Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 117

Thread: Criminal Law - Intention and Action should matter most... no the result.

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    By his logic, if you break the law three times, you will keep breaking it, so it's about prevention, not vengeance. I.e. exactly what he wrote. This allows society to separate dangerous people away from society (prison)
    But our system has different procedures/processes for prosecution and sentencing in criminal law. There's nothing "logical" about wanting a simplistic, black & white blueprint between crimes and punishments.

    Especially since a prison term can 'harden' people, and result in recidivism (for many reasons).

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Its not utopian and it doesn't require every detail to be known. If you shoot someone with the intent to kill you should be in prison for life (barring self defense). If you punch someone in a brawl without the intent to kill you shouldn't be in prison for life. Regardless of the victims injuries - the action should be punished not the result.

    No system is perfect however its absurd that we base sentences on luck.
    Except you're mixing in some results in there again. You say "if you shoot someone with intent to kill." What you can prove there in a court of law, under your proposed mechanism for legal action, is that I shot a gun. It's really hard to prove intent, which is what would tell you whether I was shooting at someone, and "shooting someone is assuming a result, that I hit the person but you've already made it clear you don't want that sort of result, whether someone was actually hurt or not, to be the basis for prosecution or conviction. If we ignore the result as you want then the act we're left with is just that I shot a gun and the entire case rests on proving my intent. Now if what you want is for the justice system to stop convicting people then go ahead and have this proposal implemented, you'll get a lot less convictions.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  3. #33
    Not to mention what that would do to proving criminal negligence that results in bodily harm....

    Lewk, you fancy using context for intention and action when it's something you agree with -- "self-defense" in shootings, for example. You've also recognized criminal laws are written to prevent and punish certain crimes for the public good/safety, but then split "results" of those crimes into a weird no-harm/no-foul category, working backward, to justify your pov.

    Not only would that lead to less convictions, as Fuzzy points out, but fewer prosecutions.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    are we talking about criminal law, or violent crime? you're tossing the terms around like they are interchangeable. This might make sense to someone who is cool with killing people over toothpaste, but to a normal person they have different meanings.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I'm using the distinction of criminal law as compared to civil law. Civil damages should obviously be part of the restitution portion. All I'm suggesting is that we discount the result of the criminal action and instead take into account the motivation and the actual action.
    Criminal Law is a pretty broad category, you know. It covers a whole host of things not limited to direct "physical harm", including white collar crimes, tax evasion, bribery, collusion, etc.

    Also, in criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the state/prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, while civil cases put the burden of proof on the victim/petitioner to prove their case by a preponderance of evidence. Different standards from the get-go about presumption of innocence.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Not to mention what that would do to proving criminal negligence that results in bodily harm....

    Lewk, you fancy using context for intention and action when it's something you agree with -- "self-defense" in shootings, for example. You've also recognized criminal laws are written to prevent and punish certain crimes for the public good/safety, but then split "results" of those crimes into a weird no-harm/no-foul category, working backward, to justify your pov.

    Not only would that lead to less convictions, as Fuzzy points out, but fewer prosecutions.
    I think both you and Fuzzy's view that there would be less convictions would be absurd. I'm ONLY talking about the sentencing phase.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I think both you and Fuzzy's view that there would be less convictions would be absurd. I'm ONLY talking about the sentencing phase.
    Ah, I misunderstood. I assumed that however faulty your logic-chain was that you were still trying to achieve some measure of justice. Instead apparently you want to sentence people for crimes they weren't even convicted of. So rather than sentencing consisting of the main charge "and all lesser included offenses," it will be the main charge "and all greater excluded offenses." Sure, that flies. Like a lead brick.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Lewk, criminal law varies by state, and federal statute. Seems to me you're questioning the sentencing process. Yes, there's supposed to be a 'punishment' for criminal crimes, that can also act a deterrent....but retribution or vengeance isn't part of that equation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I think both you and Fuzzy's view that there would be less convictions would be absurd. I'm ONLY talking about the sentencing phase.
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Ah, I misunderstood. I assumed that however faulty your logic-chain was that you were still trying to achieve some measure of justice. Instead apparently you want to sentence people for crimes they weren't even convicted of. So rather than sentencing consisting of the main charge "and all lesser included offenses," it will be the main charge "and all greater excluded offenses." Sure, that flies. Like a lead brick.
    And turning 'punishment' into retribution, using the legal system.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Ah, I misunderstood. I assumed that however faulty your logic-chain was that you were still trying to achieve some measure of justice. Instead apparently you want to sentence people for crimes they weren't even convicted of. So rather than sentencing consisting of the main charge "and all lesser included offenses," it will be the main charge "and all greater excluded offenses." Sure, that flies. Like a lead brick.
    You didn't read my opening post did you? The purpose of the "justice system" isn't about retribution. It is safety. If someone tries to murder someone and fails because their victim ducked, they are JUST as much a threat to society as someone who shoots a victim that didn't duck. What is difficult to understand about this?

