40th Anniversary Watch Party

[Styles Bitchley]

A 40 year belated congratulations to Tom for his People’s Choice Award! I see good things in your future, my friend.

[T.Q.]

A 40 year belated congratulations to Tom for his People’s Choice Award! I see good things in your future, my friend.

The show is okay and Selleck is charismatic... but I don't see it lasting and people certainly won't be talking about Magnum P.I. forty years from now.

[Gorilla Mask]

Oops! and I thought I might have opened a controversial topic on urban renewal on the topic concernered at the filming locations!

If I, too, were to go down a slippery slope, I would like to preface my remarks by saying that, aside from any moral or ethical consideration, every point of view that stands and is demonstrated is worthy of study and consideration. You are all, my colleagues in the forum, worthy of consideration and respect. There is a very good spirit here. I wanted to emphasize that. Thanks !

As a professional lawyer in my country I could digress for pages on the themes and ideas exchanged here. I would just develop a little . Just as I would try not to give any personal value judgment.

I will therefore limit myself to a few general considerations that are based on the principles commonly accepted in modern western legal systems, beyond the distinction between 'Roman' and 'Anglo-Saxon' systems and the differences in procedures and argumentation that they generate.

The first, and perhaps the most visible one exposed here, is the attachment or not to the Law of Talion or the 'eye for an eye' principle. This principle was admitted, for example, in antiquity and in the High Middle Age (notably in Gaul under the Frankish law). Each family was allowed, to a certain extent, to take 'revenge' by itself (because it must be called that, even if it is a very understandable human feeling). However, very quickly, the authority of legitimate force and the judge had to intervene to frame these actions and, in the long run, to prohibit them: it was a matter of handing over, to the power recognized by all, the monopoly of the means to prosecute, judge and punish. In fact, personal justice has very serious disadvantages: a/ it is exercised according to the judgment of a single person or a small group, b/ not understood: admitted by all, its repercussions are unpredictable, c/ it can lead to confrontations within the group, or even to civil war in the worst case.

The second is the principle commonly accepted in most modern legal systems of 'legality of crimes and penalties'. It is related to the previous principle of the supervision of legal action by the legitimate authorities recognized in a given society. This principle presupposes that no one can be prosecuted, convicted and punished without a law (or any other enforceable norm) that explicitly and precisely edict it beforehand. It is a matter of social stability and legal security for both the group and the individual. Indeed, this presupposes that at the time of the facts, the person subject to trial could not be unaware of what he or she would be exposed to according to the social norm. In a democratic society, any legal responsibility assumes this condition of a norm previously enacted by/in the name of the people, accepted, and thus, opposable to all.

The third that immediately comes to mind is, in my opinion, the necessary distinction that must be made between 1) the personal ethics of an individual, 2) the morality of a social group, and 3) applicable law. These three elements can be interrelated, but it is not an obligation. If you add to this the fact that, in some legal systems, the rule of law also derives from religious dogma, you will understand the complexity of the problem!

For me, this third element appears to play a crucial role in the divergences that are set out here. Indeed, most people (and this happens to me often too) naturally mix the three together and this facilitates errors and misunderstandings. I am not saying that the law should not have moral and ethical implications, I am simply saying that it is intellectually necessary to distinguish between these three elements in order to understand how they interact. Coldly, in the case of a 'Vigilante', who acts according to his convictions or his interpretation of what is right and wrong, the risk is that this action will shock, be misunderstood, or be rejected by the group or groups in civil society. More broadly, as already stated by some of you, this action potentially falls under the law of the group notwithstanding the mitigating circumstances explaining its commission. And then, from the point of view of the 'bad guy' who becomes a victim of the 'vigilante', how can we objectively and socially admit that this act is not arbitrary and necessarily in conformity with the norm or the state of law generally accepted?

