| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/16/2008 01:11:49 PM · #376 |
I knew you would say that ! All this railing against prison time and now you would lock up a 19 year old for the simple act of having a noose hanging on his car! Unreal.
What about a picture of a noose on your window? What about a picture here on DPC of a noose with the title "Let's hang 'em all". Where does it stop ? How the hell can you lock up someone for 4 months for displaying a noose? What about a "bull whip"? Blacks were beaten with whips during slavery. Can I not hang a whip on my car or door?
What about "fire hoses"? These hoses were used in the '60s to quell black protestors.
What about German Shepard dogs? They were used also.
I'm praying that you don't follow up and say the "speeding" woman should not serve time for KILLING someone with her speeding car!
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by kenskid:
A 19 year old was sentenced to 4 MONTHS in federal prison for driving down a town street with a noose tied to the back of his car.
[...]
Should you go to prison for tying a noose to the back of your car? |
In this case, yes. I don't think he should be humiliated in prison or suffer any physical or psychological harm, but the time-out might give him a chance to think a bit.
You might say "Come on, driving around with a noose tied to the back of your car is no big deal.", but what would the purpose be? I can't think of any other purpose than intimidating and threatening black people. |
Message edited by author 2008-08-16 13:12:51. |
|
|
|
08/16/2008 01:33:42 PM · #377 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
I knew you would say that ! All this railing against prison time and now you would lock up a 19 year old for the simple act of having a noose hanging on his car! Unreal.
What about a picture of a noose on your window? What about a picture here on DPC of a noose with the title "Let's hang 'em all". Where does it stop ? How the hell can you lock up someone for 4 months for displaying a noose? What about a "bull whip"? Blacks were beaten with whips during slavery. Can I not hang a whip on my car or door?
What about "fire hoses"? These hoses were used in the '60s to quell black protestors.
What about German Shepard dogs? They were used also.
I'm praying that you don't follow up and say the "speeding" woman should not serve time for KILLING someone with her speeding car!
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by kenskid:
A 19 year old was sentenced to 4 MONTHS in federal prison for driving down a town street with a noose tied to the back of his car.
[...]
Should you go to prison for tying a noose to the back of your car? |
In this case, yes. I don't think he should be humiliated in prison or suffer any physical or psychological harm, but the time-out might give him a chance to think a bit.
You might say "Come on, driving around with a noose tied to the back of your car is no big deal.", but what would the purpose be? I can't think of any other purpose than intimidating and threatening black people. |
|
He wasn't just "driving around town" he intentionally drove past a predominantly black protest march several times with multiple nooses hanging from his truck.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2008 01:36:04 PM · #378 |
Originally posted by SDW:
Because justice should not be blind. It's not that he is being punish MORE because his actions (not luck or lack of) took a life; instead he is punished less because he did not take a life. |
Two thoughts:
1. Shouldn't punishment be solely based on what the perpetrator is actually responsible for? I think this should apply both to causes (like the schizophrenia case we discussed) and to effects. Let me make two examples to explain what I mean:
- A man drives through a neighborhood (Learned something, Europe has villages, the US has neighborhoods, apparently. ;-) ) at reasonable speed paying diligent attention. However, a kid on a skateboard crosses the street at high speed without paying attention and the driver crashes into them. The kid dies. There's nothing the driver could have done to prevent the accident.
- A woman drives through a neighborhood where many children play at 100mph. Nothing happens.
I would argue that the woman should be punished more and the man less (or not at all).
2. From the point of view of the society that needs protection, would you really let the woman continue driving after catching her the first time? Wouldn't you be responsible if something happened the next time she did it? |
|
|
|
08/16/2008 01:37:43 PM · #379 |
I don't care where he was driving. He didn't hurt anyone. What if it was a "poster" of a noose? My God. As the law is written, if I drive with a noose and anyone complains, I could spend time in JAIL.
What about the dog, the whip, the firehose etc? JAIL TIME for symbolism? Or..is it just symbolism that insults blacks?
I bet you someone can ride down the street with a swastika and nothing would happen.
Originally posted by idnic:
Originally posted by kenskid:
I knew you would say that ! All this railing against prison time and now you would lock up a 19 year old for the simple act of having a noose hanging on his car! Unreal.
