hakimashou posted:No consideration given to justice? I don't see why when "Justice" is just your subjective opinion on what is fair. You want punishments to reflect the emotive reaction you have to a crime. I mean, how can I argue against this: hakimashou posted:
beyond saying "Says you"? You believe bad guys "deserve" to be killed. Presumably humanely. I've heard other people get really creative about how bad guys should be executed and how "humane" executions are not justice - bad guys are supposed to suffer after all. What makes their justice less vaild than yours? Personally I don't give a poo poo about what people deserve, just what they need. The law should be dispassionate and objective and based around rehabilitation, deterrence and protecting the public Not pandering to people's bloodlust.
|
|
# ¿ Feb 27, 2017 12:32 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:33 |
hakimashou posted:Not bad guys, people guilty of murder. hakimashou posted:You can't be absolutely certain in every case that perpetrator is guilty, but you can in some cases. 1) no you can't 2) lol at basing a sentence on how sure you are they're guilty. A conviction must be safe or not safe. Giving the death sentence on the grounds you're real sure the'yre guilty is exactly as stupid as giving someone 6 months for murder if the case was really weak. In practice if this happened then of course every murder case would end with the death penalty because to do otherwise would be to tacitly admit the conviction was unsafe
|
|
# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 08:13 |
Having no death penalty is just as unfeasible as having no taxes. I mean can you name a country with no death penalty? Didn't think so.
|
|
# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 10:32 |
hakimashou posted:I disagree. It's easy to think of examples where evidence would demonstrate guilt. You convict someone with a shitload of drugs because it's beyond reasonable doubt that it's for more than personal use. They don't have more evidence of the crime of drug possession, they have sufficient evidence of a different crime -intent to supply. It's not about proving absolute guilt, just proving it beyond reasonable doubt.
|
|
# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 13:59 |
hakimashou posted:But what if they just really really like getting high and wanted to buy in bulk? If it's beyond reasonable doubt he was to blame, it's manslaughter. If it's also beyond reasonable doubt it was a deliberate killing, it's murder. Those are different crimes. Other factors that can affect the sentence length are motive (eg hate crime) and prior convictions, but that's not extra evidence of guilt of either of those crimes, that's evidence they represent a clear danger and/or are more likely to re-offend. Degrees of murder don't exist in my country so I can't comment much on that distinction.
|
|
# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 14:30 |
fuckin
|
|
# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 19:22 |
Are you drunk or just daft? I was mocking that post you just quoted. My own country has no death penalty.
|
|
# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 19:52 |
No worries
|
|
# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 20:00 |
You're leaving morality aside and the death penalty serves no practical purpose so what's the point of that compromise?
|
|
# ¿ Mar 1, 2017 18:31 |
hakimashou posted:Some people believe it is somehow wrong to execute guilty murderers. Harming people is bad. Murderers are people. Big bad thing worse than small bad thing. Jailing murderers in safe secure environment less bad than letting murderers do their thing. Death greater bad than detainment in safe secure environment while conferring no other advantage. Therefore killing murderers is bad.
|
|
# ¿ Mar 3, 2017 09:55 |
hakimashou posted:I don't know if that's my logic unless you just read that one post. You could apply it to literally any punishment/crime combination no matter how cruel and unusual. PYF most dignified execution everyone! Mine is the electric chair where people's faces literally melt off. That's quality dignity. bitterandtwisted fucked around with this message at 10:24 on Mar 4, 2017 |
|
# ¿ Mar 4, 2017 10:12 |
hakimashou posted:You missed it. You could say the same for any crime/punishment combination, no matter how draconian, cruel and pointless. The choice to commit theft is also the choice to have your hands amputated. The choice to blaspheme is also the choice to be stoned to death. etc
|
|
# ¿ Mar 4, 2017 12:22 |
hakimashou posted:I could probably say that stuff but I don't think I would. Are you going to even attempt to explain why those are different?
|
|
# ¿ Mar 4, 2017 12:25 |
hakimashou posted:They aren't punishments that fit the crimes, like the death penalty for murder is. Irrelevant (also I disagree) "can't do the time, don't do the crime" exists to justify extreme punishment, not proportional punishment. Explain in the terms you used ie choice and dignity why chopping off hands is wrong as a punishment for theft
|
|
# ¿ Mar 4, 2017 12:48 |
hakimashou posted:Don't get too worked up over that. "Don't want to get executed, don't murder anyone" is just helpful advice, not some fundamental theory of justice. It might or might not exist to justify extreme punishment, but it is itself justified by fair and proportional punishment. Consider it phrased differently, but meaning the same thing: "don't want to receive a fair and just punishment, in proportion to the crime you have done? Don't do the crime." Now any objection based on some other person, somewhere else, using it to justify something different can be set aside. All punishment based on subjective notions of fairness are arbitrary.