  9. #39
    I can't help but wonder why they call it "the justice system" as opposed to eg "the safety system"
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    You didn't read my opening post did you? The purpose of the "justice system" isn't about retribution. It is safety.
    a justice system is either about punishment or rehabilitation.
    You want punishment, borderline vengeance. What we need is rehabilitation.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  11. #41
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    You didn't read my opening post did you? The purpose of the "justice system" isn't about retribution. It is safety. If someone tries to murder someone and fails because their victim ducked, they are JUST as much a threat to society as someone who shoots a victim that didn't duck. What is difficult to understand about this?
    No, not always. Context matters and you know it.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    You didn't read my opening post did you? The purpose of the "justice system" isn't about retribution. It is safety. If someone tries to murder someone and fails because their victim ducked, they are JUST as much a threat to society as someone who shoots a victim that didn't duck. What is difficult to understand about this?
    I don't think it is or should be about retribution either. I think it should be about rehabilitation. You realize the justice system is supposed to be just toward the accused/convicted as well, right?
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    I can't help but wonder why they call it "the justice system" as opposed to eg "the safety system"
    PR

  14. #44
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I don't think it is or should be about retribution either. I think it should be about rehabilitation. You realize the justice system is supposed to be just toward the accused/convicted as well, right?
    Exactly. It confuses me why Lewk would not want rehabilitation. Means more productive members of society and less tax payer dollars spent in the long run.

    We may have to admit that there may be those that can not be rehabilitated however...
    Last edited by Veldan Rath; 05-27-2013 at 04:51 PM. Reason: Corrected misspelling
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I don't think it is or should be about retribution either. I think it should be about rehabilitation. You realize the justice system is supposed to be just toward the accused/convicted as well, right?
    Some people can be rehabilitated, some cannot (it's also not in the public interest to release some criminals, even if they could be rehabilitated). It's silly to make the criminal justice system be geared toward only one of the groups.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  16. #46
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Some people can be rehabilitated, some cannot (it's also not in the public interest to release some criminals, even if they could be rehabilitated). It's silly to make the criminal justice system be geared toward only one of the groups.
    But you are agreeing that we should attempt to save those that can be, correct?

    I don't think LF was looking at the one size fits all approach.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  17. #47
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    Exactly. It confuses me why Lewk would not want rehabilitation.
    Lewk condones the death penalty even for lesser offenses. He'd also get rid of due process.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  18. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    But you are agreeing that we should attempt to save those that can be, correct?

    I don't think LF was looking at the one size fits all approach.
    I see no purpose in a system that makes minor criminals into major ones. But I also don't want the British system, where minor and major criminals never pay for their crimes (as an added bonus, that system doesn't really rehabilitate criminals either).
    Hope is the denial of reality

  19. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    Exactly. It confuses me why Lewk would not want rehabilitation. Means more productive members of society and less tax payer dollars spent in the long run.

    We may have to admit that there may be those that can not be rehabilitated however...
    Prison (at least in America) tend to not be re-education camps. You can't force someone to change. You can however make the consequences of their actions be something they with to avoid. That is the purpose of deterrence.

  20. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Lewk condones the death penalty even for lesser offenses. He'd also get rid of due process.
    How have I suggested we get rid of due process?

  21. #51
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Prison (at least in America) tend to not be re-education camps. You can't force someone to change. You can however make the consequences of their actions be something they with to avoid. That is the purpose of deterrence.
    No, but you can help someone change. Deterrence is not working out so well is it? So if we are going to punish (and I'm not saying we should not) then we may as well tryto tempt these poor bastards into something better should we not? Throwing PEOPLE away once they get to prison is a waste of time and TAX dollars.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  22. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Prison (at least in America) tend to not be re-education camps. You can't force someone to change. You can however make the consequences of their actions be something they with to avoid. That is the purpose of deterrence.
    Depends how early you get them and on why they were committing crimes. If they were stealing to buy drugs, you can cure their drug habit. If they're still young, you can teach them skills to make crime unnecessary. If they have some underlying mental disorder, you can offer them therapy and medication. Giving some structure will help people who've always acted out of impulse. Just throwing criminals together and letting them out after they serve their sentence is a recipe for disaster. The way I see it, we should have two tracks for criminals: one for criminals that will be put back in public and one for those who'll remain in prison for the rest of their lives. The former should be heavily geared toward rehabilitation. The latter I'm not particularly worried about.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  23. #53
    That's all nice, but it will only work if you can get the same education/treatments/medication for free outside of prison as well. Otherwise people will be encourage to get into prison. I already mentioned that I don't believe that repression alone works, I don't think a system without repression works either.

