FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Bullies drive girl to suicide. (Page 5)

  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Bullies drive girl to suicide.
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by JonHecht:
Did anyone else notice that the reporter used the word 'tortuous' instead of 'torturous'? Silly Brits, they really need to learn English.

It's a quote. From the lawyer.

Also, the two are frequently conflated.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by JonHecht:
It's a bit of both. I suspect that the reason they are being charged is because of the girl's death, and they would not have been charged if not for the suicide, even if authorities were well aware of the situation. This implies that the real reason they are being charged is the girl's death, despite the actions being illegal and mala in se.

Perhaps. But I don't see this setting a bad precedent. Harassment and violence should be taken more seriously. If, in your example, the coworkers are found to be guilty of these crimes, it doesn't really matter that the victim's suicide is what brought them to light. Now, there may be a heavy bias in sentencing, and that I don't really have an answer for.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
A good question to ask might be if the girl had not killed herself, would these charges still feel justified? I am inclined to say yes. What the kids did was wrong and even if the girl had not committed suicide, they were cruelly and selfishly inflicting pain on another. Ideally, I think the school should have dealt with this early on, but with their failure, the police stepping in seems appropriate.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
I agree with both rollainm and scholarette.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post 
To a certain degree, I feel like a bad person defending these kids, but...

If these kids are being charged solely on the basis of their actions, and not the results of their actions--and they ought to be... it seems to me that somewhere between 30-90% of high school students ought to be prosecuted.

Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
I think your estimations are a bit high, especially of what the kids in this particular case are being charged with.

But regardless, we're talking about law here, not morality. The action is exactly the basis of the charge. Harassment, assault, and battery are explicitly against the law.

But even all that aside, and even if we assume your estimations are correct, as much as that would suck it wouldn't change the law. We could only hope that deterrence from the prosecution of some would bring those numbers down some.

Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Do you also think that because not every person who speeds gets ticketed, no one should be?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not saying that they shouldn't be charged. I'm saying exactly what I said: If these kids are charged, we ought to charge many more people. This is a valueless comment. Perhaps my estimations are high, but if we include middle school, dear lord.

Perhaps I misspoke when I said I was defending them. I am just making clear what we need to do to be consistent. Personally, I am in favor of a form of Kantian retributivism, which entails that the state has an absolute duty to punish all those who are guilty of crimes. So yes, these children should be punished, but so should many others. I am more concerned with the fact that they are children than anything else. I was unclear on this in my previous posts, and I apologize if it seems that I am trying to say that these actions are not deserving of contemn.

Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by JonHecht:
To a certain degree, I feel like a bad person defending these kids, but...

If these kids are being charged solely on the basis of their actions, and not the results of their actions--and they ought to be... it seems to me that somewhere between 30-90% of high school students ought to be prosecuted.

Without necessarily accepting your numbers, I would have no difficulty with this. Our schools are uncivilised; Lord of the Flies, had it been written today, could easily have been set in one. This is an injustice unworthy of a developed nation, and must be fixed.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post 
Bingo. Lord of the flies. They are children who do not fully understand their actions--they don't recognize other people AS people. It is the adults who should be preventing such action from taking place in the first place. It is not like we blame a baby for shitting himself. Nor do we blame a 6 year old for being selfish and whiny. It is a stage of natural progression that the adults need to prevent.
If, however, they are competent enough to be tried, then try them. Also try many more people.

ETA: When I read Lord of the Flies, I do not think these children are horrible. I think they are just children who are put in a tough situation and are acting the way they know how. I feel sorrowful as a result.

Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by JonHecht:
I'm not saying that they shouldn't be charged. I'm saying exactly what I said: If these kids are charged, we ought to charge many more people. This is a valueless comment. Perhaps my estimations are high, but if we include middle school, dear lord.

Perhaps I misspoke when I said I was defending them. I am just making clear what we need to do to be consistent. Personally, I am in favor of a form of Kantian retributivism, which entails that the state has an absolute duty to punish all those who are guilty of crimes. So yes, these children should be punished, but so should many others. I am more concerned with the fact that they are children than anything else. I was unclear on this in my previous posts, and I apologize if it seems that I am trying to say that these actions are not deserving of contemn.

I agree in principle. But in reality, this just isn't possible. We simply don't have the resources to punish every crime. And this is where deterrence plays an important part. Consistency is still a goal to strive for. And like I said, these crimes should be taken more seriously so that a greater emphasis will be placed on their consequences, thus reducing their occurrence.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post 
Maybe this is where we differ; I do not think that deterrence should play any role in punishment, nor do I think that it is effective. In fact, I think that punishment for the sake of deterrence is unethical.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
I believe that punishment for its own sake is unethical. "Justice" for many people these days has become nothing more than thinly veiled vengeance, and frankly that disgusts me. But deterrence? I'll have to think about that.

I see punishment as being dealt specifically with deterrence of further criminal action in mind. Could you elaborate on why you think it's unethical?

I'm off to bed, so I'll reply sometime tomorrow.

Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post 
I think it is unethical because I think that the sole reason that someone should be punished is because they deserve it. To punish them for any other reason is not only inappropriate, but unjust. If punishing someone deters others from doing the crime, then that is merely a happy fringe benefit, but ought not to be part of the desiderata of any theory of punishment. Not to mention what I take the be the ineffectiveness of punishment as a deterrent. But its effectiveness is not my problem--my problem is just that it is not the proper reason to punish someone, and punishing someone for the wrong reason is itself wrong. That is because punishment is a harsh action, so if not correctly justified, is an unjustified harsh and harmful action.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I think it is unethical because I think that the sole reason that someone should be punished is because they deserve it.
Dagonee once wrote an excellent post outlining the five reasons we punish people in our current legal system. IIRC, three of them were Restitution, Retribution, and Deterrence. Does anybody recall what the other two were?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post 
I can think of other reasons including at least: protection of society and rehabilitation. My claim is not to say that there are not other reasons to punish. My claim is to say that there should not be any other reason to punish that is a right reason.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
Yup. Those are the two.

quote:
My claim is not to say that there are not other reasons to punish. My claim is to say that there should not be any other reason to punish that is a right reason.
I don't understand what you mean by that. Are you saying that deterrence, protection of society, and rehabilitation are all wrong reasons, and should not be a consideration at all in sentencing?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post 
Yes.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
Wow. I find that a very surprising stance to take.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post 
As I said, I am a Kantian retributivist.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Wow. I find that a very surprising stance to take.

Ditto.

Could you elaborate on why these other reasons are wrong? Also, you say punishment should be dealt solely because it's deserved as if that's an axiom. I don't see this, and in fact I think that's a pretty dangerous idea to run with. Could you elaborate on that as well?

Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Color me baffled as well. I can imagine arguments against punishment for deterrence, but why on Earth would it be unethical to punish as a protection for society?

If someone commits a violent crime, must'nt society be protected by that person? How else shall we do that except to remove that person from society?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
I think you meant "from that person" not "by that person" Rakeesh.

It would be kinda humorous if all our villains were required to undertake protection training and become the guardians of society as part of their rehabilitation.

I wonder if there's a story in there?

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm pretty sure that's a movie starring Stallone and... Westley Snipes?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I'm pretty sure that's a movie starring Stallone and... Westley Snipes?

No that's Demolition Man and the bad guys don't become cops, they just freeze them and use some form of mind conditioning to remove their bad tendencies.

I was thinking more like, Catch Me If You can where *spoilers!* He is finally captured and works off part of his sentence by sharing his knowledge of forgery with the FBI while they work cases. But even cooler than that.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, it did happen in one of Card's short stories, I forget the title.

SPOILER

I'm thinking of the one with the child prodigy musician who, growing up, was 'tainted' by hearing someone else's music and thus was barred from playing his music for anyone, ever, because it was so powerful and evocative it upset people, even in good ways. But he couldn't stop himself from doing it, so he was continually punished. Eventually, blinded, maimed, rendered mute, he was made one of the enforcers of the law, the same kind of person who came along when he had broken the law and punished him.

SPOILER

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
No that's Demolition Man and the bad guys don't become cops, they just freeze them and use some form of mind conditioning to remove their bad tendencies.
So they can fight bad guys, protecting society.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Well, it did happen in one of Card's short stories, I forget the title.

SPOILER

I'm thinking of the one with the child prodigy musician who, growing up, was 'tainted' by hearing someone else's music and thus was barred from playing his music for anyone, ever, because it was so powerful and evocative it upset people, even in good ways. But he couldn't stop himself from doing it, so he was continually punished. Eventually, blinded, maimed, rendered mute, he was made one of the enforcers of the law, the same kind of person who came along when he had broken the law and punished him.

SPOILER

The sounds like Song Master, but not exactly.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
There are the mind wipes* in B5, they're required to serve society afterwards.

* A telepath erases the old mind and creates a new one with no memories of their past with a new personality

More down to Earth:
quote:
Naples has long been known as a destination that is overflowing with cultural experiences and art treasures. However, with pick-pocketing and bag snatching common, the southern Italian city can prove intimidating for uninitiated visitors.

In a bid to make tourists feel safer in the city, authorities announced in May that they were putting them in the hands of residents who know Naples' intricate streets like no other - the criminals.

With the summer season now firmly behind them, the six-month scheme is so far proving a success, with attacks against tourists thought to have been reduced by up to 85 per cent.

Former convicts have been enlisted to help guide visitors around the city, sporting luminous yellow vests to identify themselves as what is officially being called 'Operator for the Urban Tourist Assistance'.

link
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
Rakeesh -- you're thinking of "Unaccompanied Sonata".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
happymann
Member
Member # 9559

 - posted      Profile for happymann   Email happymann         Edit/Delete Post 
This makes me think of "The Chocolate War" even though there are certain key differences.
Posts: 258 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
If someone commits a violent crime, must'nt society be protected by that person? How else shall we do that except to remove that person from society?

First concerning the earlier point (not made by you), I don't understand how it is a dangerous axiom that people should only be punished if they deserve it. Should be punish people who do not deserve to be punished? That seems patently wrong; what is stopping the state from punishing you randomly if that is the case. Indeed, I think it goes against the very concept of punishment.

If the punishment includes removing a dangerous person from society, then that is a nice benefit, but that is not the *reason* to punish. If the reason we punish people is to remove dangerous fellows from society, then by parity of reason, we ought to remove people who are deemed dangerous to society from said society before they do anything. Perhaps someone who, upon turning 18, is clearly going to be a bad and violent person but has not committed any crimes as of yet. Or like in that movie where police officers were able to see the future and arrested people for crimes they did not commit. This type of situation is, in my mind, abhorrent.

Once again, the reason we ought to punish someone is because they deserve it, and the punishment ought to be proportionate to the crime. Any other reasons are not really reasons, but side-effects that are pleasant. If we try to build a system on those other factors as reasons, then there may be many possible situations in which disgusting situations arise.

I am providing a very brief and shallow account of retributivism. I don't expect to convince anyone; merely, I am showing that it is a reasonable position from a certain vantage-point. Even if I were to provide a book-length account, I doubt I would convince anyone. That having been said, may I recommend http://www.amazon.com/Responsibility-Punishment-Library-Applied-Philosophy/dp/1402041470 which I'm sure your local university library can get for you.

Disclaimer: That book is written by my former advisor--it is one of the only things we ever agreed on.

Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by JonHecht:
... Or like in that movie where police officers were able to see the future and arrested people for crimes they did not commit.

Minority Report, I think.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
JonHecht: it might help if you keep in mind that, when most people say "reason to punish", they mean "reason to assign particular punishments" (that is, first you must decide whether or not someone should be punished, and second you must decide what the punishment shall be). This should be clear from the frequent dichotomy where a person will be entirely against locking up someone innocent of a crime, but entirely for locking up someone longer who has committed a crime and seems likely to commit a crime again (say, because they have committed several crimes of the same sort, each after being locked up for a period).

That is, you are not actually arguing against those as "reasons" to punish, in the sense most everyone means 'reason to punish'. I think it is rather not noticing the ambiguity of the language rather than constructing an intentional straw man, though.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:


If the punishment includes removing a dangerous person from society, then that is a nice benefit, but that is not the *reason* to punish. If the reason we punish people is to remove dangerous fellows from society, then by parity of reason, we ought to remove people who are deemed dangerous to society from said society before they do anything. Perhaps someone who, upon turning 18, is clearly going to be a bad and violent person but has not committed any crimes as of yet. Or like in that movie where police officers were able to see the future and arrested people for crimes they did not commit. This type of situation is, in my mind, abhorrent.

Well, no, this doesn't follow at all. The reason we are allowed (or that is, allow ourselves) to remove violent criminals from society thus protecting ourselves isn't just because we've decided they are a danger to society. It is because they have proven themselves to be a danger to society, beyond a reasonable doubt. It's because we've looked at their behavior - specifically the crime - and given the person many opportunities to show us as wrong about them, and they still come out looking like a danger to society.

Removing someone from society because they are dangerous after demonstrating this through a trial by jury beyond a reasonable doubt is not comparable to deciding prior to any crime that they are probably a danger to society at all. It would take a very, very excellent book indeed for me to be convinced that the two options you're discussing are really in the same ballpark at all.

Perhaps the problem, in addition to a faulty comparison, lies in the fact that we're defining 'deserve' quite differently. In my view - and the law's view, broadly speaking - if an individual commits a violent crime and is proven beyond reasonable doubt to have done so by a jury of etc. etc., well, that individual has then forfeited quite a few rights, but not all of them. That person no longer has the inviolate right to, for example, mingle with the rest of society, carry firearms, drink alcohol, or a host of other rights that ordinary, non-criminal citizens enjoy.

There are some rights a human being can lose, and it's not at all disgusting to think so.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks for the pointer, fugu. I agree that may be the problem, but I won't know until others share their responses to it. Then again, the claim that only those who deserve to be punished ought to be punished as an axiom is dangerous appears to go against this.


Rakeesh, just change my situation to the person who has yet to commit any crimes being beyond a reasonable doubt dangerous to society. That, and take into account what fugu said. This could be the source of our disagreement. Oh, and I agree with your definition of deserve, or at least close enough.

Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
Fugu and Rakeesh both make great points.

Jon, I agree that it would be absurd to punish someone who doesn't deserve punishment. Punishment dealt should of course be deserved. But why is it deserved? In other words, what is the purpose of punishment?

Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:


Rakeesh, just change my situation to the person who has yet to commit any crimes being beyond a reasonable doubt dangerous to society. That, and take into account what fugu said. This could be the source of our disagreement. Oh, and I agree with your definition of deserve, or at least close enough.

I don't understand what you're speaking out against. Is it that you're speaking out against the idea that someone who has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt could potentially be punished by the criminal justice system? If so, then I wholeheartedly agree with you-folks who have not been proven beyond a etc. etc. should not be punished. But since that is the mechanism by which we decide who will be punished, I'm not really sure why you're speaking out.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by rollainm:
quote:
That is to say, if one can be charged as a minor due to someone committing suicide as a result of one's behavior, then we ought to examine all suicides and see what influenced that individual's decision. If it turns out that it was caused by, say, negative actions by one's coworkers, then ought those coworkers to be charged with murder or something of the sort? This seems clearly absurd, yet we entertain the thought with minors. In all other cases, minors are generally ascribed less responsibility, not greater. Why is it different here?
Is this a response to the actual charges or to the sentiment that the kids should be charged for the girl's death? If the latter, I think most would agree with you. If the former, note that the charges are for specific actions that are clearly criminal on their own. The girl's suicide simply helped bring them to light.
The only "clearly criminal" behavior was the rape aspect, and they are charged. Stalking isn't a crime until the victim gets a restraining order and the stalker violates that order.