I could also develop other notions, such as the equality of arms allowed by the trial, the presumption of innocence or the necessary catharsis allowed by public judicial action, but I will stop there because I am already holding the line too much. Sorry Conch !

My opinion is that, from a sociological point of view, Justice is only possible by the group, on behalf of the group to be understood and accepted without creating a risk of social breakdown. The social utility, acceptability and equality of the rule must be placed above the moral truth, even if one does not exclude the other.

You do not have to agree. I hope I have not offended anyone.

[T.Q.]

You do not have to agree. I hope I have not offended anyone.

No offense taken here.

[Gorilla Mask]

You do not have to agree. I hope I have not offended anyone.

No offense taken here.

A single image is worth a thousand word.

Well aimed, T.Q. I have to admit i never dealt in court with such an argument !

[Pahonu]

A 40 year belated congratulations to Tom for his People’s Choice Award! I see good things in your future, my friend.

The show is okay and Selleck is charismatic... but I don't see it lasting and people certainly won't be talking about Magnum P.I. forty years from now.

Well put!

[Pahonu]

Oops! and I thought I might have opened a controversial topic on urban renewal on the topic concernered at the filming locations!

If I, too, were to go down a slippery slope, I would like to preface my remarks by saying that, aside from any moral or ethical consideration, every point of view that stands and is demonstrated is worthy of study and consideration. You are all, my colleagues in the forum, worthy of consideration and respect. There is a very good spirit here. I wanted to emphasize that. Thanks !

As a professional lawyer in my country I could digress for pages on the themes and ideas exchanged here. I would just develop a little . Just as I would try not to give any personal value judgment.

I will therefore limit myself to a few general considerations that are based on the principles commonly accepted in modern western legal systems, beyond the distinction between 'Roman' and 'Anglo-Saxon' systems and the differences in procedures and argumentation that they generate.

The first, and perhaps the most visible one exposed here, is the attachment or not to the Law of Talion or the 'eye for an eye' principle. This principle was admitted, for example, in antiquity and in the High Middle Age (notably in Gaul under the Frankish law). Each family was allowed, to a certain extent, to take 'revenge' by itself (because it must be called that, even if it is a very understandable human feeling). However, very quickly, the authority of legitimate force and the judge had to intervene to frame these actions and, in the long run, to prohibit them: it was a matter of handing over, to the power recognized by all, the monopoly of the means to prosecute, judge and punish. In fact, personal justice has very serious disadvantages: a/ it is exercised according to the judgment of a single person or a small group, b/ not understood: admitted by all, its repercussions are unpredictable, c/ it can lead to confrontations within the group, or even to civil war in the worst case.

The second is the principle commonly accepted in most modern legal systems of 'legality of crimes and penalties'. It is related to the previous principle of the supervision of legal action by the legitimate authorities recognized in a given society. This principle presupposes that no one can be prosecuted, convicted and punished without a law (or any other enforceable norm) that explicitly and precisely edict it beforehand. It is a matter of social stability and legal security for both the group and the individual. Indeed, this presupposes that at the time of the facts, the person subject to trial could not be unaware of what he or she would be exposed to according to the social norm. In a democratic society, any legal responsibility assumes this condition of a norm previously enacted by/in the name of the people, accepted, and thus, opposable to all.

The third that immediately comes to mind is, in my opinion, the necessary distinction that must be made between 1) the personal ethics of an individual, 2) the morality of a social group, and 3) applicable law. These three elements can be interrelated, but it is not an obligation. If you add to this the fact that, in some legal systems, the rule of law also derives from religious dogma, you will understand the complexity of the problem!

