Punish A Whole Group for The Fault of One Member

Your issue about punishment applies to other "reactions" as well, such as reward, pre-emptive attack, etc. I think that what must be considered is the nature of a group: To begin with, a group is NOT a class of people, such as All Shoemakers, All Employees of any business firm, All Homeless People, etc. etc. Groups are of two types: Accidental Group, or Accidental Aggregation, such as the people travelling in a morning train, the people who went to shop in a certain store, etc., and an Organismic Group, or Essential Aggregation, in which people, by mutual consent, have a common purpose, people are engaged in realizing a certain project (actual collaborators), people who want to create a family, but not the people of a state who unintentionally create a division of labor by becoming farmers, shoemakers, medical doctors, merchants, truck drivers, etc. So, in what respect is a group organismic?? The people of a state may form an organismic group by choosing governors of the state, by accepting the same laws and decrees, etc. // If a wrongdoing or crime is committed by an individual [theft, murder, arson, rape, sabotage, vandalism, treason,...], is its effect in the same category in which he is a member of an organism group? If not, only the individual is guilty. So, e.g., murdering a citizen and murdering a foreigner imply different group-responsibility -- none for the latter. This means that all the citizens of a state have the duty to create  conditions and measures for the prevention and execution of crimes against the citizens. [...]

Does a group, collectively, bear any responsibility for a crime a member commits? My above position is not just an opinion of mine; it is .practically an inference from posts I made under my thread JURISPRUDENCE. Briefly these are the premises for my position on the present issue: A republic is a society or association [group] of FREE people who choose to maintain their collective and individual freedom, that is, to oppose anybody's DOMINATION or "lording over" the citizens. Any sort of crime [stealing, killing, injuring, abducting, ...] is a form of domination [lordly repression/oppression]. Thus a criminal is a person who gives up his citizenship, his commitment to maintain the collective and individual freedom of the citizens. // In what sense does the society of free persons bear any responsibility for the crime of a member? In the sense that the society FAILED to create conditions and measures for the prevention of crimes. So, to argue more logically, the society in question does not share the guilt of a member's specific crime; it was at fault by OMISSION, by the failure to prevent a crime. So, if a retribution is due for the commission of a crime, it is not the same retribution that is due for the omission of preventing a crime.// Whereas in a monarchy or in a despotic state the citizens are the subjects of a lord, in a republic the citizens are free and, by choice, fraternal or philadephic; they constitute a true organismic group.

joustos


Okay, as we know the consequences for this example follow:
    -- there's a group of people;
    -- one (two, three... – a part) member of the group is guilty for smth;
    -- the whole group is punished for this.

    This is how it looks like by a first glance. Of course there are some questions that I should try to describe firstly. Among them there are such as what a group of people means? What does it mean 'guilty' and for whom? Why the whole group is punished if it's known who's guilty?
I'm going to describe a group of people.


    Any communication that exists among the members points that there is some kind of a unity, some relationships between them. The group in this sense is something that work together, even if each of members does his own business. They cooperate despite of their own will. Life makes them be united. Maybe these connections are not clearly seen, but there are such connections.
    A shoemaker cooperates with a knife-maker, and a rope-maker. He cooperates with bakers or bootleggers (if there are certain laws), etc. I mean it's impossible to imagine completely isolate community. The most detailed things are fixed to each other when we try to see the whole.
    But there's something else that is important here: it's some responsibilities. Members of the community are allowed to do certain things, however they have to do something like a common help to each other. Again, one may object to it saying something like oh, I can go anywhere, I don't belong to anyone. However, he's wrong. It's easy to think like that, but even the most primary sources are not everywhere is easy to get, and to be in a place where you want means – there are no others who possess it. And so forth. I guess here we've got the same situation with connections.
    Another problem here is to see details in that communities depending on their mutual responsibilities. If one member isn't closed with the others, then it seems that his guilty is only his guilty. It looks like only from, maybe, the members of the group of his, but I don't think that all of them want the same. First of all, let's look closer at it.
If that member did something illegal (violated some of laws) he did a harm to someone in particular, or to a whole community in general. (He did something bad to the whole community if he did something bad against the things in the world, or against the world, because anyone must understand that if our planet had been detonated, then everyone would have died.) There is no point to order dull or empty laws with not point. Those actions of that violating member are seen dangerous not just by the caprice of one man (let's say Papa's). No, such a crime – is a true sin, the sin against the things.
    And if someone has suffered because of those actions of that member, then something will have to be done. Of course, the group can skip it, but again – this is a pointless anarchy action without any reasons, only just to keep someone's feelings, or kinda. (Nevertheless, it's not impossible to delay or to skip any punishment if the suffered side decided to let a crime go. Maybe in some situation it's not so bad for it. But we cannot count on it. In such a case we've got rather some irrational, or intuitive action, not a thoughtful one.)
    So, the vengeance must have come. What kind of vengeance? – To get things balanced. Exactly for this point there is a law. I know that this explanation may look like a weaker version. It's not so really important here, for my explanation, but I know that I have to think harder for this and other details. Only what is important must be said here: there is a law; it exists to get things balanced; and it keeps people in some kind of a proper systematized way.
    Each member of such a community may count to get a help from a side, if his rights are violated. And I guess it's very true to try to heal a crime to not to do his crimes. That was a brief explanation of a group. It wasn't a good one, since I hadn't answered on some key questions about exactly this theme.


