Do NOT Believe Her

[MindTrap028]

It actually is. Let's re-cap:
Sig: Is it just for a man to commit a crime and get away with no punishment?
MT: In my world view that never happens.

So, in your worldview, it never happens that someone commits a crime and is not punished.
But since getting saved and going to heaven = not being punished, your response to Sig is incompatible with Xtian doctrine, which is why I asked whether you believed that someone could be saved and avoid going to hell.

If you believe that someone can be saved and is therefore not punished, then what Sig described actually does happen in your worldview, and you're apparently okay with it.

The crime is punished though.
We are just redeemed. Christ has taken the punishment for us.

The point is that it isn't as though nothing happens. The crime is not 'gotten away with'.

Rather than being contrary to christian doctrine, it is pretty much the foundation of it. you have simply miss applied it by casting it as though there is no justice for the crime... which is what was objecting to.

[futureboy]

The crime is punished though.

Putting aside, for now, the deep moral issues with vicarious redemption. First of all, since Christ had supposedly already died, his death makes no net difference in punishment doled out in the scenario of the perp getting saved vs. not getting saved. Second, someone else supposedly being punished is the same as the perp not being punished.

We are just redeemed. Christ has taken the punishment for us.

Right, we aren't punished, so we get away with not being punished, which is what Sig was talking about, but you say never happens.

The point is that it isn't as though nothing happens. The crime is not 'gotten away with'.

If the person who commits the crime is not punished, then that's exactly what it is. Are you okay with that?

Rather than being contrary to christian doctrine, it is pretty much the foundation of it. you have simply miss applied it by casting it as though there is no justice for the crime... which is what was objecting to.

Again, since Christ had already died, there's no net difference in punishment meted out, so likewise no justice is enacted for the crime. And even if this counts as justice (it doesn't), someone else being punished still means the perp avoids being punished.

[MindTrap028]

My objection is that crime doesn't go un-punished. That justice is always served. That was the point of my objection.
- Christ died long ago so no net change.
That is not true because those saved have been crusified with Christ. We die in him. So justice is served. The timing is not relevant as the effect is current and for all time.

-am I o.k. with that-
As above I think you have the concepts wrong and are miss applying them. Crime doesn't go un-punished, and justice is served for every wrong. My system of belief provides for that.. the same can not be said for your system.. right?

[futureboy]

My objection is that crime doesn't go un-punished. That justice is always served. That was the point of my objection.

Again, Sig's statement was:
Is it just for a man to commit a crime and get away with no punishment?
And your response:
In my world view that never happens.

Sig is specifically talking about a man committing a crime and the man getting away with no punishment, which you claim never happens in your worldview.

As already pointed out, your claim is false, since, even if we accept that Christ's supposed death (and not even permanent death - just a shitty weekend, really) somehow serves as punishment for the crime (it doesn't), the man is still not punished.

That is not true because those saved have been crusified with Christ. We die in him.

As far as I'm aware, there were only a few other folks crucified "with Christ" in the sense that they were crucified at the same time, according to Xtian claims. Are you saying they are the only ones who have been saved? And what do you mean by "we die in him"? I'm pretty sure both of us are still alive.

So justice is served. The timing is not relevant as the effect is current and for all time.

Again, since there is no net difference in actions performed as part of punishment being meted out, then justice is not being served. For justice to be served there has to be actual actions of justice/punishment performed in response to the crime and as a result of it. Since the actions you're referring to would have happened anyway regardless of whether the crime we're talking about was committed, they cannot rationally serve as justice for that crime.

Crime doesn't go un-punished

Again, if someone isn't punished for a crime they committed, then they aren't punished for a crime they committed, simple as that. So a person getting saved and not going to hell = a person not being punished. You can try to interpret it any way you like to make attempts at twisting it into making sense, but no amount of punishment of a completely different person for a crime you committed counts as you being punished for that crime.

[MindTrap028]

@ future.
My point was, and take this as whatever kind of clarification you need because you seem to be confused on the topic, is that the crime is always punished.

