Crime and Punishment

[Lizard]

Ok so I thought we should have a discussion over what is a fair punishment for various crimes, and if certain things should be crimes.

Also this.

https://scontent.flhr4-2.fna.fbcdn....=a3402e296240db879426324a029bff81&oe=58B6E8F5

 

[Exorcet]

Some discussion already exists in the Human Rights thread. My thoughts on punishment is that the minimum goal is repair the damage done. So for example, in a simple fender bender car accident, the person at fault pays for the repairs on both cars. Some losses can't be repayed however, like the loss of life. In that case, harsh punishments are justified. The goal in that case is more of deterrent than anything else though.

As for the trolley image, John and Mark did not do the same thing. Assuming both trolleys keep going, John has killed a person. Mark did not. This isn't to say that being drunk while operating machinery is something to be accepted, but harm only occurs when a person causes damage. Compare Mark's trolley trip to one made by a sober driver that doesn't hit anyone and a sober driver that does hit someone.

 

[Lizard]

Some discussion already exists in the Human Rights thread. My thoughts on punishment is that the minimum goal is repair the damage done. So for example, in a simple fender bender car accident, the person at fault pays for the repairs on both cars. Some losses can't be repayed however, like the loss of life. In that case, harsh punishments are justified. The goal in that case is more of deterrent than anything else though.

As for the trolley image, John and Mark did not do the same thing. Assuming both trolleys keep going, John has killed a person. Mark did not. This isn't to say that being drunk while operating machinery is something to be accepted, but harm only occurs when a person causes damage. Compare Mark's trolley trip to one made by a sober driver that doesn't hit anyone and a sober driver that does hit someone.

Ok this thread needs a little bump start it seems.

Question. Should paedophilia (and the actions that are immoral regarding it) be treated as a mental illness (aka sent to the nut house) or a crime as it currently is?

Question 2. Is the justice system's primary function punishment or reform? The 2 can conflict quite often.


As for the trolley. So you are a utilitarian? I personally agree with you, I posted it to generate debate.

 

[JKgo]

Question. Should Paedophilia be treated as a mental illness (aka sent to the nut house) or a crime as it currently is?

...Depends on the case, I'd think.

Question 2. Is the justice system's primary function punishment or reform? The 2 can conflict quite often.

Also dependent on each case, wouldn't you say? There will be a certain portion of crims who can be rehabilitated and add to the good of the society as a whole, but there also will be one or two rotten eggs who stink so badly, it'd be nigh on impossible to reform them no matter what. Or crimes that are so evil and beyond redemption that a proportionate punishment must be meted out accordingly.

Wouldn't you say an ideal justice system should be able to discern all the variables and arrive at the as-correct-as-the-evidence-allows verdicts?

 

[Exorcet]

Question. Should Paedophilia be treated as a mental illness (aka sent to the nut house) or a crime as it currently is?

Just to clarify, I only see a problem when it comes to acting on the feelings. If a pedophile can live without harming children, that person is normal as far as I'm concerned. Harming a child (or anyone) is a crime, but the sentencing will depend on the case.

Question 2. Is the justice system's primary function punishment or reform? The 2 can conflict quite often.

I don't see much of a point to punishment in an of itself. My concern when I am wronged, is to get back what I've lost. Even in the case of murder, if was possible to completely undo the crime then I would be satisfied in terms of compensation. Having the murderer go to jail does nothing for me.

Ultimately though, what the justice system is for depends on who is running it. If it's a government run system then this leads back into taxation and government rights. As with all things, the government can't use an individuals tax money to do things that individual does not agree with (I know this happens anyway).

As for the trolley. So you are a utilitarian? I personally agree with you, I posted it to generate debate.

It's not utilitarianism, it's just that objectively you can't cause harm without causing harm. Operating a machine while drunk is probably a bad idea, but if you can operate it as well as someone who is sober, then no harm done. You can argue that being drunk increases the risk of a problem occurring, but there is no zero risk baseline to compare to. Operating a machine while being at the height of attention still carries risk and that makes objectively separating the drunk case vs the sober case difficult.

 

[LeMansAid]

Operating a machine while drunk is probably a bad idea, but if you can operate it as well as someone who is sober, then no harm done. You can argue that being drunk increases the risk of a problem occurring, but there is no zero risk baseline to compare to. Operating a machine while being at the height of attention still carries risk and that makes objectively separating the drunk case vs the sober case difficult.

Do you agree with automatic harsher punishments if an accident is caused by a drunk driver, even if it cannot be proven that the being drunk component contributed to, or caused, the accident?

I can't help thinking that the drunk part should be arbitrary until proven guilty.

 

[Dotini]

Our societies place differing values on human lives - and crimes - depending upon where we live.

Dan Gurney accidentally killed a spectator at Zandvoort, and Jim Clark was involved in multiple spectator deaths at Monza. For a time, there was some concern about Clark being able to return to Italy.

In Congo, violent death at the hands of authority is a routine occurrence, merely for peaceful protest.

In some sexually repressed societies, pedophilia seems to be accepted as normal, natural and routine. Paradoxically in the west, we have teeny bopper girls everyday going to school with makeup, skintight yoga pants and partially exposed tits. Out of wedlock sex, more divorce than marriage and single motherhood is the norm. Yet pedophilia crimes supposedly are fiercely prosecuted. Pizzagate gives the lie to this.

It's impossible to say, absolutely and with confidence, what a crime even is, and even harder to to say what is a fair punishment. These things all depend upon where and when. Not to mention how and why.

 

[ryzno]

Do you agree with automatic harsher punishments if an accident is caused by a drunk driver, even if it cannot be proven that the being drunk component contributed to, or caused, the accident?

I can't help thinking that the drunk part should be arbitrary until proven guilty.

This caught my eye.
What if the driver is legally considered drunk but is physically sober and coordinated?

Lets say for example, I drink two of my favorite beers. Two 16 oz. cans @ 5.9% Alcohol, is enough for me to blow about a .08 while still being what I consider sober.(I drink a 12 pack a day, few shots of Jack and some herb for a nice mellow, 2 beers is a tease, I blame the Irish in me )
Anyways, say I'm at a light and someone texting and driving plows through a red light and T-bones me when I have the right of way. Who's responsible and do I deserve to be charged with a DUI if I can pass the sobriety test even though the breathalyzer says I'm drunk?

 

[Exorcet]

Do you agree with automatic harsher punishments if an accident is caused by a drunk driver, even if it cannot be proven that the being drunk component contributed to, or caused, the accident?

I can't help thinking that the drunk part should be arbitrary until proven guilty.

Automatic, no. Ideally there would not be blanket laws against drunk driving as I assume not everyone would agree on what constitutes a harmful level of alcohol consumption. What is permitted would be determined by the owner of the road in question. If government funded roads were to exist at all, I would hope that the tax money supporting them would be an opt-in payment.

 

[Danoff]

Question. Should paedophilia (and the actions that are immoral regarding it) be treated as a mental illness (aka sent to the nut house) or a crime as it currently is?

Both. Mentally ill people can commit crimes.

Question 2. Is the justice system's primary function punishment or reform? The 2 can conflict quite often.

Both.

 

[Rich S]

Do you agree with automatic harsher punishments if an accident is caused by a drunk driver, even if it cannot be proven that the being drunk component contributed to, or caused, the accident?

I can't help thinking that the drunk part should be arbitrary until proven guilty.

I remember my dad and grandmother telling old stories of the first gen jet airline pilots knocking back martini after martini and they got through the 60s and 70s ok.

In all seriousness we are a "safe zone" society these days. Im surprised kids arent put in bubble canopies until age 18 when their then old enough to head to middle east and fight oil war... im from a US perspective here but we are rather sterilized compared to 1975.

 

[x3ra]

Yet pedophilia crimes supposedly are fiercely prosecuted. Pizzagate gives the lie to this..

The swamp may be getting lower.



But, is this about pimps and prostitutes rather than pedophiles?

 

[eight6er]

The person who tied the man onto the tracks should be found and put in prison, while nothing happens to the trolley driver.

Pre-crimes don't sit well with me, like drunk driving and speeding. You are punishing someone for a crime they might commit, but most likely won't.

I disagree with the punishments in Ireland, where if you are caught speeding or something similar and don't pay the fine within 21 days the fine goes up. Also on the fine it says if you take it to court you can get 3 times the amount of points on your license and a huge fine. So even if you are innocent for whatever reason they just want the money and they will make it very hard for you if you don't pay it now.
You haven't committed any extra crimes, but the punishment keeps getting worse if you don't have the money, or forgot about it.

If there is a fine for a crime, then the fine should be set for that crime and not change just because you wanted to contest it in court, or paid it a few months later. It's basically like bullying, pay up or else.

It's not really much different than countries with corrupt police force that accept bribes to leave you off, except one difference is if you are poor the corrupt policeman can accept other kinds of payment, or maybe just take what you can afford.

 

[ukfan758]

Question. Should paedophilia (and the actions that are immoral regarding it) be treated as a mental illness (aka sent to the nut house) or a crime as it currently is?

I think those that only access or possess it should be treated as a mental illness, but those who sell, distribute, or produce it should be treated as a crime.

 

[AerodyManiac]

Hi guys,

Just now I thought of a few questions that I think is worth some discussion, so I think I should post them here:

Should a person who unknowingly commits a crime be punished for it? If not, then who should be responsible for the resulting damage (if any, such as another person who is killed, or a person who is offended)?

Sorry if this is discussed somewhere else or didn't take into account the crimes that are already present in the judicial system. I might include my thoughts later, as I haven't thought of an answer right now.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Should a person who unknowingly commits a crime be punished for it?

That needs to be established by a judge and a court. If you couldn't reasonably be expected to know that your actions are criminal then you'd hope the court (or CPS before that stage) would show the due leniency.

Of course, it may be that your "not knowing" constitutes an act of criminal negligence in itself, particularly if you were in a position where you should have known.

If not, then who should be responsible for the resulting damage (if any, such as another person who is killed, or a person who is offended)?

In the case of a business or a motor vehicle operator then that would most likely be down to insurance. Otherwise see my first answer, damages and compensation should form a sensible part of that judgement.

 

[BobK]

If you break a law that you didn't know existed then you can be found guilty of a crime. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

On the other hand, if you're cited for speeding and you can establish that the relevant speed limit sign was missing or obscured then you can often get the ticket dismissed.

 

[Danoff]

Hi guys,

Just now I thought of a few questions that I think is worth some discussion, so I think I should post them here:

Should a person who unknowingly commits a crime be punished for it? If not, then who should be responsible for the resulting damage (if any, such as another person who is killed, or a person who is offended)?

Sorry if this is discussed somewhere else or didn't take into account the crimes that are already present in the judicial system. I might include my thoughts later, as I haven't thought of an answer right now.

That needs to be established by a judge and a court. If you couldn't reasonably be expected to know that your actions are criminal then you'd hope the court (or CPS before that stage) would show the due leniency.

Of course, it may be that your "not knowing" constitutes an act of criminal negligence in itself, particularly if you were in a position where you should have known.



In the case of a business or a motor vehicle operator then that would most likely be down to insurance. Otherwise see my first answer, damages and compensation should form a sensible part of that judgement.

If you break a law that you didn't know existed then you can be found guilty of a crime. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

On the other hand, if you're cited for speeding and you can establish that the relevant speed limit sign was missing or obscured then you can often get the ticket dismissed.

You guys are talking about strict liability vs. negligence and then comparing that to a regulatory infraction where the regulation was not properly posted. All totally different.

If you're talking about traffic regulations that don't get posted, but can still be violated, you're proven to be aware of those when you get your license (usually by taking a test or attesting to it). So your knowledge of the regulations is known up front. You can't know all of the speed limits on all roads in the country, so those need to be posted for you to follow. If one is missing, it's not the driver's fault for not knowing what the regulation is in that particular place - as long as you weren't behaving in a way that can be considered negligent regardless of what the posted limit should have been.

Strict liability laws are those which can be infringed regardless of whether you knew about the law or were intentional or negligent in breaking the law. Other laws require negligence or intent to be broken - depends on the crime.

Edit: Often there's a bit of double jeopardy where the criminal standard is higher than the civil standard (intent vs. strict liability). So someone can fail to be convicted of the criminal offense but still found guilty of the civil offense using the same evidence in two different court proceedings.