For me, this third element appears to play a crucial role in the divergences that are set out here. Indeed, most people (and this happens to me often too) naturally mix the three together and this facilitates errors and misunderstandings. I am not saying that the law should not have moral and ethical implications, I am simply saying that it is intellectually necessary to distinguish between these three elements in order to understand how they interact. Coldly, in the case of a 'Vigilante', who acts according to his convictions or his interpretation of what is right and wrong, the risk is that this action will shock, be misunderstood, or be rejected by the group or groups in civil society. More broadly, as already stated by some of you, this action potentially falls under the law of the group notwithstanding the mitigating circumstances explaining its commission. And then, from the point of view of the 'bad guy' who becomes a victim of the 'vigilante', how can we objectively and socially admit that this act is not arbitrary and necessarily in conformity with the norm or the state of law generally accepted?

I could also develop other notions, such as the equality of arms allowed by the trial, the presumption of innocence or the necessary catharsis allowed by public judicial action, but I will stop there because I am already holding the line too much. Sorry Conch !

My opinion is that, from a sociological point of view, Justice is only possible by the group, on behalf of the group to be understood and accepted without creating a risk of social breakdown. The social utility, acceptability and equality of the rule must be placed above the moral truth, even if one does not exclude the other.

You do not have to agree. I hope I have not offended anyone.

I defer to your logic here completely GM! I’m not worthy!

Seriously, excellent reasoning and well laid out as your profession demands. I’m going to read it again now.

[Gorilla Mask]

I defer to your logic here completely GM! I’m not worthy!

Seriously, excellent reasoning and well laid out as your profession demands. I’m going to read it again now.

Thanks Pahonu, My only purpose is to contribute with some ideas to this very interesting debate.

From an aesthetic point o view, the final scene of "Did you see the sunrise?" is absolutely breathtaking. It would have been a pity if Ivan had walked away !

[Pahonu]

I defer to your logic here completely GM! I’m not worthy!

Seriously, excellent reasoning and well laid out as your profession demands. I’m going to read it again now.

Thanks Pahonu, My only purpose is to contribute with some ideas to this very interesting debate.

From an aesthetic point o view, the final scene of "Did you see the sunrise?" is absolutely breathtaking. It would have been a pity if Ivan had walked away !

The topic certainly makes for riveting storytelling and a stunning conclusion. I always find it interesting that nothing about the outcome of the killing is ever referenced. What happened to Ivan’s driver? Did he just drive away??? No one found a body and it was never investigated? Was the body somehow disposed of? There was never an inquiry about the disappearance of a Soviet National? There are certainly lots of potential storylines that could have been explored. This is a great example of how such a dramatic, and many might say fulfilling, outcome just isn’t very realistic.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

Ivan, if I went into the weeds, it was in response to your comments like below:

“As you can probably tell I'm very much pro-capital punishment.”

As you talk about MPI, or other media, you add what I am taking as personal views. That’s what I’m responding to. Below is another:

“Is it legal? No. But if blowing away a scumbag saves the life of an innocent person down the road then it's justified.”

Are you are saying that you only feel this way about the fictional portrayals in media?

If that’s a yes and you don’t personally feel that way l, then I’m sorry I took those views as your personal beliefs about society in general. That being the case, I agree with you and as Amian and others have pointed out, it makes for compelling storytelling. It’s not realistic or even close to the complexity of reality, BUT... it is entertaining.

If these are your personal views as I originally thought, then I stand by my arguments.

Let the punishment fit the crime. It's even a Magnum episode. That's what I believe in. Otherwise there's nothing to deter a perpetrator from committing a crime. In all the civilized nations you mention there was a time when they all had capital punishment (and they were considered civilized at that time, by the way) and then some idiot came along and decided it's inhumane. Meanwhile is it humane what the perps perpetrate? But of course we must be better, right? We must take the moral high ground. Tell that to someone who lost a loved one. I'm sure that will make them feel better. And if we're never truly sure who's really guilty or innocent because we have an imperfect system then why bother at all? Let's let people out of jails because some percentage MIGHT be innocent. Let's not execute a monster. Let's pay taxes out of our pocket to keep him well-fed, well-treated, well-entertained until he's nice and plump and ready to die at a ripe old age. I'm sure he gets better healthcare than most of us do, by the way. That's someone's idea of justice I'm sure. Not mine.