Now to those not saved you are right they go to hell.
But those who are saved have loss as well, in that they die as well. They lose their life in Christ. The old man that did the sin, is dead and they are made a new creation.
Justice is this served in Christ.
So the man never getts away with no effect, and the crime is punished.
- crucified with christ-
No it is not a referance to litteraly crucifiction of this body. However it is a referance to our real death in Christ. We are baptised into his death, so that we too will rise again.
It is sort of Christian doctrine of basic salvation.
- new action must be taken or else justice is not served.
I don't see any reason to accept that position.
The net difference isn't really relevant. What is relevant is if a crime is covered by a judment or not.
Christ's punishment is a just payment for all sin.

- person not getting punished..
The concern is if the crime is punished and of Justice is served.
As I said, the person does not continue with no effect.
If he is unsaved he pays with his life in hell.
If he is saved he pays with his life and is crucified in Christ and is saved. Born again as a new creation, redeemed from his sins. The perfect union of Justice and mercy.
But not as though nothing happens to them iether way. Something has happened, and it is death.

------
Let me put it another way. The wages of sin is death and all men die and so all men receive the just punishment for their sin. .. which is death.
So no man escapes justice. It never happens that a person escapes judgment and justice is always served and all crimes are punished.

That is the distinction I was making between the two world views.

[snackboy]

@ future.
My point was, and take this as whatever kind of clarification you need because you seem to be confused on the topic, is that the crime is always punished.

Now to those not saved you are right they go to hell.
But those who are saved have loss as well, in that they die as well. They lose their life in Christ. The old man that did the sin, is dead and they are made a new creation.
Justice is this served in Christ.
So the man never getts away with no effect, and the crime is punished.
- crucified with christ-
No it is not a referance to litteraly crucifiction of this body. However it is a referance to our real death in Christ. We are baptised into his death, so that we too will rise again.
It is sort of Christian doctrine of basic salvation.
- new action must be taken or else justice is not served.
I don't see any reason to accept that position.
The net difference isn't really relevant. What is relevant is if a crime is covered by a judment or not.
Christ's punishment is a just payment for all sin.

- person not getting punished..
The concern is if the crime is punished and of Justice is served.
As I said, the person does not continue with no effect.
If he is unsaved he pays with his life in hell.
If he is saved he pays with his life and is crucified in Christ and is saved. Born again as a new creation, redeemed from his sins. The perfect union of Justice and mercy.
But not as though nothing happens to them iether way. Something has happened, and it is death.

------
Let me put it another way. The wages of sin is death and all men die and so all men receive the just punishment for their sin. .. which is death.
So no man escapes justice. It never happens that a person escapes judgment and justice is always served and all crimes are punished.

That is the distinction I was making between the two world views.

So in other words, man doesn't need a system of justice because all crimes are punished by God?

[MindTrap028]

@ snack, not what I said.. but thanks for playing.

[snackboy]

@ snack, not what I said.. but thanks for playing.

Understand that's what I am hearing you say. You say that crime is always punished even in cases where man's system of justice doesn't punish the criminal. Is that correct?

[futureboy]

My point was, and take this as whatever kind of clarification you need because you seem to be confused on the topic, is that the crime is always punished.

I'm afraid the confusion is all yours. Again, Sig clearly expressed himself with:
"Is it just for a man to commit a crime and get away with no punishment?"

Sig's statement wasn't about whether the crime itself is punished, but whether the person who commits the crime is punished.
So again, he's asking about situations where a person who commits a crime is not punished, which you claimed never happens in your worldview.
Even if we accept your assertion that someone else being punished somehow counts as punishment for the crime itself, it still fails to serve as punishment of the person who commits the crime.

You have confused "punishment for the crime" with "punishment of the person who commits the crime". Sig was talking about the latter and situations when the perp is not punished, to which you replied that this never happens in your worldview, which is false.

But those who are saved have loss as well, in that they die as well. They lose their life in Christ.

I don't know what kind of life you're talking about losing here.

Justice is this served in Christ.

Merely repeating the assertion doesn't make it more valid.

So the man never getts away with no effect, and the crime is punished.

You've shifted the language here from "punishment" to "effect". I don't care about some nebulous "effect" you'll try to claim, without support, that takes place when someone is saved and is not punished, it doesn't change the fact that they are not punished.

No it is not a referance to litteraly crucifiction of this body. However it is a referance to our real death in Christ.