    Actually letting them do hard work is an ideal way, there is just one problem: It leads to an unfair competition to companies that provide the same work without prison workers.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  24. #54
    We already have more or less free education for vocational schools and community colleges, and Medicaid pays for the treatment and medication if you qualify (which they will starting 2014:http://www.pewstates.org/projects/st...ge-85899465889).
    Hope is the denial of reality

  25. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Some people can be rehabilitated, some cannot (it's also not in the public interest to release some criminals, even if they could be rehabilitated). It's silly to make the criminal justice system be geared toward only one of the groups.
    Sure there are some people we can't effectively rehabilitate. Old death-penalty threads from the Atari days are gone but I believe I've brought up here that while I think the death-penalty as currently used is inescapably tainted in function *latent racism in the justice system, convictions over-turned by new forensic evidence/testimony, etc* that there are people who won't/can't stop significantly injuring or killing others, whether they're inside or outside the prison system and that the penalty would make sense with those offenders for whom that has been proven to the case rather than leaving them as a continued risk to other inmates or to prison staff. And it may be there are sex-offenders who can't be effectively rehabilitated and safely released, though I really don't care to see another of those really long debates spearheaded by Minx on one side and I think it was Dread usually on the other. If I was listing what I think goals for the penal system should be in order of priority it would be

    1. rehabilitate those who criminally harm others or society so they can smoothly and safely reintegrate as functioning members of society
    2. Keep such people contained as necessary for the safety of those they would potentially harm until they can be safely reintegrated
    3. Provide closure/restitution to the people they have harmed

    always keeping in mind the burden of a just system for proportionate response. A life-sentence is not an appropriate sentence for a compulsive pick-pocket no matter how unresponsive the klepto is to attempts to rehabilitate and reintegrate them so they refrain from reoffending. I frankly have trouble with your notion that it wouldn't be in the "public interest" to release and reintegrate someone who has been rehabilitated. I can't see how that would serve them, society, or abstract notions of justice.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  26. #56
    Let's say someone kills their wife/husband because the latter have been nagging them non-stop for decades. Or someone kills a person while high/drunk. There's a good chance that they won't kill again given some therapy, but does society benefit from having such people on the streets? People (outside of Britain anyway) don't want to think that someone can intentionally kill them and suffer virtually no consequences for the act.

    I'd be less worried about the chronic pickpocket than about the chronic assaulter by the way. A vast majority of murderers don't start with murder.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  27. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Let's say someone kills their wife/husband because the latter have been nagging them non-stop for decades. Or someone kills a person while high/drunk. There's a good chance that they won't kill again given some therapy, but does society benefit from having such people on the streets?
    Yes, society does benefit, from the returns it receives from any free and productive member. What does society gain from keeping someone who isn't going to reoffend locked up for years? What actual benefit is derived by anyone from that? It seems to be it's primarily about slaking the desire for retribution/revenge. That it would be unfair for someone to be free and unfettered when their victim is hurt or gone. It speaks to the same impulses I allude to in the listed tertiary priority of providing closure to the people harmed but I am hesitant to favor that over safe reintegration.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  28. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Yes, society does benefit, from the returns it receives from any free and productive member. What does society gain from keeping someone who isn't going to reoffend locked up for years? What actual benefit is derived by anyone from that? It seems to be it's primarily about slaking the desire for retribution/revenge. That it would be unfair for someone to be free and unfettered when their victim is hurt or gone. It speaks to the same impulses I allude to in the listed tertiary priority of providing closure to the people harmed but I am hesitant to favor that over safe reintegration.
    Multiple benefits. For one there is no guarantee the person won't re-offend.

    1. Keeps the rest of the populace safe.
    2. Acts as a deterrent for others.
    3. I'm all in favor of requiring prisoners to work. (Possibly instead of making it mandatory give people the option however if they don't take the option they are never eligible for parole, don't get mail, visits, ect ect). The term "pay your debt to society" would have a whole new meaning!

  29. #59
    Yes Lewk, we all know that you think the key to reducing/preventing crime is to deter people with the threat of spending some or all of their remaining lives in horrifying conditions. That's why I haven't once taken the discussion in this direction when talking to you, because there is absolutely no room for any constructive conversation between you and I on the subtopic, we have completely irreconcilable views on the concept of a penal system. Among other things, you give absolutely no regard to the concept of proportionate response as evidenced by your frequently-cited reaction to the case of the man killed over a tube of toothpaste, something I consider a very important concern for any system of justice.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  30. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    there is no guarantee the person won't re-offend.
    There is no guarantee that a given person won't offend in the first place.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •