' means:
1) Wasn't your reaction to what the person on the Vancouver convention board is that they should resign from their position? Is a resignation not a "punishment"?
2) Should Levi "SnakeThing" Simmons not be in prison? Is what happened in the Kero the Wolf situation preferable where there were no charges that could be levied due to statue of limitation for putting forth judicial punishment? If you're looking for a lack of systemic punishment, then that would lean more toward the Kero outcome than the SnakeThing one, correct?
3) If it should not be about punishment, then are you against conventions banning those who are on the sexual predator registry? If you are for this then how is that not defined as a punishment?
The reason why it's important to talk about the underlying systems is that if you don't read about the monster you wish to slay or tame, it will consume you. I mean, how can furries discuss what justice means to them if they don't know what justice systems are or what their purpose is?
When you ask "what does justice mean to furries" and you don't zoom out to the systems, then the systems will remain the same or decay and get worse. Only but understanding why things iterate the way they do can you see the gaps and worked to make things better.
Some examples being:
A) I will note is that many in furry leadership for conventions is that tend to be a bit power shy for the most part, for better or worse. Most therefore when someone comes up to them with a major issue of criminality against another attendee, their first response can be is "well talk to the police" (aka: they feel they do not have the authority to get involved directly). This in turn feels dismissive and that the staff is uncaring. So what if instead they have a group of volunteers on staff that can help their guest transition and make the statements to authorities?
A lot of furries may be gun shy about authorities, or may get overwhelmed on what to do. I think those who take leadership positions forget that many furries are younger and may not have had to experience such communications. Assistance and taking the time to help be the bridge to someone with the authority to help more will prevent anger toward the convention for being dismissive overall.
B) Making a police standard where if an officer takes a life on the scene, they are detained and leave in the back of the car. They then go through the process as a normal detainee would go through. If you want to be on the nose you can call it a code 1312. This does two things: 1) It embarrasses the officer involved, so it deters the killing of citizens as a first course of action. 1b) This may give the officer some perspective on what it is like to be on the other side of the cuffs, and may help them reassess their behaviors in the future, both as an officer and a citizen. 2) It shows the denizens that officers are held to the same standards they would be if they were found to have murdered someone at the scene, as in they leave in the back of the wagon.
----
The problem with trying to remove 'punishment' from justice is that it leads to people taking punishment into their own hands. If the article proves anything, it is that. So you have to have a system that curtails our base instincts for punishment and at least gives an opportunity for everyone to defend themselves before punishment is given. Instead of being killed before the process has a chance to do anything, in the case of Mr. Floyd.
It's trying to hit the Goldilocks Zone of justice. It needs to be fair to the accused, and fair to the victims. Even if the outcome of all trials will be weighted toward one way or the other, the process should not be.