"Real death" implies someone being actually dead, not just "pinin' for the fjords". People are dead when they die, and they don't do much else afterwards that we can tell.

You seem to be talking about a different kind of "real death" here, which probably should be called "real" or "death", or even seriously considered without support.
It appears you're claiming that, in order to accept that the criminal has actually been punished, one has to accept that:
1. Someone else being crucified can count as punishment for a crime, even though that crucifixion would have happened anyway regardless of whether the crime was committed.
2. Someone else being actually for real tortured and killed somehow means that others are also actually punished, even though those others aren't actually for real tortured and killed.
3. Someone else being punished for a crime you committed is actually just.

You haven't provided any rational justification for accepting any of these. I guess "magic" is sufficient justification to you, but it fails miserably upon any truly rational consideration of actual matters of justice.

I don't see any reason to accept that position.

I'm not at all surprised, since "magic past single punishment event which counts as justice being served for any and all past and future sins (except for apostasy, of course)" makes perfect sense to you.

The net difference isn't really relevant. What is relevant is if a crime is covered by a judment or not.

Justice in the form of punishment implies punishment taking place as a result of and in response to a crime. Again, since Christ's crucifixion would have happened regardless, it can't count as punishment in any rational sense.
It would be like some schmo who owes you money telling you that someone else, a completely different person, had all their assets stripped from them, so the schmo's debt to you is magically repaid.

Christ's punishment is a just payment for all sin.

Merely repeating the assertion doesn't make it more valid.

The concern is if the crime is punished and of Justice is served.

No, Sig's statement was about the criminal not being punished. Your claim that the concern is whether the crime itself is punished is a bald assertion based on the unsupported claim that someone else being punished can serve as punishment for some other crime.

As I said, the person does not continue with no effect.
If he is unsaved he pays with his life in hell.
If he is saved he pays with his life and is crucified in Christ and is saved. Born again as a new creation, redeemed from his sins. The perfect union of Justice and mercy.

True justice and true mercy are incompatible, you can't have both at the same time. What you're describing here is neither just, nor merciful, but a failed attempt at both. It's a failed attempt at justice because you claim that someone is punished by being crucified and killed with Christ even though they don't actually suffer any real crucifixion or death. And it's a failed attempt at mercy because it's conditional on being saved.

Let me put it another way. The wages of sin is death and all men die and so all men receive the just punishment for their sin. .. which is death.

You're yet again talking about a different kind of death than that which is suffered by those actually punished with death. If you're talking about actual death in terms of the cessation of life, then of course everyone dies, but that death is not always punishment for a crime.

It never happens that a person escapes judgment and justice is always served and all crimes are punished.

You're talking here about a person escaping judgment. That has nothing to do with Sig's statement, which, again, was about the criminal not being punished for the crime. It was not about the criminal being judged or the crime being punished. Sure, in your world view, the criminal is judged. But since he was saved, the judgment is to not punish him, hence he is not punished.

So again, Sig asked you if you thought it was just for someone to commit a crime and not be punished. You obviously don't think it's just, based on the ridiculous sophistry you're employing to try and support that your worldview doesn't fail at ensuring punishment of criminals for their crimes.

[MindTrap028]

There are several issues here, and I am only quoting sections.

Sig was talking about the latter and situations when the perp is not punished, to which you replied that this never happens in your worldview, which is false.

So my first concern with the idea of "getting away with no punishment" is the "getting away" portion.
Because all men are judged, it is consistent to say that no one "gets away".
The second is "no punishment", which in the sense that all men die beacase of sin, certainly means that no man gets away without being "punished".

So there is that sense.

The other sense, is only an issue for those who are saved, because we should agree that the unsaved absolutly fullfill the terms of doing a crime and suffering the punishment.
For the saved though, this is dealt with through a different aspect of justice, which you have directly challenged below.
But for here, I have offered one sense that is consistent with christiantiy by which no one gets away, as all men die.
In your world view those two elements are not directly connected. (IE death and crime).

You've shifted the language here from "punishment" to "effect". I don't care about some nebulous "effect" you'll try to claim, without support, that takes place when someone is saved and is not punished, it doesn't change the fact that they are not punished.

