Options

Capital Punishment thread

11213141618

Posts

  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    girl killing her rapists, one year after the rape. punish her or let her go?

    Let's see.

    Mandated mental health attention is first, and foremost. Incarceration is something to consider, depending on how brutal the murder, and how likely it is that she might strike out against others as well.

    Some sort of group-home situation where she can be monitored more closely is also definitely something worth considering.





    Was that so tough?

    Evander on
  • Options
    Vrtra TheoryVrtra Theory Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    Also, the way that you waffle between treating the innocent victims as martyrs, and then turning around nd saying that they probably deserved to die anyway, is actually rather disturbing.

    What don't you understand? Our glorious Tower of Just Punishment must be built on the backs of innocents who deserved to die.

    Vrtra Theory on
    Are you a Software Engineer living in Seattle? HBO is hiring, message me.
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Since we're at it anyway, why stop there? Someone who gets 25 to life probably really deserves LWOP, and we can't risk letting them out for something that serious.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Like I said.

    Have their communication go through a third person, whose job is to listen to person A, rephrase it, and relate it to person B. Their code goes down the drain.

    so they get no lawyer?

    no lawyer > no life

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Again, I have no idea how you get to the conclusion that bad people "deserve to die". You keep repeating it, as if it's some axiom. That's not an argument, it's just an emphatic, repetitive statement. When you say you're using "bad" as a shorthand for "convicted serial murderer", but have already declared your justification for their deaths as "they are bad", you're simply changing the words of your argument, not offering any new information or insight. "Why do bad people deserve to die?" has, as of this posting, still not been answered by you.

    are you playing like this childish (tee hee) "why" game?

    why do "bad" people deserve to get punished? because they've done something bad.

    why does a bad action require a bad result? because i think a fair society is ideal.

    why do you want fairness? because it's better than the alternative (unfairness or randomness).

    we've covered this many, many times.

    This is ALL emotion.

    It's all feelings, not reasonings.

    The reason everyone is disagreeing with you is because we disagree with the very underlying principles of what you are saying.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Like I said.

    Have their communication go through a third person, whose job is to listen to person A, rephrase it, and relate it to person B. Their code goes down the drain.

    so they get no lawyer?

    What I am saying is they can communicate with both the lawyer and their witnesses as long as there is a system in place to make sure their secret code of communication is broken. Rephrasing is one way. Tying their hands behind their backs to make sure they can't use hand signals is another.

    Killing them is the easy way out.

    again, what is the practical purpose of all of this?

    you guys are all about practicalities and consequences right?

    what the hell is the point of keeping these aryan brotherhood guys alive if they still possibly pose a threat, cannot be rehabed or deterred?

    perhaps, killing them is the easy way out, but it's also the only guarantee. i mean why are you willing to take an even 1% risk that their message will get out and that they'll organize another series of murders?

    By your reasoning, really, the only 100% way is to kill EVERYONE.

    Even if you kill one leader, another will step up to take his place.

    It is your kind of reasoning which leads to genocide.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Moreover [Hillel] saw a skull floating on the surface of the water and he said unto it: Because you drowned others they drowned you; and those that drowned you will eventually be drowned.
    Makos 7a wrote:
    A Sanhedrin (High Court) that executes once in seven years is called a destroyer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: Once in 70 years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: Had we been on a Sanhedrin, no one would ever have been executed. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: They would then have increased the number of murderers in Israel."



    Both of these texts come from the Jewish Talmud, and refer to Rabbis who lived a couple of millenia ago.



    The reason I being them up, of course, is because our laws are very much based on Judeo-Christian standards in this country, but by the standards of those people who developed the systems we use, we are basically horrible monsters.



    Just thought I might as well throw it out there, since I've gone this long without drgging Judaism in here.

    Evander on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    now at least i can stop repeating myself a thousand times.

    btw, why is raping a rapist bad? oh wait, let me guess, inalienable rights, whatever those are.

    No, raping a rapist is bad because rape is wrong. If you have to ask this question, you're one fucked up dude.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    brandotheninjamasterbrandotheninjamaster Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    What if someone asks for the death penalty? Would it be okay then? I read that someone did just that, it was on cnn.com or msnbc one of those.

    Edit: I think I should be more clear. What if the convicted person asked for the death penalty?

    brandotheninjamaster on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    What if someone asks for the death penalty? Would it be okay then? I read that someone did just that, it was on cnn.com or msnbc one of those.