What about a picture of a noose on your window? What about a picture here on DPC of a noose with the title "Let's hang 'em all". Where does it stop ? How the hell can you lock up someone for 4 months for displaying a noose? What about a "bull whip"? Blacks were beaten with whips during slavery. Can I not hang a whip on my car or door?
What about "fire hoses"? These hoses were used in the '60s to quell black protestors.
What about German Shepard dogs? They were used also.
I'm praying that you don't follow up and say the "speeding" woman should not serve time for KILLING someone with her speeding car!
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by kenskid:
A 19 year old was sentenced to 4 MONTHS in federal prison for driving down a town street with a noose tied to the back of his car.
[...]
Should you go to prison for tying a noose to the back of your car? |
In this case, yes. I don't think he should be humiliated in prison or suffer any physical or psychological harm, but the time-out might give him a chance to think a bit.
You might say "Come on, driving around with a noose tied to the back of your car is no big deal.", but what would the purpose be? I can't think of any other purpose than intimidating and threatening black people. |
|
He wasn't just "driving around town" he intentionally drove past a predominantly black protest march several times with multiple nooses hanging from his truck. |
Message edited by author 2008-08-16 13:41:49. |
|
|
|
08/16/2008 01:47:22 PM · #380 |
Here in the good old liberal US, lawyers can get their client off on 5,6 even 10 times for driving while intoxicated (dwi) arrests. Lawyers get them off many times by saying "my client can't make a living if you jail him or take away his license".
The US has a mental problem of our own when a DWI offender can do his crime up to and over 6 times but a 19 year old with a noose on his car gets 4 months. Our justice system is wacked.
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by SDW:
Because justice should not be blind. It's not that he is being punish MORE because his actions (not luck or lack of) took a life; instead he is punished less because he did not take a life. |
Two thoughts:
1. Shouldn't punishment be solely based on what the perpetrator is actually responsible for? I think this should apply both to causes (like the schizophrenia case we discussed) and to effects. Let me make two examples to explain what I mean:
- A man drives through a neighborhood (Learned something, Europe has villages, the US has neighborhoods, apparently. ;-) ) at reasonable speed paying diligent attention. However, a kid on a skateboard crosses the street at high speed without paying attention and the driver crashes into them. The kid dies. There's nothing the driver could have done to prevent the accident.
- A woman drives through a neighborhood where many children play at 100mph. Nothing happens.
I would argue that the woman should be punished more and the man less (or not at all).
2. From the point of view of the society that needs protection, would you really let the woman continue driving after catching her the first time? Wouldn't you be responsible if something happened the next time she did it? |
Message edited by author 2008-08-16 13:48:21. |
|
|
|
08/16/2008 01:48:21 PM · #381 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
I knew you would say that ! All this railing against prison time and now you would lock up a 19 year old for the simple act of having a noose hanging on his car! Unreal.
What about a picture of a noose on your window? What about a picture here on DPC of a noose with the title "Let's hang 'em all". Where does it stop ? How the hell can you lock up someone for 4 months for displaying a noose? What about a "bull whip"? Blacks were beaten with whips during slavery. Can I not hang a whip on my car or door?
What about "fire hoses"? These hoses were used in the '60s to quell black protestors.
What about German Shepard dogs? They were used also.
I'm praying that you don't follow up and say the "speeding" woman should not serve time for KILLING someone with her speeding car! |
I see the issue is important enough to you to invoke God's help. ;-) Did I ever rail against prison time? Did I ever suggest to abolish prisons or anything like that? I don't think so.
The questions I'm concerned with are "How can we make our society safer and more peaceful? How can we prevent suffering?".
There are many harmless, everyday things that you could interpret as hate crimes if you were creative. I wouldn't join the thought police and give people the benefit of the doubt. However, the noose does clearly not fall into this category. Its only possible purpose is intimidating and threatening people of a specific race. This is something we don't want in a peaceful society. And yes, I would therefore send the kid to prison. However, I don't think that a prison reinforcing violence would be a good idea. I would prefer something like the Norwegian camp. The goal would be to teach the kid values like compassion, respect, etc. and not to punish him.
(And by the way, the little straw man you threw in at the end was completely unnecessary.)
EDIT: Please keep in mind that driving past a protest march with a noose (or even several) hanging from your car basically amounts to yelling "I'm going to kill some of you soon!" out the window. Should that be ok?