If the question assumed that in order for justice to be served, that only the person who did the crime can be punished to full-fill it.
then I reject the question, as the assumption is not valid.
We see this in our own laws in the sense of Expiatory Punishment, where corporations are punished instead of an individual, or government is fined rather than the gov official, or the entire insurance industry.

"Real death" implies someone being actually dead, not just "pinin' for the fjords". People are dead when they die, and they don't do much else afterwards that we can tell.

It just means not a figurative death. Like spiritual death is not the same as physical death, but it is still a real death.

You seem to be talking about a different kind of "real death" here, which probably should be called "real" or "death", or even seriously considered without support.
It appears you're claiming that, in order to accept that the criminal has actually been punished, one has to accept that:
1. Someone else being crucified can count as punishment for a crime, even though that crucifixion would have happened anyway regardless of whether the crime was committed.
2. Someone else being actually for real tortured and killed somehow means that others are also actually punished, even though those others aren't actually for real tortured and killed.
3. Someone else being punished for a crime you committed is actually just.

You haven't provided any rational justification for accepting any of these. I guess "magic" is sufficient justification to you, but it fails miserably upon any truly rational consideration of actual matters of justice.

I am not trying to convince you of the truth of the christian concepts, just pointing to the world view which allows for it.
all I really see is you not grasping christianity or christian Doctrine, i'm not even sure how to untangle your misconceptions.

Justice in the form of punishment implies punishment taking place as a result of and in response to a crime. Again, since Christ's crucifixion would have happened regardless, it can't count as punishment in any rational sense.
It would be like some schmo who owes you money telling you that someone else, a completely different person, had all their assets stripped from them, so the schmo's debt to you is magically repaid.

Christs crucifixition is a direct response to ALL human sin, not just the sin that preceeded it.
So your just denying a Christian tenant, not actually showing that my statement was inconsistent with christianity.

No, Sig's statement was about the criminal not being punished. Your claim that the concern is whether the crime itself is punished is a bald assertion based on the unsupported claim that someone else being punished can serve as punishment for some other crime.

Addressed above.

True justice and true mercy are incompatible, you can't have both at the same time.

This section is just a few nah-huh's from you, so I can't really respond.

You're yet again talking about a different kind of death than that which is suffered by those actually punished with death. If you're talking about actual death in terms of the cessation of life, then of course everyone dies, but that death is not always punishment for a crime.

Not in your world view.. but according to christianity, physical death is a direct punishment for sin.

You're talking here about a person escaping judgment. That has nothing to do with Sig's statement, which, again, was about the criminal not being punished for the crime. It was not about the criminal being judged or the crime being punished. Sure, in your world view, the criminal is judged. But since he was saved, the judgment is to not punish him, hence he is not punished.

I am talking about justice, and that all sin receives proper justice.
That there is a real sense in which no one esacpes the punishment of sin.
You denying it, doesn't falsify my statements as being consistent with christianity.

So again, Sig asked you if you thought it was just for someone to commit a crime and not be punished. You obviously don't think it's just, based on the ridiculous sophistry you're employing to try and support that your worldview doesn't fail at ensuring punishment of criminals for their crimes.

Given our exchange I would say that question has assumptions which are not justified.
If the assumption is that the person alone who did the crime is the only party that can justly take the punishment, or pay the penalty. Then I would reject that assumption.
As the statement doesn't even blanket our own justice system, it doesn't seem to be very reasonable in the sense provided.

[CowboyX]

I agree:


"A company that appears to be run by a pro-Trump conspiracy theorist offered to pay women to make false claims against Special Counsel Robert Mueller in the days leading up to the midterm elections—and the special counsel’s office has asked the FBI to weigh in. “When we learned last week of allegations that women were offered money to make false claims about the Special Counsel, we immediately referred the matter to the FBI for investigation,” the Mueller spokesman Peter Carr told me in an email on Tuesday.

The special-counsel office’s attention to this scheme and its decision to release a rare statement about it indicates the seriousness with which the team is taking the purported plot to discredit Mueller in the middle of an ongoing investigation. Carr confirmed that the allegations were brought to the office’s attention by several journalists, who were contacted by a woman who identified herself as Lorraine Parsons. Another woman, Jennifer Taub, contacted Mueller's office earlier this month with similar information.

