I Already Googled It

In response to this:

Iain Hunter opines about the law, but seems to have forgotten the supposed goal thereof — justice.

Someone has forgotten “justice” when they say “rehabilitate“.  “Justice” is “punishment of wrongdoing“.  Rehabilitation is not punishment.

But what “punishment” is fair?  And what is “wrongdoing“?  And what of the victim?  If “justice” is to be “just“, should the victim not be “made whole“?  This is called “restitution“.

Therefore, a fair punishment is one which makes restitution — which compensates the victim for his losses.  We can extend this to define “wrongdoing“ as an action which incurs a loss upon another person.

But what of crimes with no victim?  What if I’m selling marijuana to someone who wants to buy it?  The buyer clearly suffered no loss, for he requested the marijuana and offered payment of his own volition.  If there is — therefore – no victim and no loss, what debt is to be paid and to whom?

This is the fallacy of substituting “the state” as victim and prosecutor, of using the power of the state — violence — to achieve social ends, rather than simply to protect people from one another.

The state is not our father figure.  Its purpose is not to reform or change our behaviour in accordance with the political whimsy of the day.  Its job — if it is to be at all legitimate — is to play the role of referee.

This is the problem with our laws and legal system, not mandatory minimum sentences.