Originally posted by dadudemonI know. I understand how you meant the joke now. But I am just saying there would be another way to interpret your smilie.
I don't know how else to describe the joke. It would be similar to you calling me a fatass because I eat so much..even though I am not fatass. You don't have to have children in order to be as objective as possible about this discussion. THAT is why it was obviously a joke, imo.
Originally posted by inimalist
honestly man, like Bardock said, you might have been joking, but (and I'll admit, I sort of jumped in half way through) many people do actually hold your position."you'll understand when you are a parent", to some people, is a valid argument.
Also, the feelings of an individual who "walked in" on someone raping their child are not at all equal to how criminal justice should be handed out. Also, justice is very specifically not democratic. We can both think of reasons why that would be overly negative, so regardless of how the parents feel, it is moot.
I'll be honest, I'd almost be willing to pardon someone who killed a rapist they caught in the act, but that is a totally different question than the judgement of a impartial body, specifically created to avoid emotional reactions to crimes.
(I apologize if I misinterpreted something)
The people's opinions do play a role in justice. This is why the death penalty still exists. If the peoples morals played no part, then the system would have far fewer flaws.
Since people are convicted from a group of jurors, morals are part of the justice system.
Don't you think the laws would change allowing the criminal in the topic post to stay away from death row?
Originally posted by inimalist
honestly man, like Bardock said, you might have been joking, but (and I'll admit, I sort of jumped in half way through) many people do actually hold your position."you'll understand when you are a parent", to some people, is a valid argument.
Despite being a parent, I agree that isn't a sound argument. You know what's equally as bad, childless people who think their opinion is somehow unbaised or more valid simple because they don't have children and are someone not burdened by it.
Originally posted by RobtardObviously. This isn't a parent vs no parent thing. Would be idiotic.
Despite being a parent, I agree that isn't a sound argument. You know what's equally as bad, childless people who think their opinion is somehow unbaised or more valid simple because they don't have children and are someone not burdened by it.
Though, to be fair, I have been told "You will understand when you have kids of your own" a number of times, I never said "You would still understand if you didn't have children".
Originally posted by inimalistI'll be honest, I'd almost be willing to pardon someone who killed a rapist they caught in the act, but that is a totally different question than the judgement of a impartial body, specifically created to avoid emotional reactions to crimes.
(I apologize if I misinterpreted something)
Well, the legal system does actually acknowledge that within its homicide laws.
Originally posted by Robtard
Despite being a parent, I agree that isn't a sound argument. You know what's equally as bad, childless people who think their opinion is somehow unbaised or more valid simple because they don't have children and are someone not burdened by it.
Like I pointed out earlier, unless the justice system is directly tied to the decisions of a supercomputer like "HAL" (minus the evilness), the system will remain a machine of subjectivity and morals and the ideas of what objective morals are.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Obviously. This isn't a parent vs no parent thing. Would be idiotic.Though, to be fair, I have been told "You will understand when you have kids of your own" a number of times, I never said "You would still understand if you didn't have children".
Didn't say it was and yes it would.
Well, not exactly like that. More of the parents being accused of being biased and not being objective simple because they have children. Though, that probably would never happen in here, since the KMC is full of objective and rational people.
Originally posted by dadudemonEven if there was HAL that would still have to operate on some moral axioms.
Like I pointed out earlier, unless the justice system is directly tied to the decisions of a supercomputer like "HAL" (minus the evilness), the system will remain a machine of subjectivity and morals and the ideas of what objective morals are.
Originally posted by RobtardYeah, it's known for that.
Didn't say it was and yes it would.Well, not exactly like that. More of the parents being accused of being biased and not being objective simple because they have children. Though, that probably would never happen in here, since the KMC is full of objective and rational people.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Like I pointed out earlier, unless the justice system is directly tied to the decisions of a supercomputer like "HAL" (minus the evilness), the system will remain a machine of subjectivity and morals and the ideas of what objective morals are.
Aren't the laws supposed to be the will of the people?
Originally posted by dadudemon
The people's opinions do play a role in justice. This is why the death penalty still exists. If the peoples morals played no part, then the system would have far fewer flaws.Since people are convicted from a group of jurors, morals are part of the justice system.
Don't you think the laws would change allowing the criminal in the topic post to stay away from death row?
there is a difference between the ideas of people and the feelings of the parents
no jury in America would contain anyone remotely attached to the incident. The purpose of a jury is to try and ensure an impartial verdict from fellow citizens, not to balance the morals of the public vs an individuals rights.
Juries are not moral bodies, but factual bodies. Their ONLY purpose is to make decisions based on matters of fact.
Like, if all your argument is that people are flawed and any system of people will be flawed, ok, whatever, but philosophically, justice in a free country is about public safety, not about retribution from the state or the community. Both of those things are constitutionally illegal.
So, imho, were there an argument for the death penalty that wasn't just "they deserve it", or evidence that it is a help to individual safety, sure, there might be a place for it. But, since the only good that comes from the death penalty is the possibility that people might feel like justice is done (although there is a history of literature and drama specifically dedicated to how people don't feel better after revenge), that potential does not supersede any person's right to life, including criminals (who are still given basic rights [or, technically should be]).
Essentially the argument is about when the government has the right to take away constitutional rights from people in society. The only time they do is when it can be shown to be in the best interest of society at large. This isn't my opinion, as my opinion is that the government NEVER has such rights, but rather the reason why much of the legal system exists as it does (please excuse how much of this comes from the Canadian legal tradition vs the Americans, I don't know what relevant issues from either might be at odds with what I am saying).