The woman identifying herself as Parsons told journalists in an email, a copy of which I obtained, that she had been offered roughly $20,000 by a man claiming to work for a firm called Surefire Intelligence—which had been hired by a GOP activist named Jack Burkman—“to make accusations of sexual misconduct and workplace harassment against Robert Mueller.”

Parsons wrote in her letter that she had worked for Mueller as a paralegal at the Pillsbury, Madison, and Sutro law firm in 1974, but that she “didn’t see” him much. “When I did see him, he was always very polite to me, and was never inappropriate,” she said. The law firm told me late on Tuesday afternoon, however, that it has “no record of this individual working for our firm.”

Parsons explained that she was contacted by a man “with a British accent” who wanted to ask her “a couple questions about Robert Mueller, whom I worked with when I was a paralegal for Pillsbury, Madison, and Sutro in 1974. I asked him who he was working for, and he told me his boss was some sort of politics guy in Washington named Jack Burkman. I reluctantly told [him] that I had only worked with Mr. Mueller for a short period of time, before leaving that firm to have my first son.”

She continued: “In more of an effort to get him to go away than anything else, I asked him what in the hell he wanted me to do. He said that we could not talk about it on the phone, and he asked me to download an app on my phone called Signal, which he said was more secure. Reluctantly, I downloaded the app and he called me on that app a few minutes later. He said (and I will never forget exactly what it was) ‘I want you to make accusations of sexual misconduct and workplace harassment against Robert Mueller, and I want you to sign a sworn affidavit to that effect.’” The man “offered to pay off all of my credit card debt, plus bring me a check for $20,000 if I would do” it, she wrote. “He knew exactly how much credit card debt I had, right down to the dollar, which sort of freaked me out.”

Surefire Intelligence was incorporated in Delaware less than three weeks ago, according to online records, and describes itself as “a private intel agency that designs and executes bespoke solutions for businesses and individuals who face complex business and litigation challenges.” Surefire’s domain records list an email for another pro-Trump conspiracy theorist, Jacob Wohl, who began hyping a “scandalous” Mueller story on Tuesday morning. Wohl told The Daily Beast that Burkman had hired Surefire to assist with his investigation into Mueller’s past, but denied knowing anything about the firm’s involvement in an alleged plot to fabricate allegations against Mueller when asked why his email address appeared in the domain records. He did not respond when asked by NBC why a telephone number listed on Surefire’s website referred callers to another number that’s listed in public records as belonging to Wohl’s mother.

Parsons was not willing to speak to the reporters by phone, according to Scott Stedman, one of the reporters who received the letter. So portions of her story have gone uncorroborated, and her identity has not been independently confirmed.

But she’s not the only woman who’s come forward: Jennifer Taub, a professor at Vermont Law School, received an email from a man using a Surefire Intelligence email address around the same time, on October 22. “It’s my understanding that you may have had some past encounters with Robert Mueller,” he told Taub, according to the email she forwarded to me on Tuesday afternoon. “I would like to discuss those encounters with you.” (Taub told me she has never had any encounters with Mueller, though she does appear on CNN at times as an expert commentator on the Mueller probe.)"

[futureboy]

So my first concern with the idea of "getting away with no punishment" is the "getting away" portion.
Because all men are judged, it is consistent to say that no one "gets away".

I've already addressed this as irrelevant. The question was about whether one thinks it's just for someone to commit a crime and not be punished for it. Whether they are judged is irrelevant to that question. Further, judging someone and deciding that they are not to be punished is the same as them not being punished.

The second is "no punishment", which in the sense that all men die beacase of sin, certainly means that no man gets away without being "punished".

No, people die because they are mortal. And the criminal in our scenario will eventually die anyway, so his death doesn't count as punishment for the crime he committed.

The other sense, is only an issue for those who are saved, because we should agree that the unsaved absolutly fullfill the terms of doing a crime and suffering the punishment.
For the saved though, this is dealt with through a different aspect of justice, which you have directly challenged below.
But for here, I have offered one sense that is consistent with christiantiy by which no one gets away, as all men die.

Again, we're talking about a very simple scenario of "PersonA commits CrimeA, but does not receive PunishmentA (punishment for CrimeA)". Since the eventual death of PersonA is guaranteed because of his mortality, his death does not count as PunishmentA for CrimeA, because he could just as likely have not committed CrimeA, and he would still die.

