I'm going to throw this one out there, as it's a real example.
My father has killed a man before. He broke into our house one night when I was really young, pulled a gun on my dad when he came to see what the noise was and shot at wildly in a panic. My father, being an ex-SEAL, brought his 9mm with him to check on the noise and shot the mother fucker in the heart.
A man is dead, my father killed him. Should he be tried with murder?
If you'd have read my posts from before you'd see that self-defence is an area where the crime is different. It's a break in what you probably think is some infallible rule i'm trying to make but it's not. Go back to the posts where I talk about beating kids and women.
Self-defense is a motivation. That's the point. Motivation can change the nature of a crime, and justice should be doled out accordingly. The punishment should fit the crime, and if the intent is more severe, more dangerous, than the punishment should respond according to that.
Exactly. Punishment has to be relative to the context in which the crime occurs, not absolute.
If two people are in a fight and one maliciously beats another then it's GBH and you know this. Don't make examples of things in ways that i'm not presenting them.
What? In ways that you're not presenting them? I can't make arguments to show how your argument is flawed?
1. that extrapolation isn't always accurate, read prior posts.
2. ... don't... just don't o.k?! "watch CSI or Law and Order", you fucking kidding me?!
The extrapolation isn't always accurate? Cheese and crackers, tell the effing cops! Our evidence is useless! It's pointless! We can't do anything with it!
Yeah, it's a fallible system, but so is just about everything else we do in the justice system. We lock people away because juries and judges have determined, beyond reasonable doubt, that a defendant has commited a crime. The thing is, that's the most effective system we curently have. It's not going to be 100% accurate, nothing is, but the positive results vastly outweigh the bad, and we have recourse in the criminal justice system for when somebody actually is unfairly convicted.
[quyote]People - like me - are arguing that the way our legal system considers crime is flawed. So saying "we HAVE to because that's how our legal system WORKS" is a little daft.[/quote]
Yes, and you're argument is incredibly stupid, and people like me are arguing why. Let me refine and clarify my point a bit: we absolutely should consider motivation in criminal justice because history has showed it to be very effective and fair when punishing criminals.
I really can't wait for the day one of runs a red light and gets pulled over, and get treated with the same punishment as the guy that ran the red light because he was fleeing the cops.
Look, it's pretty simple. Motive matters. Mostly in adjudicating the most appropriate punishment.
A man who kills in the heat of an extraordinary moment not likely to occur again, makes a real effort to develop greater self-control and displays genuine remorse can be reasonably trusted to re-integrate into society and not commit the same crime again. That's why there are mitigating factors- so we don't send someone to life in prison when we do not absolutely have to.
On the other hand, a man who kills for the sheer joy of killing is too dangerous to be allowed back into society. He's likely to repeat, he makes no movement towards atonement or redemption, and he's effectively declared his unwillingness to abide by collective morality.
Why on Earth should their punishments be the same? If I deliberately murder a rival for my personal benefit, knowing full well it is wrong, that is a different case than if I murder a man in a rage after discovering him in the same bed as my wife.
In the first case, the premeditation declares the murderer knowingly and consciously rejected his obligations towards society.
In the second case, the temporary passion of the situation indicates that the murderer may be otherwise entirely willing to act ethically- they just lost control, which is something that happens to the human animal.
Appropriate punishment for one is not appropriate punishment for another.
What is America's mission statement on criminal legislation? I accept what you are saying, but I'm trying to figure out if what you are saying actually is the "point" of it all. Is it to rehabilitate? Is it to serve justice? Both? The two often contradict.
And if punishment isn't meant to be a deterrent and it hasn't really been effectively shown to rehabilitate people, why punish anyone, ever? I mean, what's the point?
Punishment has its place, but it's not the be-all and the end-all of the law.
Erm...being sent to jail is a punishment. We're talking about punishment here.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I know all this by the way and my opinion still stands and I think there's a big difference in the trial of the crime and the trial of the motive.
