07-07-2017, 12:52 PM
|
#201
|
Draft Pick
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang
Now apply that logic to killing someone with your car. The courts have the ability to consider all factors and proceed accordingly. There is a massive difference between me killing someone while having a medical issue, a pedestrian that popped out into traffic, running someone down intentionally in road rage, drinking and driving, texting and not seeing a red light, etc.
The end result is that someone else is dead, and that sucks. But the law will be applied according to the contributing factors, not in a knee jerk fashion.
Apples to oranges, obviously, but let's not pretend that we'd like the law to be ignorantly black and white.
|
Yes and this goes into intent and severity. "Exceptions and conditions" as I basically refer to them as. If we remove these then people get the same punishment per damage done to victim regardless of intent and severity. I am fully aware that means sometimes people are put into prison or punished therefore without truly deserving it. But i maintain that the amount of people in this case hurt by this system of "black/white" is less than that of our current system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Actually no, it's the difference between whether you believe the justice system benefits society better when operated under a punitive model vs a rehabilitative model.
|
This is where my view of the justice system usually clashes with others as I sit on the punitive model side versus our current "probability of rehabilitation" model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
Removing the concept of moral blameworthiness from our criminal law would be a truly radical departure. A purely consequence-focused criminal law would punish the person who negligently kills another person in a car accident exactly the same as a person who plans the deliberate killing of his wife.
Very few people would call that justice.
|
This goes back to my argument about exceptions and conditions in order to determine intent and maliciousness of an act. while there would be people that only deserve "manslaughter" punishment but instead get the same punishment as "first degree murder" I reason that this would protect society far better. Basically there would be no probability of "violent murder" reoffenses because the situation would never exist for a violent crime offender to have a chance at the situation again.
Yes I also agree that few would call that justice. Justice is however something we learn as children and growing up, so it is incredibly subject to interpretation. As such it's definition can be changed and adapted.
|
|
|
07-07-2017, 12:55 PM
|
#202
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
|
^ I think your ideas are, frankly, crazy but at least you stick to them (rather than endlessly moving the goal posts like of our other "provocative" posters.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-07-2017, 12:59 PM
|
#203
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
And the mistaken idea that these are mutually exclusive ideals.
|
I've yet to see someone who is firmly in the rehabilitation camp advocate for zero punitive measures. I mean there are the fringe left-wing crazies who want to abolish the prison system altogether, but they're insane.
|
|
|
07-07-2017, 01:02 PM
|
#205
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tfong
Yes and this goes into intent and severity. "Exceptions and conditions" as I basically refer to them as. If we remove these then people get the same punishment per damage done to victim regardless of intent and severity. I am fully aware that means sometimes people are put into prison or punished therefore without truly deserving it. But i maintain that the amount of people in this case hurt by this system of "black/white" is less than that of our current system.
|
So let me get this straight - you'd rather see an innocent person punished than allowing courts to use proper judgment? That's absolutely abhorrent. Seriously.
|
|
|
07-07-2017, 01:03 PM
|
#206
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Marseilles Of The Prairies
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
I've yet to see someone who is firmly in the rehabilitation camp advocate for zero punitive measures. I mean there are the fringe left-wing crazies who want to abolish the prison system altogether, but they're insane.
|
Don't forget Gavin McInnis' "Proud Boys" circle-jerking club, who also think prisons should be abolished.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
|
|
|
|
07-07-2017, 01:03 PM
|
#207
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver
|
It's so difficult to not engage people on Facebook over this. One of my friends posted about it and his friends followed by saying Trudeau should step in or outright blaming him for the decision.
Really? So here is a PM that they apparently hate and don't trust, and they want him to behave like a dictator? Would he even have the authority to change anything? I understand a Minister may have to sign off on it, but is a rubber stamp just like the Queen signing off on a Canadian passport.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
|
|
|
07-07-2017, 01:09 PM
|
#208
|
Draft Pick
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang
So let me get this straight - you'd rather see an innocent person punished than allowing courts to use proper judgment? That's absolutely abhorrent. Seriously.
|
Only if you're looking at it from a personal lens.
I would rather see a few people punished more severely than they deserved (not innocent because they still killed someone), than to see anything higher than a 0% chance of reoffense (which means someone died and it could've been prevented).
Whats your trade off?
Again you only consider "proper judgement" based on how we (and yourself) have been raised in our current generation. If we were raised in a system where this was the norm, you wouldn't bat an eye about it. Thats how adaptable "justice" is.
Last edited by Tfong; 07-07-2017 at 01:14 PM.
|
|
|
07-07-2017, 01:15 PM
|
#209
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Marseilles Of The Prairies
|
You know who really understands justice? Rodrigo Duterte.
What a model.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
|
|
|
|
07-07-2017, 01:19 PM
|
#210
|
Draft Pick
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsYcNeT
You know who really understands justice? Rodrigo Duterte.
What a model.
|
Only did a quick google, is that the guy that has hit squads taking down cartels and drug traffickers in Malaysia without trial?
|
|
|
07-07-2017, 01:22 PM
|
#211
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tfong
Only did a quick google, is that the guy that has hit squads taking down cartels and drug traffickers in Malaysia without trial?
|
You forgot about drug addicts.
|
|
|
07-07-2017, 01:44 PM
|
#212
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormius
You forgot about drug addicts.
|
If they didnt try illegal drugs in the first place they wouldn't have gotten addicted and wouldn't have been killed.(not a fan of green text so I'll clarify that I'm being sarcastic)
|
|
|
07-07-2017, 01:46 PM
|
#213
|
Franchise Player
|
And people that the cops claim are drug addicts because the cops, like the government, are corrupt and now have open season to kill anyone they don't like.
|
|
|
07-07-2017, 02:22 PM
|
#214
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tfong
Only if you're looking at it from a personal lens.