[Styles Bitchley]

Let the punishment fit the crime. It's even a Magnum episode. That's what I believe in. Otherwise there's nothing to deter a perpetrator from committing a crime. In all the civilized nations you mention there was a time when they all had capital punishment (and they were considered civilized at that time, by the way) and then some idiot came along and decided it's inhumane. Meanwhile is it humane what the perps perpetrate? But of course we must be better, right? We must take the moral high ground. Tell that to someone who lost a loved one. I'm sure that will make them feel better. And if we're never truly sure who's really guilty or innocent because we have an imperfect system then why bother at all? Let's let people out of jails because some percentage MIGHT be innocent. Let's not execute a monster. Let's pay taxes out of our pocket to keep him well-fed, well-treated, well-entertained until he's nice and plump and ready to die at a ripe old age. I'm sure he gets better healthcare than most of us do, by the way. That's someone's idea of justice I'm sure. Not mine.

Countries tend to evolve and revisit policies based on how the world changes and how new ideas come to prevail. The fact that innocent people have been wrongfully executed is a pretty compelling reason against it! Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that capital punishment is a deterrent to violent crime. Of course, if I were personally affected by the murder of a loved one, my opinion would probably be different - it's understandable. But that's really not how government should formulate policy!

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

Let the punishment fit the crime. It's even a Magnum episode. That's what I believe in. Otherwise there's nothing to deter a perpetrator from committing a crime. In all the civilized nations you mention there was a time when they all had capital punishment (and they were considered civilized at that time, by the way) and then some idiot came along and decided it's inhumane. Meanwhile is it humane what the perps perpetrate? But of course we must be better, right? We must take the moral high ground. Tell that to someone who lost a loved one. I'm sure that will make them feel better. And if we're never truly sure who's really guilty or innocent because we have an imperfect system then why bother at all? Let's let people out of jails because some percentage MIGHT be innocent. Let's not execute a monster. Let's pay taxes out of our pocket to keep him well-fed, well-treated, well-entertained until he's nice and plump and ready to die at a ripe old age. I'm sure he gets better healthcare than most of us do, by the way. That's someone's idea of justice I'm sure. Not mine.

Countries tend to evolve and revisit policies based on how the world changes and how new ideas come to prevail. The fact that innocent people have been wrongfully executed is a pretty compelling reason against it! Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that capital punishment is a deterrent to violent crime. Of course, if I were personally affected by the murder of a loved one, my opinion would probably be different - it's understandable. But that's really not how government should formulate policy!

Trust me - extreme actions do work as a deterrent. I guarantee that if the United States enacted a policy to chop off limbs for shoplifting you would see a decrease in shoplifting. Or if you got beaten by a cane for spitting on the sidewalk (like they did in Singapore) you wouldn't have folks spitting. No excuses. If you do this, that will follow. GUARANTEED it would deter!

[T.Q.]

Watch Party.

[Styles Bitchley]

Let the punishment fit the crime. It's even a Magnum episode. That's what I believe in. Otherwise there's nothing to deter a perpetrator from committing a crime. In all the civilized nations you mention there was a time when they all had capital punishment (and they were considered civilized at that time, by the way) and then some idiot came along and decided it's inhumane. Meanwhile is it humane what the perps perpetrate? But of course we must be better, right? We must take the moral high ground. Tell that to someone who lost a loved one. I'm sure that will make them feel better. And if we're never truly sure who's really guilty or innocent because we have an imperfect system then why bother at all? Let's let people out of jails because some percentage MIGHT be innocent. Let's not execute a monster. Let's pay taxes out of our pocket to keep him well-fed, well-treated, well-entertained until he's nice and plump and ready to die at a ripe old age. I'm sure he gets better healthcare than most of us do, by the way. That's someone's idea of justice I'm sure. Not mine.