    Edit: I think I should be more clear. What if the convicted person asked for the death penalty?

    Well, suicide and assisted suicide are both considered illegal in our country, so that should take care of the question right there.




    Honestly, there is a strange conundrum. You are not allowed to choose to end your own life, however the state is allowed to choose to end it for you?

    Evander on
  • Options
    ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    i just can't get over the bizarre insistance that asking why we should be killing people is 'silly'.



    it's so silly to need reasons, just go wit' da gut!

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • Options
    FallingmanFallingman Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Servo wrote: »
    i just can't get over the bizarre insistance that asking why we should be killing people is 'silly'.



    it's so silly to need reasons, just go wit' da gut!

    I think we all jumped on the the crazy-train to surreal-ville when we were told that its fine to want to rape rapists.

    Fallingman on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Fallingman wrote: »
    Servo wrote: »
    i just can't get over the bizarre insistance that asking why we should be killing people is 'silly'.



    it's so silly to need reasons, just go wit' da gut!

    I think we all jumped on the the crazy-train to surreal-ville when we were told that its fine to want to rape rapists.
    I was considering asking why, but I didn't think he would comprehend what I was asking.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    what I don't understand i what we are supposed to do with serial killers.

    I mean, a serial rapist can be raped multiple times, but you can only kill a dude once.

    Evander on
  • Options
    GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Fallingman wrote: »
    Servo wrote: »
    i just can't get over the bizarre insistance that asking why we should be killing people is 'silly'.



    it's so silly to need reasons, just go wit' da gut!

    I think we all jumped on the the crazy-train to surreal-ville when we were told that its fine to want to rape rapists.

    There's nothing wrong with wanting to see a rapist get raped...


    ...unless you're a judge, lawyer, juror or anyone who has any influence over the justice system.

    Gorak on
  • Options
    brandotheninjamasterbrandotheninjamaster Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    Fallingman wrote: »
    Servo wrote: »
    i just can't get over the bizarre insistance that asking why we should be killing people is 'silly'.



    it's so silly to need reasons, just go wit' da gut!

    I think we all jumped on the the crazy-train to surreal-ville when we were told that its fine to want to rape rapists.

    There's nothing wrong with wanting to see a rapist get raped...


    ...unless you're a judge, lawyer, juror or anyone who has any influence over the justice system.

    O_o I really hope that this is sarcasim and I am just being a dumbshit failing to see it...

    brandotheninjamaster on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    Fallingman wrote: »
    Servo wrote: »
    i just can't get over the bizarre insistance that asking why we should be killing people is 'silly'.



    it's so silly to need reasons, just go wit' da gut!

    I think we all jumped on the the crazy-train to surreal-ville when we were told that its fine to want to rape rapists.

    There's nothing wrong with wanting to see a rapist get raped...


    ...unless you're a judge, lawyer, juror or anyone who has any influence over the justice system.

    The funny thing about a democracy is that everybody has influence over the government.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with wanting to see a rapist get raped...


    ...unless you're a judge, lawyer, juror or anyone who has any influence over the justice system.

    O_o I really hope that this is sarcasim and I am just being a dumbshit failing to see it...

    Yeah, kind of.

    If you've seen what rape does to someone, then I don't think it's unnatural to want to see the guy get utterly ruined - but that's why the justice system is set up so that victims and relatives are not involved in judgment or sentencing.

    The emotional response is natural, but not conducive to impartial justice.
    titmouse wrote: »
    The scary thing about a democracy is that everybody has influence over the government.

    ;-)

    Gorak on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Be careful guys, Ketherial has a law degree from Harvard! Whereas we most likely have shitty high school degrees!

    ege02 on
  • Options
    GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Be careful guys, Ketherial has a law degree from Harvard! Whereas we most likely have shitty high school degrees!

    Two degrees in physics actually. [/smug]

    Seriously though, last I heard he was a corporate lawyer, not a criminal lawyer. He knows what the law is and how to use it, but not necessarily the moral or philosophical reasoning behind it.

    Gorak on
  • Options
    Vrtra TheoryVrtra Theory Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Be careful guys, Ketherial has a law degree from Harvard! Whereas we most likely have shitty high school degrees!

    Two degrees in physics actually. [/smug]

    Seriously though, last I heard he was a corporate lawyer, not a criminal lawyer. He knows what the law is and how to use it, but not necessarily the moral or philosophical reasoning behind it.