I would rather see a few people punished more severely than they deserved (not innocent because they still killed someone), than to see anything higher than a 0% chance of reoffense (which means someone died and it could've been prevented).
Whats your trade off?
Again you only consider "proper judgement" based on how we (and yourself) have been raised in our current generation. If we were raised in a system where this was the norm, you wouldn't bat an eye about it. Thats how adaptable "justice" is.
|
Would this be for all outcomes or just criminal outcomes?
If a person runs a red because they aren't paying attention they get the same punishment as a drunk driver and the same punishment as a guy who murders is wife for trying to leave him?
I think from a loss of benefit to society and cost of imprisonment standpoint society would be worse off.
Punishment is not a deterrent so we don't have less crime.
What's the value in your proposal outside of revenge?
|
|
|
07-07-2017, 02:58 PM
|
#215
|
Draft Pick
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Would this be for all outcomes or just criminal outcomes?
If a person runs a red because they aren't paying attention they get the same punishment as a drunk driver and the same punishment as a guy who murders is wife for trying to leave him?
I think from a loss of benefit to society and cost of imprisonment standpoint society would be worse off.
Punishment is not a deterrent so we don't have less crime.
What's the value in your proposal outside of revenge?
|
Sorry I don't understand what you mean by outcomes vs criminal outcome. You me convicted vs not convicted? Or negligence vs manslaughter vs murder?
Presuming the outcome is always death in this case of the victim under my series of thoughts, it would all be murder.
I'm not proposing the usage of punishment as a deterrence. However in the case of a drunk driver or a person running a red light and killing someone in the process, we have now removed a person from society that a) drinks and drives and b) runs traffic lights.
Anecdotally, people that drink and drive and/or run red lights are not usually isolated incidents. People that tend to do these things will do so habitually so realistically I think the chance of them killing someone else by committing this act would be less because the person is no longer in society.
I have to admit, there is an significant chance of loss benefit to society if like for example a scientist or someone was making a significant contribution to society DUIed and killed someone. But typically how often does that occur? It would be a risk for sure because we are now taking them out of society and they are no longer able to contribute. Though on the other hand, there have been cases where someone that has contributed to society and DUIed, and just went on a downward spiral in life and no longer contributed to society in a significant manner anyways (Lindsay Lohan?).
The value is that it completely removes the chance of a re-offensive action. It also means there are no precedents to be exploited that would allow people to escape the system.
|
|
|
07-07-2017, 03:24 PM
|
#216
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
|
It only completely removes the chance of reoffense if it's a life sentence. If the goal is to prevent future crime shouldn't we lock up everyone who gets a DUI above a certain amount for life. If the goal is to prevent reoffending doesn't it make more sense to only punish the action and not the outcome.
A person who didn't kill someone but drove just as drunk has a similar risk to kill again as the drunk driver who killed someone.
A person who gets in fights in bars and stabs someone has a similar risk to kill again regardless of if the stabbing victim lives or dies.
Intent and the actions leading to the incident have far more to due with the likelihood of reoffend than the outcome does.
|
|
|
07-07-2017, 03:31 PM
|
#218
|
Lifetime In Suspension
|
Interesting watching someone essentially argue for life under totalitarian rule. Takes all sorts I suppose.
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-07-2017, 03:31 PM
|
#219
|
Draft Pick
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
It only completely removes the chance of reoffense if it's a life sentence. If the goal is to prevent future crime shouldn't we lock up everyone who gets a DUI above a certain amount for life. If the goal is to prevent reoffending doesn't it make more sense to only punish the action and not the outcome.
A person who didn't kill someone but drove just as drunk has a similar risk to kill again as the drunk driver who killed someone.
A person who gets in fights in bars and stabs someone has a similar risk to kill again regardless of if the stabbing victim lives or dies.
Intent and the actions leading to the incident have far more to due with the likelihood of reoffend evidence than the outcome does.
|
I'm not saying to not punish the act itself. Those would undergo whatever punishment those acts would carry in those cases. I just wouldn't deem it the same act as where a person actually died.
That being said, attempted murder i think still carries max life sentence like murder anyways so there is indication of punishment of the intent as well as the outcome. So yes you could still sentence someone that doesn't kill to a punishment equal to murder. But when you're at the murder stage, there would be no difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
Interesting watching someone essentially argue for life under totalitarian rule. Takes all sorts I suppose.
|
 While media does play a role in how my thoughts turned into what they are today, I have a University degree and a minor in law and society (irony?fate?serendipity?) with course specializations in war history and can't say I always thought like this. Or did I but merely didn't know it? Hard to say on that count. I like to think i bring a unique perspective to things. Homegrown Canadian with immigrant parents too!
Last edited by Tfong; 07-07-2017 at 03:38 PM.
|
|
|
07-07-2017, 03:56 PM
|
#220
|
Franchise Player
|
Yeah, but bow does this payout affect Jankowski?
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:35 PM.
|
|