If the question assumed that in order for justice to be served, that only the person who did the crime can be punished to full-fill it.

Nothing is assumed. All the question asks is whether you think it's just that PersonA commits CrimeA, but does not receive PunishmentA.

If your position is that it's just for PersonB to receive punishment for CrimeA instead of PersonA, then your answer to the question is that you're okay with PersonA not receiving PunishmentA for CrimeA.

We see this in our own laws in the sense of Expiatory Punishment, where corporations are punished instead of an individual, or government is fined rather than the gov official, or the entire insurance industry.

You'd have to provide more details on this, since the only info on "Expiatory Punishment" I could find defines it as "punishment in which the wrongdoer is made to suffer in proportion to the severity of the wrongdoing, but not necessarily in a way that reflects the nature of the transgression", and makes no reference to punishment of someone/thing other than the wrongdoer.

For the examples you provided, since the wrongdoer is part of the group being punished, then the wrongdoer is still punished. Further, from what I'm aware, in such situations, there is always rational justification for why the group is punished and not just the wrongdoer. It isn't just done arbitrarily so that you can deny the principle of PersonA does CrimeA and receives PunishmentA.

It just means not a figurative death. Like spiritual death is not the same as physical death, but it is still a real death.

Regardless, since the punishment you're referring to (suffering torture & death) happens only to Christ, Christ is the only one who is punished.

I am not trying to convince you of the truth of the christian concepts, just pointing to the world view which allows for it.
all I really see is you not grasping christianity or christian Doctrine, i'm not even sure how to untangle your misconceptions.

So you don't deny that your worldview requires one to accept that it's just for PersonB to be punished for CrimeA, and PersonA, who committed CrimeA, not receiving PunishmentA?

Christs crucifixition is a direct response to ALL human sin, not just the sin that preceeded it.

But PersonA still doesn't receive PunishmentA, which you're okay with. In any case, your response doesn't address the issue. You can claim all you want about what the tenet is, but since justice in the form of punishment implies PunishmentA taking place as a result of and in response to CrimeA, and Christ's crucifixion would have happened regardless, it simply doesn't count as PunishmentA. Simply stating that it's a tenet doesn't magically resolve the issue. You're obviously talking about something else which is not justice as commonly defined.

This section is just a few nah-huh's from you, so I can't really respond.

It's not, and you really can. Let's look at the definitions:
Justice: "The process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals."
Mercy: "Having compassion or giving forgiveness towards someone who one has the power to punish. It forebears punishing even when justice demands it."

They are incompatible based on the definitions. You can respond by addressing the statements I've made or ceding the point. Calling them "nah-huh's" is neither, and the argument stands until you provide a valid response.

Not in your world view.. but according to christianity, physical death is a direct punishment for sin.

Again, we're talking about PersonA committing CrimeA and receiving PunishmentA. PersonA is going to die regardless, so unless their death is caused prematurely and directly in response to CrimeA, their death simply doesn't count as PunishmentA. Simply claiming that it's a tenet doesn't make it less incoherent.

But this is irrelevant, you've already explained that PersonB can receive punishment for CrimeA instead of PersonA.

I am talking about justice, and that all sin receives proper justice.

No, you're talking about something else that is not justice, according to the common definition.

Given our exchange I would say that question has assumptions which are not justified.

Again no, it doesn't. All the question asks is whether you think it's just that PersonA commits CrimeA, but does not receive PunishmentA, and you've already explained that you think it's okay.

If the assumption is that the person alone who did the crime is the only party that can justly take the punishment, or pay the penalty. Then I would reject that assumption.

It's not an assumption, it's part of the definition of justice.

As the statement doesn't even blanket our own justice system

You've failed to support this, as your examples have been rebutted.

[MindTrap028]

@ Future.. I am going to take the shortest route to clearing this up for you.
1) I retract my original answer as presented. There are too many assumptions in the exchange that are not shared.
2) I reject the validity of the original question as it does not reflect justice or the idea of Justice, because it has false assumptions about what justice is.
False assumption
1) The first is that "punishment" is required for justice to occur.
- Punishment is defined as "suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/punishment
*note, the definition has a separate numbering that refers to a judicial aspect of it, but they are not really separate concepts. The idea that loss must be "felt" in order to count.
An example would be if Person A, does Act B, and justice calls for ruling C which does not cause any pain, or suffering from person A.
Such, a Gazillionar is fined $1. Justice is served by definition, but no pain or suffering has been inflicted.

