Originally posted by wibnigh on impossible....it could be you (assuming you're a law abiding citezen) who is hauled away, convicted and hanged. Then how would you feel
True.
And that leads to the next question I have to ask myself. Where's my cut off line?
How about 1000 guilty men? 10,000? How difficult should we make it to convict someone in order to protect the innocent?
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeThat sums it up perfectly. Especially this statement:
But the question remains: Would Ivan's outlook be right or wrong under those circumstances? Perhaps is outlook might be biased under them, not more rational.
Are you assuming that he only holds his current view only because he has insufficient sympathy with the falsely accused?
He might counter that you hold yours only because you have insuffici ...[text shortened]... his, even if they feel it is bad form, or mathematically difficult, to articulate it explicitly.
"The moral question is difficult precisely because it presents a dilemma in which two goods cannot be simultaneously realized, and in which one must be prioritized."
Well said Pawno.
That's my dilemma. Which one do I prioritize and by how much? That's the question each citizen seems to answer differently. As is our right of course.
Originally posted by wibIt really depends on how much damage to society criminals are doing. If crime is horribly rampant and destroying society, society would crack down no matter the consequences. If it's really no big deal, then society won't mind so much letting people go free. It depends. It will vary from crime to crime and from time to time.
That sums it up perfectly. Especially this statement:
"The moral question is difficult precisely because it presents a dilemma in which two goods cannot be simultaneously realized, and in which one must be prioritized."
Well said Pawno.
That's my dilemma. Which one do I prioritize and by how much? That's the question each citizen seems to answer differently. As is our right of course.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAgreed. I think that's a good example of what we've seen with the Patriot Act here in the US. Some civil liberties have been set aside for the goal of preventing another terrorist act on our soil.
It really depends on how much damage to society criminals are doing. If crime is horribly rampant and destroying society, society would crack down no matter the consequences. If it's really no big deal, then society won't mind so much letting people go free. It depends. It will vary from crime to crime and from time to time.
So what we end up with is a case by case basis of freedom versus government oversight. Maybe that's simply the best we can do?
Originally posted by wibIf Western governments were truly democratic and representative, I'd feel more comfortable being in this dilemma; then I could like we were all trying to solve this problem together, and we admit that we are just doing our best. That may be partly the case, sometimes. But governments are eternally tempted to deter democracy, so they can exercise their powers selfishly, against the interests of the populace, to whatever extent they can get away with it. And once human rights are partly suspended by the enactment of a law, it's hard to reinstate them again, even when the threat has passed. So extreme caution should be exercised when passing laws limiting human rights, and they should have a built-in expiry clause, so that they have to be renewed annually by a majority vote.
Agreed. I think that's a good example of what we've seen with the Patriot Act here in the US. Some civil liberties have been set aside for the goal of preventing another terrorist act on our soil.
So what we end up with is a case by case basis of freedom versus government oversight. Maybe that's simply the best we can do?
false. Our legal system is a joke. This concept is at its root. It essentially sets the rules to protect the guilty. The other problem is our legal system has no teeth. You brutally rape and murder a child it is not unlikely you will get "25 years". Unfortunately a few years later that becomes "15 years" on appeal, then out in 10 for "good behavior". Shouldn't we expect good behavior in our punished? I mean shouldn't we expect remorse and repentance? Why should good behavior lessen the punishment? Does it make the victims less dead? Typically these assholes who get out in 10 years commit more violent crimes against innocent people. talk with victims of violent crimes and see how they feel.
Originally posted by helpmespockThe issue of the legal system not having enough teeth is separate from the one so far discussed. The problem we're discussing arises from the fact that the diagnosis of criminal guilt is imperfect, and that lowering the bar, though it may catches more of the guilty, also catches more of the innocent.
false. Our legal system is a joke. This concept is at its root. It essentially sets the rules to protect the guilty. The other problem is our legal system has no teeth. You brutally rape and murder a child it is not unlikely you will get "25 years". Unfortunately a few years later that becomes "15 years" on appeal, then out in 10 for "good behavior ...[text shortened]... olent crimes against innocent people. talk with victims of violent crimes and see how they feel.