But in all this arguing, from specific concrete examples to abstract philosophizing, you haven't produced anything to demonstrate it. Why not step back and consider that maybe a racist going to jail for a few extra months is not actually all that horrible?
I know all this by the way and my opinion still stands and I think there's a big difference in the trial of the crime and the trial of the motive.
Sure, I agree there's a difference. It's easier to prove the crime than to prove the motive. But I don't go on from there to say we should give up and never try to take into consideration a motive. Like I've said several times, often it's completely fucking obvious that you're dealing with a bunch of racists. I think the law should be able to notice that fact; you don't.
You may very well be right that a starving person might still steal food to survive. It doesn't mean he shouldn't be punished as much for that crime as anyone doing it for a different - say, a capitalistic - reason.
He shouldn't be punished as much for the crime for the same reason we don't punish manslaughter as much as murder. Ditto with people who commit murder while temporarily insane and those who plan the murder out.
And if punishment isn't meant to be a deterrent and it hasn't really been effectively shown to rehabilitate people, why punish anyone, ever? I mean, what's the point?
Punishment has its place, but it's not the be-all and the end-all of the law.
Let's go back to the starving person. Or, let's take an example like it.
It's the middle of the night. Your cell phone has died and you're alone. You come across a man- badly wounded, in need of immediate medical attention. You happen to know how to fix him up, if you just had the right supplies. Luckily there's a medical supply store right across the street- but it is closed.
So you smash the window, go inside, take what you need, and save the guy's life.
Is that a crime? You've broken and entered, you've stolen. But the mitigating circumstances involved- your altruistic motive- would in virtually every jurisdiction in the United States lead to you not being prosecuted at all.
But in one-size-fits-all justice, you'd go to the same jail for the same time as someone who comes along to that store and breaks in just to steal the Vicodin.
What is America's mission statement on criminal legislation? I accept what you are saying, but I'm trying to figure out if what you are saying actually is the "point" of it all. Is it to rehabilitate? Is it to serve justice? Both? The two often contradict.
I dunno. I imagine it'd be some combination of...
1. Respect and defend the rights and protections guaranteed by the constitution, and (by philosophical consensus) granted to all humans, period, full stop.
2. Protect the public. Deterrence policies fall under this category, though they've been shown to be almost universally ineffective. Also long sentences for people likely to repeat- "keeping them off the streets", which is actually effective though obviously sub-optimal.
3. Rehabilitate. This is as much an efficiency issue as it is a moral one- it's the obviously ideal solution. If you can take in a criminal and spit back out a solid member of society, you no longer have to imprison the guy. This is clearly one of the hardest things to get right.
The justice system is screwed up, but not because of mitigating/aggravating circumstances. It'd be more screwed up without allowance for gray areas, nuance and complexity. See how many unjust rulings have come down as a result of "zero tolerance" policies in public schools. When you reject nuance, complexity and ambiguity in exchange for comforting but simplistic policies, you end up with little more than tyranny.
Professor Phobos on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
What is America's mission statement on criminal legislation? I accept what you are saying, but I'm trying to figure out if what you are saying actually is the "point" of it all. Is it to rehabilitate? Is it to serve justice? Both? The two often contradict.
Maybe it's a bit of both. Maybe it's one or the other, depending on what happened. Sometimes it's to rehabilitate; sometimes it's to serve justice for the sake of the victim's family. Other times it's to send a message about what society does and doesn't tolerate. Why don't we let people who have thought a lot about these things in real-world contexts make these decisions instead of only having recourse to what amounts to a giant "if--->then" algorithm?
And if punishment isn't meant to be a deterrent and it hasn't really been effectively shown to rehabilitate people, why punish anyone, ever? I mean, what's the point?
Punishment has its place, but it's not the be-all and the end-all of the law.
Erm...being sent to jail is a punishment. We're talking about punishment here.