Countries tend to evolve and revisit policies based on how the world changes and how new ideas come to prevail. The fact that innocent people have been wrongfully executed is a pretty compelling reason against it! Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that capital punishment is a deterrent to violent crime. Of course, if I were personally affected by the murder of a loved one, my opinion would probably be different - it's understandable. But that's really not how government should formulate policy!

Trust me - extreme actions do work as a deterrent. I guarantee that if the United States enacted a policy to chop off limbs for shoplifting you would see a decrease in shoplifting. Or if you got beaten by a cane for spitting on the sidewalk (like they did in Singapore) you wouldn't have folks spitting. No excuses. If you do this, that will follow. GUARANTEED it would deter!

Oh no. Here comes the all caps! I think that means we've exhausted this topic. I should take a moment though to thank Gorilla Mask for his super well reasoned and informed thoughts on the issue. I have to say that there is much I admire in the French Civll Law system. We're really starting to see problems in our Common Law system, with so many frivolous law suits. Just thought I'd take a moment to open another can of worms. Lol.

[Pahonu]

Let the punishment fit the crime. It's even a Magnum episode. That's what I believe in. Otherwise there's nothing to deter a perpetrator from committing a crime. In all the civilized nations you mention there was a time when they all had capital punishment (and they were considered civilized at that time, by the way) and then some idiot came along and decided it's inhumane. Meanwhile is it humane what the perps perpetrate? But of course we must be better, right? We must take the moral high ground. Tell that to someone who lost a loved one. I'm sure that will make them feel better. And if we're never truly sure who's really guilty or innocent because we have an imperfect system then why bother at all? Let's let people out of jails because some percentage MIGHT be innocent. Let's not execute a monster. Let's pay taxes out of our pocket to keep him well-fed, well-treated, well-entertained until he's nice and plump and ready to die at a ripe old age. I'm sure he gets better healthcare than most of us do, by the way. That's someone's idea of justice I'm sure. Not mine.

Countries tend to evolve and revisit policies based on how the world changes and how new ideas come to prevail. The fact that innocent people have been wrongfully executed is a pretty compelling reason against it! Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that capital punishment is a deterrent to violent crime. Of course, if I were personally affected by the murder of a loved one, my opinion would probably be different - it's understandable. But that's really not how government should formulate policy!

Trust me - extreme actions do work as a deterrent. I guarantee that if the United States enacted a policy to chop off limbs for shoplifting you would see a decrease in shoplifting. Or if you got beaten by a cane for spitting on the sidewalk (like they did in Singapore) you wouldn't have folks spitting. No excuses. If you do this, that will follow. GUARANTEED it would deter!

Ivan, when you use statements like “trust me” or “GUARANTEED” they carry no weight beyond your personal feelings about the topic. “Trust me” is an argument without evidence and you can not realistically provide any guarantees about your feelings on the topic. You are certainly entitled to your feelings, but as I and others have argued, a single individuals feelings play no role in a democratic society’s justice system, or in its public policy in general. That’s by design, as Amian explained in such detail. It’s why due process developed and is still supported in all democratic societies. Along those same lines, you certainly don’t have to agree with the direction public policy has taken over the centuries, but it has changed, and in a more democratic direction generally. More importantly, it has changed because the majority in those democratic societies made it so.

The beliefs of any single individual dictating justice in a society is exactly that...a dictatorship and not democratic. Believing that legal systems in past societies were more just, the vast majority of which were not democratic until the last two centuries, is ignoring a long documented history of torture, abuse, and wrongful killings. Finally, as Styles argued, there is no evidence globally or in the US that capital punishment acts as a deterrent, your feelings about it put aside. US Department of Justice statistics over the past several decades have continually shown that the roughly half of US states still allowing for capital punishment have higher rates of violent crime than states that do not. The numbers are in the range of 6 vs 4/100,000 population. Again, you may feel about it how you want, but the deterrent argument is simply not the reality.