Message edited by author 2008-08-16 13:53:41. |
|
|
|
08/16/2008 01:55:48 PM · #382 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Two thoughts:
1. Shouldn't punishment be solely based on what the perpetrator is actually responsible for? I think this should apply both to causes (like the schizophrenia case we discussed) and to effects. Let me make two examples to explain what I mean:
- A man drives through a neighborhood (Learned something, Europe has villages, the US has neighborhoods, apparently. ;-) ) at reasonable speed paying diligent attention. However, a kid on a skateboard crosses the street at high speed without paying attention and the driver crashes into them. The kid dies. There's nothing the driver could have done to prevent the accident.
- A woman drives through a neighborhood where many children play at 100mph. Nothing happens.
I would argue that the woman should be punished more and the man less (or not at all). |
If the man was driving a reasonable speed (within the speed limit) and the outcome was at no fault his; he has committed no crime.
The woman has committed a driving violation and should be punish which I outlined in my prior post.
Originally posted by Sam94720:
2. From the point of view of the society that needs protection, would you really let the woman continue driving after catching her the first time? Wouldn't you be responsible if something happened the next time she did it? |
Yes! as outline in prior post. And NO! I have handed down a fine that should (and in hopes) deter her from committing the same or equal offense.
My legal GPS knows what direction the questions you have posed are heading but I will wait for you to ask them, then respond. I don't want to assume!
Message edited by author 2008-08-16 14:02:55. |
|
|
|
08/16/2008 02:01:52 PM · #383 |
Where does it stop Sam? Firehose, Bullwhip, German Shepard Dogs? If a noose can get you jail time then surely the bullwhip should.
After nearly 350 posts on this thread, I can't believe you would send someone to jail for driving past a crowd with a noose!
Remember this...the crowd was there protesting that the black teens who beat the white teen got too harsh a sentence. And now someone gets 4 months for driving with a noose.
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by kenskid:
I knew you would say that ! All this railing against prison time and now you would lock up a 19 year old for the simple act of having a noose hanging on his car! Unreal.
What about a picture of a noose on your window? What about a picture here on DPC of a noose with the title "Let's hang 'em all". Where does it stop ? How the hell can you lock up someone for 4 months for displaying a noose? What about a "bull whip"? Blacks were beaten with whips during slavery. Can I not hang a whip on my car or door?
What about "fire hoses"? These hoses were used in the '60s to quell black protestors.
What about German Shepard dogs? They were used also.
I'm praying that you don't follow up and say the "speeding" woman should not serve time for KILLING someone with her speeding car! |
I see the issue is important enough to you to invoke God's help. ;-) Did I ever rail against prison time? Did I ever suggest to abolish prisons or anything like that? I don't think so.
The questions I'm concerned with are "How can we make our society safer and more peaceful? How can we prevent suffering?".
There are many harmless, everyday things that you could interpret as hate crimes if you were creative. I wouldn't join the thought police and give people the benefit of the doubt. However, the noose does clearly not fall into this category. Its only possible purpose is intimidating and threatening people of a specific race. This is something we don't want in a peaceful society. And yes, I would therefore send the kid to prison. However, I don't think that a prison reinforcing violence would be a good idea. I would prefer something like the Norwegian camp. The goal would be to teach the kid values like compassion, respect, etc. and not to punish him.
(And by the way, the little straw man you threw in at the end was completely unnecessary.)
EDIT: Please keep in mind that driving past a protest march with a noose (or even several) hanging from your car basically amounts to yelling "I'm going to kill some of you soon!" out the window. Should that be ok? |
|
|
|
|
08/16/2008 02:35:00 PM · #384 |
Originally posted by SDW:
If the man was driving a reasonable speed (within the speed limit) and the outcome was at no fault his; he has committed no crime.
The woman has committed a driving violation and should be punish which I outlined in my prior post. |
What I don't like about your argumentation (and that of  kenskid) is that you often write things along the lines of "A jury would [...]" or "The law says [...]" and thereby in a way decline responsibility. Laws are not set in stone, they are merely a kind of social contract that can be changed over time. (In many countries property is better protected than life. Shows you who made the laws...) I'd be more interested in hearing what you think the law should be than you citing its current form.
My point with the example was that the woman is showing a behavior which is less desirable than the man's. However, the man will be in bigger legal trouble than she will.