Punishment has to be relative to the context in which the crime occurs, not absolute.
That is to say, the law doesn't - and shouldn't - just go, "right, you're convicted of crime A; here's the punishment we give to everyone who does that for whatever reason."
I'm just struggling to think of any situations in life where you wouldn't consider why someone did something.
If two people are in a fight and one maliciously beats another then it's GBH and you know this. Don't make examples of things in ways that i'm not presenting them.
What? In ways that you're not presenting them? I can't make arguments to show how your argument is flawed?
That's not what you're doing. You're telling me that i'm saying something, if you want to have both sides of the arguement so that you can plan coming out as what you seem to think is 'right' then go nuts.
1. that extrapolation isn't always accurate, read prior posts.
2. ... don't... just don't o.k?! "watch CSI or Law and Order", you fucking kidding me?!
The extrapolation isn't always accurate? Cheese and crackers, tell the effing cops! Our evidence is useless! It's pointless! We can't do anything with it!
Yeah, it's a fallible system, but so is just about everything else we do in the justice system. We lock people away because juries and judges have determined, beyond reasonable doubt, that a defendant has commited a crime. The thing is, that's the most effective system we curently have. It's not going to be 100% accurate, nothing is, but the positive results vastly outweigh the bad, and we have recourse in the criminal justice system for when somebody actually is unfairly convicted.
I know this, what i'm saying is that the evidence in the case of the motive is much harder to ascertain, to the point where I believe that it should be unaccounted (yes there are extreme cases) than the evidence for the actual crime, which is physical evidence.
And if punishment isn't meant to be a deterrent and it hasn't really been effectively shown to rehabilitate people, why punish anyone, ever? I mean, what's the point?
Punishment has its place, but it's not the be-all and the end-all of the law.
Let's go back to the starving person. Or, let's take an example like it.
It's the middle of the night. Your cell phone has died and you're alone. You come across a man- badly wounded, in need of immediate medical attention. You happen to know how to fix him up, if you just had the right supplies. Luckily there's a medical supply store right across the street- but it is closed.
So you smash the window, go inside, take what you need, and save the guy's life.
Is that a crime? You've broken and entered, you've stolen. But the mitigating circumstances involved- your altruistic motive- would in virtually every jurisdiction in the United States lead to you not being prosecuted at all.
But in one-size-fits-all justice, you'd go to the same jail for the same time as someone who comes along to that store and breaks in just to steal the Vicodin.
That's fine, but people seem to forget that the medical supply store also has a right to own their stock and a right not to be broken into. I don't think "altruism above all" is a very good message, either. I know that's not your point here but really, that's what it amounts to. As long as the crime somehow saves a life or is altruistic in nature, it's "okay."
I guess we've already drawn those lines to some degree. I'm just not sure I agree with all of them. I think people are all too ready to abandon the many for the few in modern society. I think there should be balance. You can't always focus on society as a whole and never drill down to individual interactions, but you shouldn't focus on those either.
(By "the many" I am referring to, say, the medical or bread shop.)
I know all this by the way and my opinion still stands and I think there's a big difference in the trial of the crime and the trial of the motive.
But in all this arguing, from specific concrete examples to abstract philosophizing, you haven't produced anything to demonstrate it. Why not step back and consider that maybe a racist going to jail for a few extra months is not actually all that horrible?
Don't do that, don't say something like that as if you're mr moral highground. It leaves a bad taste on the whole debate.
t(The other one who quoted my same bit)
I don't believe that something having evidence in the extreme, when it is linked to motivation, shoul effect the length of the sentence. If it helps solve the crime then go buckfuck insane, just don't apply it to the punishment.
I know this, what i'm saying is that the evidence in the case of the motive is much harder to ascertain...
And here we go, I think I can end this now, even if you are going to bed. This statement is incorrect. It takes a trained eye, but in most cases, motivation is going to be the very first thing concluded when a crime is being investigated. Finding the culprit, save for a repeat offender masturbating into an inspector's hand, is much, much more difficult.
