Subject:
|
Re: Motive vs Action (was Re: Blue Hopper Car Mania...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Oct 1999 19:43:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1305 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> James Brown wrote:
> > > Unfortuanately it seems to me that to have a workable society, we have
> > > to attempt to judge intent. Without judging intent, either murder is not
> > > a crime, and we can't punish anyone for being responsible for someone
> > > elses life ending, or there are a lot of police, military, doctors,
> > > prison guards, and just plain old citizens who have to be put away for
> > > life (no death penalty anymore, since that would be murder).
> > Also, there's no reason why there can't be 'state-mandated'(1) circumstances
> > under which murder is sanctioned/pardoned. The most obvious example is the
> > death penalty.
>
> Ah, but to do so, you're making a determination of intent, at least for
> any case other than a death penalty (there you might be able to argue
> that there is a real difference).
Hmm. I don't see that as being intent-driven, but circumstance-driven. It
(to me) is a difference between "thou shalt not kill, unless you didn't mean
to" and "thou shalt not kill, except under clearly defined circumstances"
> > I see no reason why judging intent is necessary to a workable society.
>
> Please give some examples how we would deal with various "crimes"
> without judging intent. Show how we can distinguish between the above
> listed situations and a "criminal", or show how society doesn't need to
> pardon all of the above people, or how we will prevent "crime" if the
> punishments are not so extreme that we won't mind seeing all of the
> above people punished also.
Ok, to stick with the murder example:
I shoot someone, I go to jail (or whatever).
Cop shoots someone, cop goes to jail.
Cop shoots someone who is enacting a crime (observable), which is
predetermined by law as a circumstance where it is permisable, cop doesn't go
to jail.
Cop shoots someone because (whatever), cop goes to jail.
I shoot my neighbor because he's black, and I'm a KKK member, I go to jail.
I shoot my neighbor who's abusing my kids, I go to jail.
Do you see what I'm driving at? The why is irrelevant. No one external to
the individual can ever be 100% certain about "why" someone does something.
However, it is possible to be 100% certain (assuming a WYSIWYG universe) about
what is done and what the circumstances are.
> I don't see how it can work, but I'm open to counter examples (or
> analysis of why my examples above are invalid).
I think that it's a fairly subtle but important difference between attempting
to determine the why, and attempting to determine the what.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
178 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
