Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8971 total)
169 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, kjsimons (3 members, 166 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,372 Year: 7,120/23,288 Month: 1,026/1,214 Week: 38/303 Day: 38/37 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moral issues and the Justice system or something like that
Stile
Member
Posts: 3943
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 171 (873187)
03-11-2020 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
03-10-2020 2:07 PM


Faith writes:

All this kind of annoyed me, since to my mind the main thing was whether or not he had killed the child and how the law should deal with him for that crime. All the talk about a good side or his being totally evil just seemed irrelevant to me and something that shouldn't be muddying up the real issues. One juror kept getting hung up on these side issues and bringing him around to the criminal facts was difficult but in the end they succeeded.

Absolutely.
Even Hitler's dog loved Hitler - because Hitler was good to his dog.

"Good and Evil" isn't a static value in people.
People are good in this stituation, and bad in that situation.
The issue, as you said, is if they were good or bad in the criminal facts/scenario that's in question.

I wouldn't say everything else is entirely irrelevant - in certain situations it may provide evidence of credibility for if the actions were "by accident" or "fully intended."
In your particular example - with "ongoing abuse" on such a large scale - I would completely agree that no level of "very nice to everyone else" matters at all.

Something about being annoyed that issues were brought up about morality that people shouldn't have to spend so much time trying to resolve. I guess this is because I have the Christian point of view that we're all sinners, any of us could have been in circumstances that caused us to act criminally, in a way it's all God's grace if we don't. But nevertheless crimes must be punished. The Bible clearly says that if someone kills a human being he must die for it. So all the ponderings about whether or not someone is completely evil or partially evil or what not are just red herrings.

Perhaps, for you, it is because of your Christian point of view.
But, in general, a Christian point of view isn't required to come to the same conclusion.

I'm atheist and my moral code does not come from the Bible.
And my conclusions are the same as yours - for other reasons - but the conclusions are the same.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 03-10-2020 2:07 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 03-11-2020 8:34 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3943
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 29 of 171 (873322)
03-14-2020 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
03-12-2020 5:15 PM


Re: Nathanial Woods - state sanctioned murder.
Faith writes:

There are some cases where there is absolutely no doubt about the guilt. Those should be executed if there's any way to separate them from the doubtful ones.

I, actually, completely agree with this statement.

But, I think there's a lot of confusion/disagreement on what "such cases" actually are.
Which cases are "worthy" of killing the criminal? - Some are easy to identify, others are not - the issue isn't the easy-to-identify ones, it's for the hard ones - where does the line get drawn?

Also, the big question is: How do we, actually, "separate them from the doubtful ones?"
Our track record on this terrible.

And I don't like the idea of "trying to figure these out" by implementing systems that "might work and might not" - it's gambling with innocent people's lives.

Is there a way to "figure out" these issue without trial-and-error on innocent lives and then implement a "perfect system?"
-if so, I would be interested in looking at it and probably implementing it
-but nothing like this is possible or even proposed at this point - as long as this is the fact-of-the-matter: I find it abhorrent to "gamble with innocent people's lives" just because others would appreciate it if it did actually get figured out "one day."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 03-12-2020 5:15 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 03-14-2020 9:48 AM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3943
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 147 of 171 (874088)
03-24-2020 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
03-14-2020 9:48 AM


Re: Nathanial Woods - state sanctioned murder.
Faith writes:

Was there any doubt about Ted Bundy? Or the case I've described for that matter?

The point isn't that some obvious cases exist.
The point is that many non-obvious cases exist.

And, if you draw a line, the non-obvious ones lead to destroying innocent lives. Obviously.

Therefore, the questions isn't "do I think Ted Bundy was obvious or not?"
It doesn't really matter.

The question is: If anyone (you?) wants to try and draw a line - where should it be? How does it make the non-obvious cases easier to identify correctly?

Answer that question to remove all doubt of harming innocent people - and you'll have my vote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 03-14-2020 9:48 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by GDR, posted 03-26-2020 4:04 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020