What about murderers?

[gotlucky]

@Hefty

Ok, I agree that a mediator does not make a decision, replace “If one party rejects the decision” with "If one party rejects what the mediator is doing" . There could even be no mediator, A and B get together, have a drink and forget the whole thing. You’re right, I can’t imagine a society that will always work this way.

I have been saying the whole time that either party can reject the mediation process and prefer violence. It is also possible that both parties could get together and forget the whole thing, and that may be likely for small disputes. I doubt that would happen very often for more serious disputes. Can you explain what you mean by “society working”? One could make the argument that American society does not work. I imagine imprisoned victimless criminals feel that way. I imagine anyone who has lost their home due to eminent domain feels that way. Anybody who was not satisfied with the outcome of a trial feels that way. One could make the case that North Korean society works. After all, it functions. So, what do you mean by a society working?

@Hefty

Those are not the only two ways, there is a third where there is some violence, but it is based on enforcement of contracts which were voluntary. I gave an example of that here. This is just a semantic issue, but you can’t ignore this because you are trying to deduce something from your dichotomy.

No. There are only two outcomes to a dispute. Either both parties agree to the solution or they don’t. It just so happens that when the State decides the solution, most people do not wish to go against the decision of the State. But there are people who do not agree to the solution, and they will act as they see fit. There is no third option.

@Hefty

They (A) might, but after the procedure I described if (A) continues the conflict, both A’s and B’s defense agencies will step in to stop (A). A’s only option will be to get a rogue agency that doesn’t respect other agencies’ decisions. Such rogue agencies will have to fight everyone else though. So really there is not a big chance of A trying to go on with this in a violent way.

Pure speculation. If they want the murderer dead more than any other option, then they will attempt it. Period. That it what it means by will “not settle for anything less than the death of the murderer”. If they won’t settle for anything less, then they won’t. If they will, then it is possible that a defense agency would stop them. But, as I have previously stated, there are people who take vigilante justice in our world today. Obviously, the State did not stop them. So what makes you think some private defense agency will stop them?

@Hefty

I understood what both of you are saying, but according to my best intellectual facilities, you are not adressing the point, you are trying to refute what I am saying with reasoning that hinges on flawed assumption and you are ignoring my construction and trying to refute it on the basis that it doesn’t exist or that I didn’t use the appropriate words, i.e it doesn’t make sense. There are so many problems here.

With all due respect, it is your reasoning that is based on false premises, and you are the one who was having trouble with definitions. Would you care to point out which assumptions of ours you believe to be false? In regards to the use of specific words: words mean things. In a debate, they need to mean only one thing for intellectual clarity. From the way you were phrasing your response to Clayton, it was not clear that you understood the difference between a judge and arbitrator (mediator). If you do not use the appropriate words (words that most people here understand to mean certain things), then it is of the utmost importance that you define how you are using the words you use. I am not trying to refute your argument because you don’t use the correct words, but if you are not clear with what you are saying, then it is your argument that suffers.

@Hefty

I really don’t mean to be dismissive of anyone (or for that matter, disrespectful in any way). I just want someone to address the case I came up with because it is a real thing.

Clayton already answered your OP sufficiently. This is the discussion that grew out of his response. But if you would like something specifically about the Trayvon Martin case, then I will direct you to this post here by LogisticEarth. I will quote what I believe to be the most relevant parts of his post here:

@LogisticEarth

Ultimately, I really doubt we’ll ever get enough evidence to either convict or fully vindicate Zimmerman. He was apparently going to be charged with manslaughter, but that lack of evidence caused the state to drop the case. At this point, there’s not much more one can do. Unfortunately, the mob on both sides have formed thier own opinions and seem to be making judgements and accusations about both Martin and Zimmerman.

The bottom line is though, we don’t know precisely what happened, there is not enough evidence to convict or vindicate, and we must leave it at that unless something new comes to light. The only thing one can do is to draw personal insights from the tragedy, about racial prejudices, about the dangers of escalating situations, and rushing to judgements.