The thing is, every single aspect of a crime scene feeds into finding a motive. It's not nearly as difficult as you're trying to make it seem, you're just fooled yourself into thinking that it's this elusive, crazy conclusion like ID that's based completely outside of reality.
In short, the crux of your argument is flatly incorrect.
And if punishment isn't meant to be a deterrent and it hasn't really been effectively shown to rehabilitate people, why punish anyone, ever? I mean, what's the point?
Punishment has its place, but it's not the be-all and the end-all of the law.
Let's go back to the starving person. Or, let's take an example like it.
It's the middle of the night. Your cell phone has died and you're alone. You come across a man- badly wounded, in need of immediate medical attention. You happen to know how to fix him up, if you just had the right supplies. Luckily there's a medical supply store right across the street- but it is closed.
So you smash the window, go inside, take what you need, and save the guy's life.
Is that a crime? You've broken and entered, you've stolen. But the mitigating circumstances involved- your altruistic motive- would in virtually every jurisdiction in the United States lead to you not being prosecuted at all.
But in one-size-fits-all justice, you'd go to the same jail for the same time as someone who comes along to that store and breaks in just to steal the Vicodin.
That's fine, but people seem to forget that the medical supply store also has a right to own their stock and a right not to be broken into. I don't think "altruism above all" is a very good message, either. I know that's not your point here but really, that's what it amounts to. As long as the crime somehow saves a life or is altruistic in nature, it's "okay."
Ah, but their right to property is trumped by the wounded dude's right to life. It's also not a regular occurrence- it's a one time event not likely to repeat in that medical store's lifetime. Likewise, in a self-defense case, the right to life of the attacker is trumped by the right to life of the defender.
See, what you're missing is that human society is way too complex to be boiled down into a handful of simple absolute policies. The interaction of rights and which ones we place higher than others matters.
Take a grocery store regularly shoplifted by homeless people who need the food to survive. The police would likely back up an attempt by the owners to prevent the thefts- right to property. This is because it is an ongoing thing, and the store is not responsible for feeding beggars. (That falls to the state, which too often shirks that responsibility) Even so, it's doubtful any homeless person would be arrested or prosecuted, merely detained or removed from the premises.
I guess we've already drawn those lines to some degree. I'm just not sure I agree with all of them. I think people are all too ready to abandon the many for the few in modern society. I think there should be balance. You can't always focus on society as a whole and never drill down to individual interactions, but you shouldn't focus on those either.
(By "the many" I am referring to, say, the medical or bread shop.)
US legal philosophy places the emphasis on the rights and protections of the individual. This is right. It's too easy for a powerful many to take from the weaker one if they stack the system in their favor.
This is why the burden of proof is on the state, not the accused. Their rights as an individual are considered strong enough only compelling evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt can trump them.
Professor Phobos on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
That's fine, but people seem to forget that the medical supply store also has a right to own their stock and a right not to be broken into.
In what demented calculus do a window and a hundred bucks of gauze equal a man's life?
And more to the point, I'm going to put you to the same question that I did Johannen: is this really such a pervasive problem? Are shopkeepers going bankrupt left and right because people keep taking their stuff to save people's lives? Or is this just an opportunity for you to climb on a soapbox and kvetch about "altruism"?
And if punishment isn't meant to be a deterrent and it hasn't really been effectively shown to rehabilitate people, why punish anyone, ever? I mean, what's the point?
Punishment has its place, but it's not the be-all and the end-all of the law.
Let's go back to the starving person. Or, let's take an example like it.
It's the middle of the night. Your cell phone has died and you're alone. You come across a man- badly wounded, in need of immediate medical attention. You happen to know how to fix him up, if you just had the right supplies. Luckily there's a medical supply store right across the street- but it is closed.
So you smash the window, go inside, take what you need, and save the guy's life.