|
|
# ¿ Mar 4, 2017 13:26 |
hakimashou posted:That's probably less true when it comes to executing murderers than it is for anything else. Why?
|
|
# ¿ Mar 4, 2017 13:38 |
hakimashou posted:Proportionality seems to be the least subjective notion of fair punishment. No such thing as "least subjective". It's either subjective or it's not. Death is the same for both parties, but that's true of manslaughter as well as murder. Why is it disproportionate for negligence deaths?
|
|
# ¿ Mar 4, 2017 14:18 |
hakimashou posted:See above. You didn't answer it above. You said death was proportionate as a punishment because death is the same for both killer and victim. But death is the same for both regardless of intent or malice.
|
|
# ¿ Mar 4, 2017 14:32 |
hakimashou posted:Not true, there is a discussion above about guilt and culpability. Also any post that touches on the categorical imperative. It's up there. You said: quote:The death penalty for murder is as proportional as you can possibly get. It's truly identical. You don't have to take into account anything about the perpetrator's subjective experience of the punishment, or the victim's subjective experience of the wrong, since they are both identically dead. ie the justification for the death penalty being proportionate is that both the victim and killer have the same experience This is not changed by guilt. This is not changed by culpability
|
|
# ¿ Mar 5, 2017 14:26 |
the trump tutelage posted:Well I phrased it as I did for a reason -- "maintaining a sense of", ie. it's performative. It's purely a leap of faith that morality is objective. If morality was demonstrably objective then there would be no necessity of "maintaining" a "sense" of it any more than there is in maintaining a sense of oxygen or gravity. Specifically, you're acting as though your moral opinions are objectively correct. That's a lot more horrifying to anyone who doesn't hold them. For example, I'm guessing you disapprove of executing people for being gay or apostasy or whatever, even though those in favour of it are completely convinced their moral views are the objectively correct one? Why not leave out the moral aspect from the justice system?
|
|
# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 11:11 |
hakimashou posted:Justice is a word about morality. go on?
|
|
# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 13:18 |
hakimashou posted:Apologies for the long post but it's kind of a complex thought experiment, I've tried to keep it as brief as possible, please bear that in mind if I've omitted anything. If we have no resource scarcity why not make the world like that for everyone? Back in the real, non-star trek world, can you conceive of anything remotely like this occurring?
|
|
# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 14:22 |
wateroverfire posted:"Justice" as a concept doesn't make any sense without a moral code that describes what is just. Choosing to execute murderers vs jailing them vs fining them vs counseling them vs I don't know...forcing them to pay weregild... all involve moral judgements about the value of life, the moral status of murder, accountability, etc. You can't really have a justice system that escapes from morality. You can evaluate punishments on how well they do at protecting the public, deterring others and rehabilitating the offender. Objective standards that can be measured, not a feeling about what someone deserves.
|
|
# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 14:27 |
rudatron posted:Public protection is just one aspect of criminal justice and the utility of punishment. Is capital punishment for blasphemy good if at least 50% support it?
|
|
# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 17:07 |
the trump tutelage posted:Define "good". Good in the opinion of forums poster rudatron
|
|
# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 17:14 |
rudatron posted:You'll notice I didn't use the word 'good' because that's not a precise term. I feel like I've already laid my cards on the table here, so stop fishing and make your point. Would you be in favour of it?
|
|
# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 17:19 |
rudatron posted:No. The idea of a 'final' punishment for blasphemy, does fit in with a lot of what people consider real 'justice'. If most people think that blasphemy deserves capital punishment, and anything less is unjust, then that's what you do, because you need people to trust the justice system in general.
|
|
# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 17:26 |
Smudgie Buggler posted:
Well i guess if it's cheap it's ok
|
|
# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 14:03 |
Smudgie Buggler posted:"I pretend that the social is not necessarily the economic with no consequences" What are you even trying to say here I can't parse it
|
|
# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 14:18 |
Why even have trials? If a cop's sure he knows who the bad guy is he can shoot them and we'd save loads of money for the cost of a few false positives.
|
|
# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 14:22 |
Smudgie Buggler posted:I dropped an operative verb, but I'm sure you were really quite able to piece it together. what's the cutoff point for amount of innocent people you are happy to kill?
|
|
# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 15:01 |
The evidence against you is lovely so I sentence you to 1 year for murder.
|
|
# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 18:17 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:33 |
Infinite Karma posted:There is the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" evidentiary standard that isn't used in the U.S., which is stricter than "beyond a reasonable doubt." Where is it used? Wound't that result in every case being tried under the 'beyond shadow of a doubt' standard because to do otherwise would be to admit the conviction was unsafe? Do they also have a "lovely" evidentiary standard where you get community service for murder because they're really not convinced you did it? E: what would be an example of a case that, to you, passes the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard but not 'beyond shadow of a doubt'? bitterandtwisted fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Mar 19, 2017 |
|
# ¿ Mar 19, 2017 14:19 |