The main argument is
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Shouldn't punishment be solely based on what the perpetrator is actually responsible for? I think this should apply both to causes (like the schizophrenia case we discussed) and to effects. |
Originally posted by SDW:
My legal GPS knows what direction the questions you have posed are heading but I will wait for you to ask them, then respond. I don't want to assume! |
I wasn't planning any further questions, but I'd be interested in hearing your responses anyway (and the questions, too, please ;-) ). |
|
|
|
08/16/2008 02:40:25 PM · #385 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
And now someone gets 4 months for driving with a noose. |
No. Someone gets 4 months for unambiguously threatening to kill people.
If you argue he didn't do that then please explain to us the purpose of his repeatedly driving past a protest march with nooses hanging from his car. |
|
|
|
08/16/2008 03:03:09 PM · #386 |
Originally posted by SDW:
Because justice should not be blind. It's not that he is being punish MORE because his actions (not luck or lack of) took a life; instead he is punished less because he did not take a life. |
I've missed many posts so forgive me if this has been answered. Are you saying justice should not be blind on lower level crimes or all crimes? If I tried to murder you or blow up your place of work but failed I should get punished less than had I been successful? If I tried to kill 20 people but only managed 5 should only the 5 successful ones count? In other words, should my mistakes in planning or otherwise lack of expertise in carrying out murders be the basis for my leniency and not the intent of my actions?
Message edited by author 2008-08-16 15:07:04.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2008 03:04:55 PM · #387 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by SDW:
If the man was driving a reasonable speed (within the speed limit) and the outcome was at no fault his; he has committed no crime.
The woman has committed a driving violation and should be punish which I outlined in my prior post. |
What I don't like about your argumentation (and that of kenskid) is that you often write things along the lines of "A jury would [...]" or "The law says [...]" and thereby in a way decline responsibility. Laws are not set in stone, they are merely a kind of social contract that can be changed over time. (In many countries property is better protected than life. Shows you who made the laws...) I'd be more interested in hearing what you think the law should be than you citing its current form. |
I think the law should be as I have stated. I don't know how to be clearer.
Originally posted by Sam94720:
My point with the example was that the woman is showing a behavior which is less desirable than the man's. However, the man will be in bigger legal trouble than she will. |
What makes you think the man will be in bigger legal trouble. Under our current legal system and the way you stated the accident happened he would not be charged with any crime. I think you are mislead on some of our laws and how it is determined if an individual is indited for a crime or exonerated.
My question to you is what make you think he would be in bigger legal trouble?
Originally posted by Sam94720:
The main argument is
Shouldn't punishment be solely based on what the perpetrator is actually responsible for? I think this should apply both to causes (like the schizophrenia case we discussed) and to effects. |
Yes! Take the two people you have illustrated, both commit the same violation but one took a life doing so. The one that took a life is responsible for the violation AND the life he has taken where the other is spared the harsher punishment because no life was lost. It's called you are responsible for your actions plus the results of the action(s).
Originally posted by SDW:
My legal GPS knows what direction the questions you have posed are heading but I will wait for you to ask them, then respond. I don't want to assume! |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
I wasn't planning any further questions, but I'd be interested in hearing your responses anyway (and the questions, too, please ;-) ). |
But you did and they were very close to what I was expecting :)
Message edited by author 2008-08-16 15:11:44. |
|
|
|
08/16/2008 03:20:58 PM · #388 |
Originally posted by SDW:
What makes you think the man will be in bigger legal trouble. Under our current legal system and the way you stated the accident happened he would not be charged with any crime. I think you are mislead on some of our laws and how it is determined if an individual is indited for a crime or exonerated.
My question to you is what make you think he would be in bigger legal trouble? |
The woman gets a fine, that's it. The man will probably have to invest weeks if not months or years of his life into this case. The circumstances may not be apparent immediately. The parents may sue him. And if he's unlucky, he might even be convicted.