Is that a crime? You've broken and entered, you've stolen. But the mitigating circumstances involved- your altruistic motive- would in virtually every jurisdiction in the United States lead to you not being prosecuted at all.
But in one-size-fits-all justice, you'd go to the same jail for the same time as someone who comes along to that store and breaks in just to steal the Vicodin.
That's fine, but people seem to forget that the medical supply store also has a right to own their stock and a right not to be broken into. I don't think "altruism above all" is a very good message, either. I know that's not your point here but really, that's what it amounts to. As long as the crime somehow saves a life or is altruistic in nature, it's "okay."
That isn't the point at all. The point is that the context in which a crime occurs matters. A person who shoots and kills a mugger in self-defense is not the same as a person who kills their spouse so they can run off with their lover. So prescribing the same treatment for these two vastly different situations is not just, even though the result of both is the ending of a life.
I was just about to make this post. If we could regenerate people in vats, would right to property then trump right to life?
Possibly, although respawning has to have a not-negligible cost in electricity, raw materials, etc. so they might end up just being the same thing.
Whose cost, though? In that case, the business would absolutely trump right to life. Assuming the possibility to regenerate fully exists, then death is no longer death, and thus the cost of regeneration is quite unimportant when foiled with a medical store's right to ownership.
This is a weird discussion and I don't really see what relevancy it has to the original debates. If you could be regenerated speedily with minimal cost, then sure, death would be lessened. As, I guess, would murder.
This is a weird discussion and I don't really see what relevancy it has to the original debates. If you could be regenerated speedily with minimal cost, then sure, death would be lessened. As, I guess, would murder.
No, not murder. You'd be forcing someone to regenerate. That would still be a crime.
But this nonsense about altruistically stealing and using medical supplies you don't own would go away.
Murder would surely be lessened if the person didn't stay dead. The same way ABH isn't as bad as GBH, since the victim heals.
edit: lols, I just checked wiki on ABH to see if it constituted what I thought it did:
In Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 QB 439 a police officer ordered the defendant to park his car and he reluctantly complied. In doing so, he accidentally drove the car on to the policeman’s foot and, when asked to remove the car, said "Fuck you, you can wait" and turned off the ignition. Because of the steel toe cap in his boot, the policeman's foot was not in actual danger, but the Divisional Court held that this could constitute an assault.
Why, exactly, is right to property trumped by right to life?
Are you fucking kidding with this?
Professor Phobos on
0
Options
DVGNo. 1 Honor StudentNether Institute, Evil AcademyRegistered Userregular
edited August 2007
To go back to the original topic for a moment:
Implying that a racist (or other bigoted person) should be tolerated by society, it would be helpful if it were even possible to give a well reasoned argument for why racism is OK or makes any goddamn sense whatsoever.
While a belief (something that should be tolerated if not agreed with) in say, a deity, affects no one but the person holding the belief and those who share the belief, discriminatory beliefs have very real negative effects on others.
Implying that a racist (or other bigoted person) should be tolerated by society, it would be helpful if it were even possible to give a well reasoned argument for why racism is OK or makes any goddamn sense whatsoever.
While a belief (something that should be tolerated if not agreed with) in say, a deity, affects no one but the person holding the belief and those who share the belief, discriminatory beliefs have very real negative effects on others.
Having just finished reading the thread, it seems the OP had trouble forming anything resembling a well reasoned argument, period. Also, the OP seemed unable to differentiate between hate crime laws, which apply to acts motivated by racism, and opinions motivated by racism. Nothing presented justifying tolerating racism (or intolerance in general) made a very convincing argument.
When stuff like this comes up, I try to fall back on the adage "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it," not including acts of verbal abuse/assault. So maybe how I really feel here is that I'll "fight to the death for your right to think it."
