You're writing with emotions, not facts.
What you got right is education and social mobility are key factors to less crime, Norway achieves this.
What you didn't get right is the role of the justice system. It's not the role of the justice system to pander to emotions. A judge does not sit down with the mother of a murder-rape victim and explain to her how she ought to feel, at least that is not the case in Norway. One could argue this is in fact the case in the US, in the sense that the laws the judges rule by pander to emotions.
Humans=\=Society. That is the gist of what I am saying.
Society is a construct, and it is not just a reflection of human nature, it is also a product of our ability to coexist.
Anyone who has been in a relationship knows coexisting means sacrifice, both emotionally and otherwise.
> It's not the role of the justice system to pander to emotions.
In Oz courts, there is often a "victim impact" statement read to the court, eg a rape victim will tell the court about the negative effects the assault has had on their life (eg can no longer have sex with partner, so is now divorced; can't leave house at night so has lost job). This impact statement will be taken into consideration when sentencing, and is often directly referenced in the judge's closing statement. Eg, "the victim has experienced years of mental anguish and you show no remorse; I am therefore pronouncing the maximum allowable sentence".
So yes, the court very much does "pander" to emotions. I'd love to hear an actual lawyer chime in, the ones I've talked to have a very strong code of professional ethics surrounding this (believe it or not.)
I ought to have been clearer on what I meant. When an action degrades the quality of life (just to use a general term) of course it should matter in a court of law.
My point was merely that when deciding on the sentence, the law should consider the need of the society while leaving the emotions of individuals out of it to the extent this can be done without causing further harm.
I couldn't disagree harder with your assertion that society exists independently of the humans in it. Remove the human element from society and you're left with an inhumane society. A system that comes before the people in it. That then leads to perverse conclusions such as the idea that a gross violation against an individual member of society is not a violation against society, and conversely, that there can exist crimes against society that doesn't actually hurt any members of it (such as non-violent possession of drugs).
You completely misread everything in my comment.
That is actually quite impressive seeing as I explicitly stated in summation what I meant, I feel I shouldn't have to explain myself because of a lack of reading comprehension but here goes.
> not just a reflection of human nature
I acknowledge the human element, I should think no-one believes a construct doesn't reflect the maker, but society like any invention is also more than that.
What you didn't get right is the role of the justice system. It's not the role of the justice system to pander to emotions. A judge does not sit down with the mother of a murder-rape victim and explain to her how she ought to feel, at least that is not the case in Norway. One could argue this is in fact the case in the US, in the sense that the laws the judges rule by pander to emotions.
Humans=\=Society. That is the gist of what I am saying. Society is a construct, and it is not just a reflection of human nature, it is also a product of our ability to coexist. Anyone who has been in a relationship knows coexisting means sacrifice, both emotionally and otherwise.