    -- a group of people do different actions;
    -- among those actions there are legal & illegal;
    -- there are other groups of people;
    -- those other groups also have got their laws;
    -- let's take two groups A and B, and both of them have laws;
    -- it's possible that laws of A=laws of B, or three other ways;

I just want to get back to my topic about why a group has to response for something, and to add here something sufficient that I hadn't added to it before (but I would like to do it, I just skipped it out). Alright, it's important thing can be seen down below in the next additions:

    -- in these two groups there are persons a and b, such that aєA and bєB. ('a' belong to A, 'b' belong to B);
    -- if a did an action that is illegal for the group B (and b in particular), then there was expected some reaction to this action as from A so from B;
    -- in case if the group A (that has a 'crime' member) hasn't applied any sanctions to a (hasn't punished him), then A are not better for its actions, than its own member;
    -- so, if the group of B decides to object A for having a not punished, it will be right.

I have to say that I'm not sure in such a way of thinking. So, I tried another one.

    -- that b member of the group B doesn't sure whether or not a (from the group A) is solely guilty, or not;
    -- b doesn't sure, because if there are not response to the actions of a to the group of A, then all of the group are just doing nothing for get things balanced;
    -- so, for that b is possible to think that the whole group A is guilty, not only the one member.
    -- since one member of a group cannot decide, his views of the whole group – as the guilty ones – are okay.

    There are two main points (except many others) that also have to be viewed: why some groups allowed to decide about some others? And is it allowed for a side group to interfere another group?
    I think I can say that it's weird to accept any interfere from aside, but it's not prohibited to hate or to count about the other groups. Plus to it: that point of no-interfere is better to have as a law, not just something unsaid, and non-written.
    If things like A group cannot do to its member a anything, than some sanctions have to be amplified to it.

    I might be wrong completely at many of these points, while to view all that was interesting to me, and there was something I wanted to check by myself (but I didn't) – how any cooperation between groups connected to each other, and why they have to be isolated in some special manner. It's impossible to be completely isolated, so there must be answers to it.

MAYA-EL, if you didn't know I've been living in Kharkiv, and only want to say that 'russia' and 'Ukraine' are people primary. There are not 'russia' or 'Ukraine' as concepts. You may or may not pay attention to this conflict, but it doesn't mean that your argument about the programming is completed. What do I mean? Just imagine a kingdom that lives perfectly for anyone who lives outside of it, while living in that kingdom is totally terrible. Maybe this example isn't so bright, but I think for people who lived in a certain family (or families) it might play bigger role, I mean for an outsider a certain family may look like saints or decent people, while living within that family may be a terrible or even a horrible things. The same is here. Your argument about the programming may be true, but on some the upper level. It's like you can forecast something, let's say some events in a near future, and your forecasts may be perforemed exactly, while you may be misguided or wrong at some detailed level. Let's say, you're saying that in some years the quantum computer will be created. Okay, this may turn true, but how exactly it will happened - you may not know. But that lower level isn't less important. Let's say, those quantum computers will be dangerous (at some points), and having them may potentially cause some health troubles. Until we don't know the parts of the whole it's not so clear what do we really know. And this requirement is the same as in mathematical logic. For instance, x+2<y+3 - is unknown until x and y are defined. But as soon as we have it, adding a new knowledge that: x<y, then we can complete this example removing that x<y, and typing the rest of the formula: 2<3, which is true. 
So, I guess to find out whether or not something is programmed we have to define - to calculate that programming of everything do we need to have all the parts of the whole, or we can skip some of parts to solve it?