"All I know is, I hate racists. I hate everything about them, their music, their food, their so-called religion, the way their men are so skinny, and their wives are all so fat... But mostly, I hate the way they judge people based on tired stereotypes."
i don't think people should be tolerant of every stupid opinion or idea that comes down the pike. but sometimes it reaches the point where people get so intellectually smug that theirs is the only opinion they'll accept or even listen to, and that's dangerous.
especially when it reaches the point where everyone who disagrees with you becomes either an idiot or an asshole or both
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Well, this thread is also a happy reminder that proclaiming ourselves to be history's best progressives isn't correct.
My muscular buttocks it isn't. 40 years ago I couldn't open a bank account without a written note from my male guardian, let alone earn two degrees, live and work where I choose, and opt out of reproducing before 25. Take your stupid braindead version of moral relativism and shove it.
Goddamnit it's not moral relavitism! It's moral equivalency.
Relativism -- relative. Better and worse are relative terms. Evaluative terms. Discerning terms.
Relativism is good.
Nihlism/equivalency is bad.
You don't know what moral relativism is. The Cat was right when she used it.
Moral/cultural/social relativism hold that certain things are relative to culture, rather than being absolute. The relativism comes in with regard to culture, not with regard to the comparability of different beliefs and norms. In fact, the point of such positions is that you cannot compare beliefs and values across cultures - one culture's values cannot be compared to another's.
Apothe0sis on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited August 2007
Someone's actions and someone's beliefs are just about the only rational reasons FOR hating someone. This is a dumb thread of dumbness.
Posts
Exactly. Punishment has to be relative to the context in which the crime occurs, not absolute.
What? In ways that you're not presenting them? I can't make arguments to show how your argument is flawed?
The extrapolation isn't always accurate? Cheese and crackers, tell the effing cops! Our evidence is useless! It's pointless! We can't do anything with it!
Yeah, it's a fallible system, but so is just about everything else we do in the justice system. We lock people away because juries and judges have determined, beyond reasonable doubt, that a defendant has commited a crime. The thing is, that's the most effective system we curently have. It's not going to be 100% accurate, nothing is, but the positive results vastly outweigh the bad, and we have recourse in the criminal justice system for when somebody actually is unfairly convicted.
[quyote]People - like me - are arguing that the way our legal system considers crime is flawed. So saying "we HAVE to because that's how our legal system WORKS" is a little daft.[/quote]
Yes, and you're argument is incredibly stupid, and people like me are arguing why. Let me refine and clarify my point a bit: we absolutely should consider motivation in criminal justice because history has showed it to be very effective and fair when punishing criminals.
I really can't wait for the day one of runs a red light and gets pulled over, and get treated with the same punishment as the guy that ran the red light because he was fleeing the cops.
What is America's mission statement on criminal legislation? I accept what you are saying, but I'm trying to figure out if what you are saying actually is the "point" of it all. Is it to rehabilitate? Is it to serve justice? Both? The two often contradict.
Erm...being sent to jail is a punishment. We're talking about punishment here.
But in all this arguing, from specific concrete examples to abstract philosophizing, you haven't produced anything to demonstrate it. Why not step back and consider that maybe a racist going to jail for a few extra months is not actually all that horrible?
Sure, I agree there's a difference. It's easier to prove the crime than to prove the motive. But I don't go on from there to say we should give up and never try to take into consideration a motive. Like I've said several times, often it's completely fucking obvious that you're dealing with a bunch of racists. I think the law should be able to notice that fact; you don't.
Let's go back to the starving person. Or, let's take an example like it.
It's the middle of the night. Your cell phone has died and you're alone. You come across a man- badly wounded, in need of immediate medical attention. You happen to know how to fix him up, if you just had the right supplies. Luckily there's a medical supply store right across the street- but it is closed.
So you smash the window, go inside, take what you need, and save the guy's life.
Is that a crime? You've broken and entered, you've stolen. But the mitigating circumstances involved- your altruistic motive- would in virtually every jurisdiction in the United States lead to you not being prosecuted at all.