    Slightly off-topic, but I don't know that it matters - a lawyer is a businessman, and his business is getting the verdict he's hired to get. Being a successful lawyer has no more to do with ethics than being a successful oil company exec - we only hope that any of them have morals.

    Vrtra Theory on
    Are you a Software Engineer living in Seattle? HBO is hiring, message me.
  • Options
    ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    Fallingman wrote: »
    Servo wrote: »
    i just can't get over the bizarre insistance that asking why we should be killing people is 'silly'.



    it's so silly to need reasons, just go wit' da gut!

    I think we all jumped on the the crazy-train to surreal-ville when we were told that its fine to want to rape rapists.

    There's nothing wrong with wanting to see a rapist get raped...


    ...unless you're a judge, lawyer, juror or anyone who has any influence over the justice system.

    The funny thing about a democracy is that everybody has influence over the government.


    the other funny thing about it is how that influence is neither direct nor immediate

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • Options
    GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Slightly off-topic, but I don't know that it matters - a lawyer is a businessman, and his business is getting the verdict he's hired to get. Being a successful lawyer has no more to do with ethics than being a successful oil company exec - we only hope that any of them have morals.

    Too true.

    Gorak on
  • Options
    templewulftemplewulf The Team Chump USARegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Be careful guys, Ketherial has a law degree from Harvard! Whereas we most likely have shitty high school degrees!

    Two degrees in physics actually. [/smug]

    Seriously though, last I heard he was a corporate lawyer, not a criminal lawyer. He knows what the law is and how to use it, but not necessarily the moral or philosophical reasoning behind it.

    Slightly off-topic, but I don't know that it matters - a lawyer is a businessman, and his business is getting the verdict he's hired to get. Being a successful lawyer has no more to do with ethics than being a successful oil company exec - we only hope that any of them have morals.
    I've always wondered this about lawyers. Do they often have attacks of conscience when they get a particularly awful client? What about public defenders? I imagine they can't recuse themselves (is recuse the right word for lawyers, or is that only for judges?), especially not as often as necessary to avoid defending the guilty.

    templewulf on
    Twitch.tv/FiercePunchStudios | PSN | Steam | Discord | SFV CFN: templewulf
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Blargh double post.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I don't think that most people do accept the idea that some innocents will die, that's my point. I think that people believe that the system works and that most don't particularly care about the people who fall through the cracks because they don't know them or their circumstances, and never will, and hell, they were already found guilty, right?

    The fact that I've never heard anyone in the public sphere make the argument you're making only reinforces my belief that people don't agree with it.

    really? do you know of any other people who support capital punishment? ask them if they are comfortable with sacrificing a few innocents? if they didnt know that some people who did not deserve to die will be (and have been) executed, then they are fucking morons.

    also ask them if knowing that some innocents will die changes their minds about the issue. i would bet it doesnt.

    I know many people who support the death penalty, both personally and in politics, and I don't know of one who is comfortable with killing the not guilty for the sake of making sure the guilty are killed. That's why I'm asking you to cite someone for me; if it's a widely held position, surely there must be somebody, somewhere, on the record supporting it.[/quote]
    I'm not an expert on tort law, so I can't tell you how and if Hand's reasoning applies to wrongful death cases. But I suspect that it isn't cleanly applied in the manner you seem to think it is, 1) because Hand wasn't considering fatalities when he came up with it, 2) he wasn't even talking about state action, and 3) as I said before, you can't neatly quantify loss of human life into a little three variable formula.
    as far as i know, he was very much calculating fatalities. the case i remember is the mining case where the miners were using dynamite and many of them were getting killed. if i remember correctly, they ultimately concluded that hand's formula was not applicable to especially dangerous working conditions and that strict liability would apply instead. still, they did consider hand's formula.

    Hand was definitely not considering fatalities when he came up with his formula. See U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    templewulf wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Be careful guys, Ketherial has a law degree from Harvard! Whereas we most likely have shitty high school degrees!

    Two degrees in physics actually. [/smug]

    Seriously though, last I heard he was a corporate lawyer, not a criminal lawyer. He knows what the law is and how to use it, but not necessarily the moral or philosophical reasoning behind it.

    Slightly off-topic, but I don't know that it matters - a lawyer is a businessman, and his business is getting the verdict he's hired to get. Being a successful lawyer has no more to do with ethics than being a successful oil company exec - we only hope that any of them have morals.
    I've always wondered this about lawyers. Do they often have attacks of conscience when they get a particularly awful client? What about public defenders? I imagine they can't recuse themselves (is recuse the right word for lawyers, or is that only for judges?), especially not as often as necessary to avoid defending the guilty.
    Their job is to defend the client to the best of their ability, regardless of guilt. Public Defenders generally know what they're getting into. Also, Legal Ethics is a little bit different than regular ethics, in that the guilty are supposed to be defended, otherwise our whole system is completely fucked. Moreso than it is now, anyway.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Be careful guys, Ketherial has a law degree from Harvard! Whereas we most likely have shitty high school degrees!

    It was a very good high school I'll have you know!

    Shinto on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    templewulf wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Be careful guys, Ketherial has a law degree from Harvard! Whereas we most likely have shitty high school degrees!

    Two degrees in physics actually. [/smug]

    Seriously though, last I heard he was a corporate lawyer, not a criminal lawyer. He knows what the law is and how to use it, but not necessarily the moral or philosophical reasoning behind it.

    Slightly off-topic, but I don't know that it matters - a lawyer is a businessman, and his business is getting the verdict he's hired to get. Being a successful lawyer has no more to do with ethics than being a successful oil company exec - we only hope that any of them have morals.
    I've always wondered this about lawyers. Do they often have attacks of conscience when they get a particularly awful client? What about public defenders? I imagine they can't recuse themselves (is recuse the right word for lawyers, or is that only for judges?), especially not as often as necessary to avoid defending the guilty.
    Their job is to defend the client to the best of their ability, regardless of guilt. Public Defenders generally know what they're getting into.

    Lawyers advocate for their client. If there is a strong case against them, this is often done by bargaining for a lower sentence rather than simply trying to prove them innocent when they are clearly not.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    templewulf wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Be careful guys, Ketherial has a law degree from Harvard! Whereas we most likely have shitty high school degrees!

    Two degrees in physics actually. [/smug]

    Seriously though, last I heard he was a corporate lawyer, not a criminal lawyer. He knows what the law is and how to use it, but not necessarily the moral or philosophical reasoning behind it.

    Slightly off-topic, but I don't know that it matters - a lawyer is a businessman, and his business is getting the verdict he's hired to get. Being a successful lawyer has no more to do with ethics than being a successful oil company exec - we only hope that any of them have morals.
    I've always wondered this about lawyers. Do they often have attacks of conscience when they get a particularly awful client? What about public defenders? I imagine they can't recuse themselves (is recuse the right word for lawyers, or is that only for judges?), especially not as often as necessary to avoid defending the guilty.
    Their job is to defend the client to the best of their ability, regardless of guilt. Public Defenders generally know what they're getting into.

    Lawyers advocate for their client. If there is a strong case against them, this is often done by bargaining for a lower sentence rather than simply trying to prove them innocent when they are clearly not.
    Yeah, that was what I was trying to say. Do the best for their client, regardless of personal conscience.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    templewulf wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Be careful guys, Ketherial has a law degree from Harvard! Whereas we most likely have shitty high school degrees!

    Two degrees in physics actually. [/smug]

    Seriously though, last I heard he was a corporate lawyer, not a criminal lawyer. He knows what the law is and how to use it, but not necessarily the moral or philosophical reasoning behind it.

    Slightly off-topic, but I don't know that it matters - a lawyer is a businessman, and his business is getting the verdict he's hired to get. Being a successful lawyer has no more to do with ethics than being a successful oil company exec - we only hope that any of them have morals.
    I've always wondered this about lawyers. Do they often have attacks of conscience when they get a particularly awful client? What about public defenders? I imagine they can't recuse themselves (is recuse the right word for lawyers, or is that only for judges?), especially not as often as necessary to avoid defending the guilty.
    Their job is to defend the client to the best of their ability, regardless of guilt. Public Defenders generally know what they're getting into.

    Lawyers advocate for their client. If there is a strong case against them, this is often done by bargaining for a lower sentence rather than simply trying to prove them innocent when they are clearly not.
    Yeah, that was what I was trying to say. Do the best for their client, regardless of personal conscience.

    My personal conscience tells me that everyone deserves to have a legal advocate rather than sitting in court getting torn apart by a professional prosecutor over laws they may not fully understand. I imagine even most prosecution attorneys feel the same way.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    PDs are allowed to refuse clients for reasons of conscience, aren't they?