Originally posted by SDW:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
The main argument is
Shouldn't punishment be solely based on what the perpetrator is actually responsible for? I think this should apply both to causes (like the schizophrenia case we discussed) and to effects. |
Yes! Take the two people you have illustrated, both commit the same violation but one took a life doing so. The one that took a life is responsible for the violation AND the life he has taken where the other is spared the harsher punishment because no life was lost. It's called you are responsible for your actions plus the results of the action(s). |
By this logic the man in the previous example would be responsible for the dead of the child. Let's say you throw a brick from a roof. Should you be punished more if it hits someone? This is simply a matter of luck. By throwing the brick you bear the responsibility for risking to hurt or even kill someone.  yanko addressed the issue of intent and outcome above, too. |
|
|
|
08/16/2008 03:50:15 PM · #389 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by SDW:
What makes you think the man will be in bigger legal trouble. Under our current legal system and the way you stated the accident happened he would not be charged with any crime. I think you are mislead on some of our laws and how it is determined if an individual is indited for a crime or exonerated.
My question to you is what make you think he would be in bigger legal trouble? |
The woman gets a fine, that's it. The man will probably have to invest weeks if not months or years of his life into this case. The circumstances may not be apparent immediately. The parents may sue him. And if he's unlucky, he might even be convicted.
Originally posted by SDW:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
The main argument is
Shouldn't punishment be solely based on what the perpetrator is actually responsible for? I think this should apply both to causes (like the schizophrenia case we discussed) and to effects. |
Yes! Take the two people you have illustrated, both commit the same violation but one took a life doing so. The one that took a life is responsible for the violation AND the life he has taken where the other is spared the harsher punishment because no life was lost. It's called you are responsible for your actions plus the results of the action(s). |
By this logic the man in the previous example (1)would be responsible for the dead of the child. Let's say you throw a brick from a roof. Should you be punished more if it hits someone? This is simply a matter of luck. (2)By throwing the brick you bear the responsibility for risking to hurt or even kill someone. yanko addressed the issue of intent and outcome above, too. |
1.Why would he be responsible? He did nothing wrong. The parents have no grounds for a lawsuit against him. The justice system is just that, justice...he would not be charged let alone convinced.
2.I know of no law that says you can't throw a brick off a roof of a building (unless otherwise posted) unless he are doing so with malice. However, it would be an irresponsible act that could have ramifications. Those ramifications could result in a civil suite and/or criminal suite due his actions. Do you believe he should be responsible for his actions?
Message edited by author 2008-08-16 15:54:49. |
|
|
|
08/16/2008 04:05:36 PM · #390 |
I think he was only trying to aggravate them.
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by kenskid:
And now someone gets 4 months for driving with a noose. |
No. Someone gets 4 months for unambiguously threatening to kill people.
If you argue he didn't do that then please explain to us the purpose of his repeatedly driving past a protest march with nooses hanging from his car. |
|
|
|
|
08/16/2008 04:17:07 PM · #391 |
Originally posted by SDW:
1.Why would he be responsible? He did nothing wrong. The parents have no grounds for a lawsuit against him. The justice system is just that, justice...he would not be charged let alone convinced. |
The fact that he did nothing wrong will come out at the end of the investigation, not at the beginning.
Originally posted by SDW:
2.I know of no law that says you can't throw a brick off a roof of a building |
That's what I meant concerning your argumentation style... ;-)
Originally posted by SDW:
Do you believe he should be responsible for his actions? |
Of course you are responsible for your actions if you throw bricks off a roof. I hope I illustrated with the man and the woman driving through the neighborhood that legal consequences cannot primarily be based on outcome. |
|
|
|
08/16/2008 05:31:13 PM · #392 |
Sorry for coming back to this again, but I'm really interested in hearing your thoughts...
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Let me come back to the Heinz dilemma:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
We keep discussing about rape and murder. I understand that these crimes are emotionally most disturbing, but they only make up a tiny fraction of all crimes committed.
You might have seen my post about Kohlberg's stages of moral development earlier. The Wikipedia page mentions the "Heinz dilemma", which goes as follows:
A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.
How should we punish Heinz? Is he a bad person? |
I haven't heard a convincing argument yet why Heinz should or should not be punished. He committed a crime. He broke the law. He brought harm to another person.
And egamble: You seem to have understood that the German woman bears little to no responsibility for her illness. And you appear to be willing to pay for keeping her locked away permanently.