But in one-size-fits-all justice, you'd go to the same jail for the same time as someone who comes along to that store and breaks in just to steal the Vicodin.
I dunno. I imagine it'd be some combination of...
1. Respect and defend the rights and protections guaranteed by the constitution, and (by philosophical consensus) granted to all humans, period, full stop.
2. Protect the public. Deterrence policies fall under this category, though they've been shown to be almost universally ineffective. Also long sentences for people likely to repeat- "keeping them off the streets", which is actually effective though obviously sub-optimal.
3. Rehabilitate. This is as much an efficiency issue as it is a moral one- it's the obviously ideal solution. If you can take in a criminal and spit back out a solid member of society, you no longer have to imprison the guy. This is clearly one of the hardest things to get right.
The justice system is screwed up, but not because of mitigating/aggravating circumstances. It'd be more screwed up without allowance for gray areas, nuance and complexity. See how many unjust rulings have come down as a result of "zero tolerance" policies in public schools. When you reject nuance, complexity and ambiguity in exchange for comforting but simplistic policies, you end up with little more than tyranny.
Maybe it's a bit of both. Maybe it's one or the other, depending on what happened. Sometimes it's to rehabilitate; sometimes it's to serve justice for the sake of the victim's family. Other times it's to send a message about what society does and doesn't tolerate. Why don't we let people who have thought a lot about these things in real-world contexts make these decisions instead of only having recourse to what amounts to a giant "if--->then" algorithm?
FCD said what I was thinking:
That is to say, the law doesn't - and shouldn't - just go, "right, you're convicted of crime A; here's the punishment we give to everyone who does that for whatever reason."
I'm just struggling to think of any situations in life where you wouldn't consider why someone did something.
That's not what you're doing. You're telling me that i'm saying something, if you want to have both sides of the arguement so that you can plan coming out as what you seem to think is 'right' then go nuts.
I know this, what i'm saying is that the evidence in the case of the motive is much harder to ascertain, to the point where I believe that it should be unaccounted (yes there are extreme cases) than the evidence for the actual crime, which is physical evidence.
I'm going to bed now.
That's fine, but people seem to forget that the medical supply store also has a right to own their stock and a right not to be broken into. I don't think "altruism above all" is a very good message, either. I know that's not your point here but really, that's what it amounts to. As long as the crime somehow saves a life or is altruistic in nature, it's "okay."
I guess we've already drawn those lines to some degree. I'm just not sure I agree with all of them. I think people are all too ready to abandon the many for the few in modern society. I think there should be balance. You can't always focus on society as a whole and never drill down to individual interactions, but you shouldn't focus on those either.
(By "the many" I am referring to, say, the medical or bread shop.)
Don't do that, don't say something like that as if you're mr moral highground. It leaves a bad taste on the whole debate.
t(The other one who quoted my same bit)
I don't believe that something having evidence in the extreme, when it is linked to motivation, shoul effect the length of the sentence. If it helps solve the crime then go buckfuck insane, just don't apply it to the punishment.
As i've said bed time. I'm really tired now.
And here we go, I think I can end this now, even if you are going to bed. This statement is incorrect. It takes a trained eye, but in most cases, motivation is going to be the very first thing concluded when a crime is being investigated. Finding the culprit, save for a repeat offender masturbating into an inspector's hand, is much, much more difficult.
The thing is, every single aspect of a crime scene feeds into finding a motive. It's not nearly as difficult as you're trying to make it seem, you're just fooled yourself into thinking that it's this elusive, crazy conclusion like ID that's based completely outside of reality.
In short, the crux of your argument is flatly incorrect.
Ah, but their right to property is trumped by the wounded dude's right to life. It's also not a regular occurrence- it's a one time event not likely to repeat in that medical store's lifetime. Likewise, in a self-defense case, the right to life of the attacker is trumped by the right to life of the defender.