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    My personal conscience tells me that everyone deserves to have a legal advocate rather than sitting in court getting torn apart by a professional prosecutor over laws they may not fully understand. I imagine even most prosecution attorneys feel the same way.

    Absolutely, even the worst paedophilic serial killer deserves the same quality legal advice as some widow fighting Evil Incorporated for compensation.

    In fact, I'd like to see an equivalent of jury duty for seconding lawyers for legal aid duty (US=public defendant?).

    Gorak on
  • Options
    Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Linden wrote: »
    Again, I have no idea how you get to the conclusion that bad people "deserve to die". You keep repeating it, as if it's some axiom. That's not an argument, it's just an emphatic, repetitive statement.

    Thank you. This, Ketherial. This is why I seem to be asking "why" all the time. Because you've never answered.

    Exactly. That's why I say his stance doesn't have much of a substance behind it: it simply is based on the opinion that bad people "deserve to die".

    how much punishment should a rapist receive? why?

    A rapist should be incarcerated and put into rehabilitation. They should remain incarcerated until rehabilitation is complete.

    Standard sentencign should take into account average time and median amount of time required for rehabilitation then add additional time for deterence.

    Repeat offenders should immediately recieve life with parole, and upon proven rehabilitation they may begin applying for parole. Second repeat should then recieve life without parole.

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • Options
    GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Standard sentencign should take into account average time and median amount of time required for rehabilitation then add additional time for deterence.

    Repeat offenders should immediately recieve life with parole, and upon proven rehabilitation they may begin applying for parole. Second repeat should then recieve life without parole.

    Generalise that with a 'lives' system for the number of times you get a standard sentence before you move to the life-with-parole stage. Set the number of lives relative to the severity of the crime with murder=0 and rape=1. Choose relative value of other crimes accordingly.

    For each 'life' lost you could increase the amount of time added as a deterrent to subsequent standard sentences.

    Gorak on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    My personal conscience tells me that everyone deserves to have a legal advocate rather than sitting in court getting torn apart by a professional prosecutor over laws they may not fully understand. I imagine even most prosecution attorneys feel the same way.

    Absolutely, even the worst paedophilic serial killer deserves the same quality legal advice as some widow fighting Evil Incorporated for compensation.

    In fact, I'd like to see an equivalent of jury duty for seconding lawyers for legal aid duty (US=public defendant?).

    I think there is already something like that. Lawyers are sworn in as officers of the court and I believe that that has some kind of duty attached to it. Or at least bar associations push members to do pro bono work. Or something.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    an_altan_alt Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Fallingman wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    btw, why is raping a rapist bad? oh wait, let me guess, inalienable rights, whatever those are.

    Because... it makes you as bad as them? Just because they did it first, doesn't make you any less of a monster.

    So how do you feel about jailing people convicted of unlawful confinement?

    an_alt on
    Pony wrote:
    I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
    Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
    If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    So is Keth not a fan of the Constitution or something?

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    So is Keth not a fan of the Constitution or something?

    He doesn't believe in inalienable rights, therefore I would assume so.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    ZsetrekZsetrek Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Be careful guys, Ketherial has a law degree from Harvard! Whereas we most likely have shitty high school degrees!

    Two degrees in physics actually. [/smug]

    Seriously though, last I heard he was a corporate lawyer, not a criminal lawyer. He knows what the law is and how to use it, but not necessarily the moral or philosophical reasoning behind it.

    Please don't think Keth is representative of the profession. I'm only a law student, but all of the many lawyers I've come into contact with (and most students) take their professional responsibilities very seriously, and have a deep, passionate understanding of the criminal justice system and theories of law and jurisprudence. That may be because most of them are criminal lawyers, but the few corporate lawyers I've met have been the same.

    Yes, Keth is a corporate lawyer. Specialising in contract law, IIRC, and working in Japan in a large firm. And not to belittle Keth's job or achievements, but there is a world of difference between a firm lawyer drafting contracts, and a criminal lawyer.

    A lawyer's first duty is to the law. It's along the lines of the Hippocratic oath - a self-imposed professional standard. Keth is kinda like a doctor who "does no harm", but has his own crackpot theories for why he doesn't: He may be as competent a doctor as any other, but you could be forgiven for wanting to go to another doctor for treatment - one who respects the principles that he serves.
    an_alt wrote: »
    So how do you feel about jailing people convicted of unlawful confinement?

    You mean lawfully confining them?

    Zsetrek on
Sign In or Register to comment.