Now imagine this woman had not committed any crime. But she'd still have the illness and she wouldn't be able to work because of it. In the other discussion we had you argued people should be cut off welfare after a few years. Would this also apply to her? And if yes: Does this mean she has to commit a crime to be worthy of your money? |
|
|
|
|
08/16/2008 07:43:47 PM · #393 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
I haven't heard a convincing argument yet why Heinz should or should not be punished. He committed a crime. He broke the law. He brought harm to another person. |
In the US we have laws. When these are broken then there is punishment. However, the man that broke the law in the "Heinz dilemma" will get a fair trail and will be allowed a provisional argument of why he felt he had to break the law. This is called, "extenuating circumstance", defined in law as "circumstance that diminishes the culpability of one who has committed a criminal offense and so can be considered to mitigate the punishment". This mitigation could go as far as having him do not jail time. |
|
|
|
08/16/2008 07:58:02 PM · #394 |
Originally posted by SDW:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
I haven't heard a convincing argument yet why Heinz should or should not be punished. He committed a crime. He broke the law. He brought harm to another person. |
In the US we have laws. When these are broken then there is punishment. However, the man that broke the law in the "Heinz dilemma" will get a fair trail and will be allowed a provisional argument of why he felt he had to break the law. This is called, "extenuating circumstance", defined in law as "circumstance that diminishes the culpability of one who has committed a criminal offense and so can be considered to mitigate the punishment". This mitigation could go as far as having him do not jail time. |
But why might he do no jail time? What is the reasoning behind such a choice? ("It's the law." doesn't help, there must have been some reason for the law, too...) He did commit the crime. |
|
|
|
08/16/2008 08:16:11 PM · #395 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by SDW:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
I haven't heard a convincing argument yet why Heinz should or should not be punished. He committed a crime. He broke the law. He brought harm to another person. |
In the US we have laws. When these are broken then there is punishment. However, the man that broke the law in the "Heinz dilemma" will get a fair trail and will be allowed a provisional argument of why he felt he had to break the law. This is called, "extenuating circumstance", defined in law as "circumstance that diminishes the culpability of one who has committed a criminal offense and so can be considered to mitigate the punishment". This mitigation could go as far as having him do not jail time. |
But why might he do no jail time? What is the reasoning behind such a choice? ("It's the law." doesn't help, there must have been some reason for the law, too...) He did commit the crime. |
I think you are wanting me to quit using the word law so I will try.
People should respect others property and person. People are human, thus not perfect and will do wrong at some point in their life at varying degrees; they should be responsible for there actions. A system must be in place to define what reaction will prevail from ones action. This system should do it in a balanced manner but with the allowance of extenuating circumstances to determine if the reaction to his action should be diminished based on the reasoning behind the wrongful act.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2008 08:44:10 PM · #396 |
Originally posted by SDW:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
I haven't heard a convincing argument yet why Heinz should or should One could argue that the driver showed exactly the same behavior in both cases. She (let's drop the assumption that there are only male criminals...) also exhibited the same neglect for the safety of others. In both cases she accepted the risk of killing someone. So why shouldn't the punishment be the same in both cases?
Whether or not she kills someone is beyond her control and simply a matter of luck. |
Because justice should not be blind. It's not that he is being punish MORE because his actions (not luck or lack of) took a life; instead he is punished less because he did not take a life. |
This is quite topical in the UK - though in a more finely balanced way. I am not sure that I agree with SDW in some respects. I have an example, though note that traffic law (being subject to strict liability (ie not requiring intent)) can be a bad example.
The background is that there were offences in the UK of (1) careless driving (eg being distracted momentarily and causing damage) (possible penalty: fines, points towards losing your licence), (2) dangerous driving (driving recklessly) (possible penalty: fines, points, driving ban, prison) and (3) causing death by dangerous driving (killing someone while driving recklessly) (possible penalty: fines, points, driving ban, high chance of prison).
Parliament has added a new offence of (4) causing death by careless driving (a momentary lapse causing death), (possible penalty: fines, points, driving ban, prison). Until now, causing death by careless driving has been prosecuted as careless driving and prison has never been an option. Whether the consequence of the careless driving was a car crash or death was irrelevant. Now there is a strong chance of prison where there has been a death.
For reasons exemplified in this thread this is a populist move. From a legal background and under the rule of law it is a bit of a nightmare: there is no culpability because it is acknowledged that everyone suffers momentary lapses from time to time. The law serves no purpose other than to put probably already wretched people into an even worse position in order to satisfy the public thirst for "justice". Very sad indeed IMO.
Message edited by author 2008-08-16 20:44:57.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2008 08:47:41 PM · #397 |
Originally posted by SDW:
I think you are wanting me to quit using the word law so I will try.