2) That in order for justice to be served, Person A, who did Act B, must be the one to personally suffer loss or pain.
- Whatever the name, the very idea of insurance is the aspect that person A does Act B and group C suffers the loss instead of A.

---
I firmly believe there are other ways to answer the question, but this is just the shortest rout to showing the issues.

[futureboy]

There are too many assumptions in the exchange that are not shared.

I have already addressed this as an irrelevant objection. The question simply asks whether one thinks it is just for PersonA to commit CrimeA and not receive PunishmentA (the punishment which CrimeA deserves). The position you've expressed is that PersonB can be punished for CrimeA instead of PersonA, so therefore, the answer according to your position, it is just for PersonA to not receive PunishmentA.

1) The first is that "punishment" is required for justice to occur.
- Punishment is defined as "suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/punishment
*note, the definition has a separate numbering that refers to a judicial aspect of it, but they are not really separate concepts. The idea that loss must be "felt" in order to count.
An example would be if Person A, does Act B, and justice calls for ruling C which does not cause any pain, or suffering from person A.
Such, a Gazillionar is fined $1. Justice is served by definition, but no pain or suffering has been inflicted.

You mention the judicial aspect of the definition, comparing it, without quoting it directly, with the primary definition you wish to employ for you argument, stating that they are not separate concepts.
You then provide examples which you argue don't comport with the primary definition because they lack the pain and/or suffering present in the primary definition.
Unfortunately, the examples you provided comport perfectly with the secondary definition. Here it is, since you avoided quoting it directly: "a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure".

This is a prime example of the kind of sophistry you have been employing throughout our discussion, and the main reason your arguments fail.

Further, it does not address the definition of justice I already provided. Here it is again: "The process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals."
Your attempt to ignore the provided definition of justice, and then try to twist the definition of punishment to make the argument that justice doesn't by definition imply punishment, is simply ridiculous.

An example would be if Person A, does Act B, and justice calls for ruling C which does not cause any pain, or suffering from person A.

Yes, there is no pain or suffering from person A, but they do get penalized. This fits the definition of punishment defined as: "a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure". Your attempt to limit punishment to pain or suffering fails, and therefore your claim that justice doesn't require punishment is unsupported.

Such, a Gazillionar is fined $1. Justice is served by definition, but no pain or suffering has been inflicted.

Yes, justice is served through a penalty inflicted on the Gazillionaire. This fits the definition of punishment defined as: "a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure". Your attempt to limit punishment to pain or suffering fails, and therefore your claim that justice doesn't require punishment is unsupported.

Whatever the name, the very idea of insurance is the aspect that person A does Act B and group C suffers the loss instead of A.

This is not a valid example due to the principles on which insurance is based such as: it is voluntary, and it is intended to benefit the group as a whole by insuring financial support for a member of the group should they need it. Further, since person A is required to pay into the insurance program in order to be part of the group and benefit from the insurance, your claim that person A suffers no loss is baseless.

I firmly believe there are other ways to answer the question

Yes, one way of answering it is "honestly", which you have thus far failed to do. Instead, you have chosen to engage in sophistry, the latest examples being an attempt to twist the definitions of a word in order to avoid having to deal with a definition which doesn't fit your argument, and an attempt to twist the principle of insurance into some comparison with the principle of judicial punishment of wrongdoers for their wrongdoing.

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand why you feel you have to do so - I sure as hell wouldn't wish upon anyone the task of explaining away the injustice of vicarious redemption - I'm just pointing it out why it won't work.

but this is just the shortest rout to showing the issues.

Yeah, no. You've failed to sufficiently show any issues. Again, if your position is that it's okay for PersonB to be punished for CrimeA instead of PersonA, then your answer to the question is that you're okay with PersonA not being punished for the crime they committed.

[MindTrap028]

@ future.. I appreciator your response, but have been too busy to spend the time on the response I want to give.
Given current events, I concede the thread.