Epistemological error is epistemological. B)
The tool men use to create a society is organization. Specifically, men are organized into the criminal justice system of a country, and enact a set of objective judgments in a way prescribed by law. That’s what society is, men organized in a specific way.
You just dismissed all that. You don like that organization. In other words, you don’t like the concept society, as it is currently defined. To that, I say fine, but if you dismiss the current rules by which society is organized, you must provide a new set of rules before you use the concept “society”. Until then, you are using an undefined concept.
At this point, your suggestion is: Undefined should make it clear that killing someone results in death, and undefined should make it happen. In fact, undefined should make it happen instantly. But, alas, that’s not how reality works. Undefined is a non-entity. Non-entities don’t do anything. Your suggestion is invalid. It has no meaning. At best, I could read meaning into it by speculating and assuming that you mean anyone should just get to shoot anyone else because they think they killed someone. I’m not gonna do that to you, instead I’ll just point out that your post doesn’t mean anything when read literally.
P.S. There are reasons why the criminal justice system is organized the way it is (into law enforcement, prosecution, defense attorneys, courts, an appeals system, a supreme court, legislators). Perhaps it would be an easier task to find specific things you think are wrong with it, and suggest minor modifications, than it would be to just reinvent everything from scratch.
Maybe if you understood why justice in the context of a society takes time (because organization, even of a few people, takes time - the kind of organization that results in a society takes a lot of time, because it involves a lot of people), you would be more reasonable.
Maybe you would be satisfied with suggesting that it shouldn’t take longer than six months or a year for the system to fully process a cut and dried case like this one, and execute the criminal. And I would agree with you. Sure, every cog in the system should be allowed to do its work, but, especially when the evidence of guilt is this overwhelming, it’s not unreasonable to expect everything to be wrapped up in a year, with the end result being the death penalty.
But the suggestion that justice should happen instantly is the dismissal of every single principle and rule that defines society. If you make that suggestion, you cannot then still use the word “society” as if it still refers to a valid concept.
Actually our society “as it is currently defined” agrees with me. We have the death penalty. At a federal level. So, even though you sound very smart and use some really big words (I’ll admit I had to look up epistemological), your cohesive thought process and basis for argument is false. Hence the remainder of your argument is invalid.
Secondly,I know about our criminal justice system and its virtues, and I agree with it in order to protect people in our society from wrongful prosecution. So your whole P.S. statement - waste of your time to type.
Also, I made it clear, to point out in this specific instance, how our justice system should have something in place for a case this apparent. So your point about “if I understood why justice takes time” is again somewhat misguided.
Lastly, your quote:
“But the suggestion that justice should happen instantly is the dismissal of every single principle and rule that defines society. If you make that suggestion, you cannot then still use the word “society” as if it still refers to a valid concept.”
It is not the dismissal of every single principle and rule that defines society. The society in the US and most modern nations no longer accept “instant justice”. We used to though in our early history (duels over honor, gunfights to settle disputes, etc.). There are some societies in the world today that still implement swift and immediate justice. Now the argument can be made on whether or not that is how they should dispense justice, or even if it is justice they are dispensing, but you can use the word society and it does refer to a valid concept.
My point which you were talking about though was about our lack of enforcing justice once it has been decided upon. If you want to rethink and focus on that point, then I’ll be happy to reply or discuss it with you.
P.S. What you wrote sounds like a really good beginning for a philosophy class, dissertation, or coffee shop discussion. Unfortunately you’re arguments do not seem very objective, considering you replied to something you did not fully read. Understanding the counterpoints to your argument is always the first step in forming a complete response.