People should respect others property and person. People are human, thus not perfect and will do wrong at some point in their life at varying degrees; they should be responsible for there actions. A system must be in place to define what reaction will prevail from ones action. This system should do it in a balanced manner but with the allowance of extenuating circumstances to determine if the reaction to his action should be diminished based on the reasoning behind the wrongful act. |
It's a difficult question to answer. I'll try and give you my response. The situation is a trade-off between the right (or need) of the druggist to make profit and not have his property stolen and the right (or need) of the wife to live. The husband valued his wife's right to live higher than the right of the druggist to make profit. And we as a society seem to agree with these priorities. This is why the husband is unlikely to get punished.
What this example shows is that demands like "Do the crime, do the time! There is no gray area!" or "If you break the law you forfeit your right to be a member of our society!" are too simplistic. Life is complicated...
And to make things even more interesting: I would argue that the husband was morally obliged to steal the drug.
(And just to confuse you some more: In 2002, Jakob von Metzler, an eleven-year old son of a wealthy banker in Germany, was abducted by his private tutor. The kidnapper got a ransom of one million Euros, but police were observing the exchange and subsequently had him under surveillance. They hoped he would lead them to the boy. However, when the kidnapper booked a trip abroad, police apprehended him. He refused to tell them where the boy was and police feared he was locked up somewhere and starving slowly. So police chief Daschner ordered his men to threaten the kidnapper with violence. They did and the abductor told them where the boy was. Unfortunately, he had already killed him in the very beginning.
Daschner was a very sincere police officer and he even put his orders on record in the police files. This would later lead to him losing his job and being convicted because he threatened a suspect with violence.
I think what he did was morally right. I would even say he would have been morally obliged to actually torture the kidnapper had he not revealed the location of the boy. His guilt was beyond any doubt. While I'm generally an outspoken opponent of any kind of torture, in this case I would endorse it. Otherwise you would be valuing the perpetrators right not to be hurt higher than the child's right to live. It would be difficult to justify something like "Sorry, we had to let your child die because we were not allowed to hurt the kidnapper." - Again, life is complicated...) |
|
|
|
08/16/2008 08:55:13 PM · #398 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
For reasons exemplified in this thread this is a populist move. From a legal background and under the rule of law it is a bit of a nightmare: there is no culpability because it is acknowledged that everyone suffers momentary lapses from time to time. The law serves no purpose other than to put probably already wretched people into an even worse position in order to satisfy the public thirst for "justice". Very sad indeed IMO. |
The degree of responsibility of the culprit is key in my opinion. If a momentary lapse causes you to accidentally kill someone, this should be taken into account and the punishment should be mild or inexistent.
However, driving through a neighborhood at 100mph and knowingly accepting the risk of killing someone is a different story. In my opinion, someone doing this and being caught should face tough consequences (even if they didn't kill anyone). They should at least lose their right to drive for a long time. |
|
|
|
08/17/2008 10:44:04 PM · #399 |
Originally posted by egamble:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
What should your punishment be? Would you "forfeit your right to live in society"? You killed someone. |
Do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem?
I answered your question in my last post.
Originally posted by egamble:
If I was permanently bent out of reality..I would prefer to be put out of my misery. |
|
he would refuse to take anything as "answer" until someone says something which suits the "answer" that is already fixed on his mind ;) |
|
|
|
08/17/2008 10:53:50 PM · #400 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by Matthew:
For reasons exemplified in this thread this is a populist move. From a legal background and under the rule of law it is a bit of a nightmare: there is no culpability because it is acknowledged that everyone suffers momentary lapses from time to time. (1)The law serves no purpose other than to put probably already wretched people into an even worse position in order to satisfy the public thirst for "justice". Very sad indeed IMO. |
The degree of responsibility of the culprit is key in my opinion. If a (2)momentary lapse causes you to accidentally kill someone, this should be taken into account and the punishment should be mild or inexistent.
However, driving through a neighborhood at 100mph and knowingly accepting the risk of killing someone is a different story. In my opinion, someone doing this and being caught should face tough consequences (even if they didn't kill anyone). They should at least lose their right to drive for a long time. |
1. When did Justice become a bad thing? Do you not believe in justice?
2. Define with examples what you would consider "momentary lapse". |
|