See, what you're missing is that human society is way too complex to be boiled down into a handful of simple absolute policies. The interaction of rights and which ones we place higher than others matters.
Take a grocery store regularly shoplifted by homeless people who need the food to survive. The police would likely back up an attempt by the owners to prevent the thefts- right to property. This is because it is an ongoing thing, and the store is not responsible for feeding beggars. (That falls to the state, which too often shirks that responsibility) Even so, it's doubtful any homeless person would be arrested or prosecuted, merely detained or removed from the premises.
US legal philosophy places the emphasis on the rights and protections of the individual. This is right. It's too easy for a powerful many to take from the weaker one if they stack the system in their favor.
This is why the burden of proof is on the state, not the accused. Their rights as an individual are considered strong enough only compelling evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt can trump them.
In what demented calculus do a window and a hundred bucks of gauze equal a man's life?
And more to the point, I'm going to put you to the same question that I did Johannen: is this really such a pervasive problem? Are shopkeepers going bankrupt left and right because people keep taking their stuff to save people's lives? Or is this just an opportunity for you to climb on a soapbox and kvetch about "altruism"?
That isn't the point at all. The point is that the context in which a crime occurs matters. A person who shoots and kills a mugger in self-defense is not the same as a person who kills their spouse so they can run off with their lover. So prescribing the same treatment for these two vastly different situations is not just, even though the result of both is the ending of a life.
Because rebuilding property is rather easier then bringing people back to life?
Because people can't be replaced? It's not really that complicated.
Hell if we had a great big Cylon-esque respawn system we'd trade life for property all the time. And entertainment.
I was just about to make this post. If we could regenerate people in vats, would right to property then trump right to life?
Possibly, although respawning has to have a not-negligible cost in electricity, raw materials, etc. so they might end up just being the same thing.
Whose cost, though? In that case, the business would absolutely trump right to life. Assuming the possibility to regenerate fully exists, then death is no longer death, and thus the cost of regeneration is quite unimportant when foiled with a medical store's right to ownership.
No, not murder. You'd be forcing someone to regenerate. That would still be a crime.
But this nonsense about altruistically stealing and using medical supplies you don't own would go away.
edit: lols, I just checked wiki on ABH to see if it constituted what I thought it did:
Are you fucking kidding with this?
Implying that a racist (or other bigoted person) should be tolerated by society, it would be helpful if it were even possible to give a well reasoned argument for why racism is OK or makes any goddamn sense whatsoever.
While a belief (something that should be tolerated if not agreed with) in say, a deity, affects no one but the person holding the belief and those who share the belief, discriminatory beliefs have very real negative effects on others.
Having just finished reading the thread, it seems the OP had trouble forming anything resembling a well reasoned argument, period. Also, the OP seemed unable to differentiate between hate crime laws, which apply to acts motivated by racism, and opinions motivated by racism. Nothing presented justifying tolerating racism (or intolerance in general) made a very convincing argument.
When stuff like this comes up, I try to fall back on the adage "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it," not including acts of verbal abuse/assault. So maybe how I really feel here is that I'll "fight to the death for your right to think it."
I'm guessing it's a libertarian thing.
i don't think people should be tolerant of every stupid opinion or idea that comes down the pike. but sometimes it reaches the point where people get so intellectually smug that theirs is the only opinion they'll accept or even listen to, and that's dangerous.
especially when it reaches the point where everyone who disagrees with you becomes either an idiot or an asshole or both
You don't know what moral relativism is. The Cat was right when she used it.
Moral/cultural/social relativism hold that certain things are relative to culture, rather than being absolute. The relativism comes in with regard to culture, not with regard to the comparability of different beliefs and norms. In fact, the point of such positions is that you cannot compare beliefs and values across cultures - one culture's values cannot be compared to another's.
maybe someone's actions and beliefs combined, but i don't think hating someone based solely upon what you know of their beliefs is rational at all.
Are you just being contrary? This strikes me as incredibly dumb.