Posting something on the internet isn't like calling their house over and over. Having your phone ring is an intrusion. Words on a blog of networking sight aren't an intrusion. You have to choose to go there to read them.

Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
mal: Words spoken on a blog or on FB are certainly an intrusion. A person visiting her facebook page will see them and read them to ascertain their nature. It's no different than shouting something loud enough for a group of people to hear.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Posting something on the internet isn't like calling their house over and over. Having your phone ring is an intrusion. Words on a blog of networking sight aren't an intrusion. You have to choose to go there to read them.
Sure, and someone could just screen all their calls to make sure it's someone they want to talk to.

Your examples only work by putting the entire onus on the victim to deal with the behavior. And it's not, of course, just 'posting something on the Internet'. These people didn't go to an Eskimo film review website to vent their spite.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:


Rakeesh, just change my situation to the person who has yet to commit any crimes being beyond a reasonable doubt dangerous to society. That, and take into account what fugu said. This could be the source of our disagreement. Oh, and I agree with your definition of deserve, or at least close enough.

I don't understand what you're speaking out against. Is it that you're speaking out against the idea that someone who has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt could potentially be punished by the criminal justice system? If so, then I wholeheartedly agree with you-folks who have not been proven beyond a etc. etc. should not be punished. But since that is the mechanism by which we decide who will be punished, I'm not really sure why you're speaking out.
No, what I am saying is that if the reason we punish people is to protect society from them, then we can create a situation in which someone has not committed any crimes, but it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that they are a danger to society. As such, according to your conditions, this person ought to be cordoned off.

Rollainm. I don't know. Or I don't know with certainty, or even very much certainty. Oftentimes laws relate to a violation of the principle of harm (malum in se). And we are punishing them because they violate the law. Alternatively, they may violate coordinative laws (malum prohibitum).
Some laws are on the edge, such as anti-drug laws, with regards to whether they are malum in se or malum prohibitum. Obviously we do not make illegal all unethical behavior, but usually we make illegal those illegal behaviors that cause harm to others (and sometimes one self).

So, summarizing, someone deserves to be punished if they knowingly and intentionally violate a law. In the case of malum in se laws, the intention did not have to be specifically to violate the law by any means, but rather to do the bad action.

Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post 
Understanding the internet is still the wild-wild-west and unregulated, the clamps are about to come down.

I purchase a lot online. No taxes and the best prices in the nation. Don't worry, blog entries and online purchases will eventually be regulated and taxed.

Since WWW is international, what country will prosecute Facebook offenders? Is Facebook an America only service? If I post harsh language on Facebook about someone from another country, who is going to charge me with a crime?

As far as I can tell, there hasn't been a social networking restraining order granted other than pedophiles as a condition of their release.

Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
mal- also, add into that threatening to beat up someone in the halls at school, screaming epithets at her while she eats lunch, throwing soda cans at her on the street and other harassment up close and personal. When the girl can't walk to class without her friends surrounding her as protection, that is a problem. But, by all means, let's reduce the problem to mean posts on the internet. Ignoring reality always serves well.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post 
Horrible. Who failed? Was the protection provided by the school? Obviously not. The school didn't care, "her friends" surrounded her. Sounds like she had some good friends but went to a lousy school with pathetic parents. It is a terrible thing that a student can't feel safe in a government school. It's horrible that fellow students need to physically protect a student in a government school.

I'm glad my children attend a school where bullying isn't tolerated. There are just as many bullies at her school but their behavior isn't tolerated. Those kind of bullies are in every school. Nature is cruel. Society attempts to overcome anarchy with laws and government. The school failed. This should be about the failure of the school. 99.9% of schools in this country don't require fellow student escorts as defense against bullies. Where were the teachers, administrators and parents?

Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by JonHecht:
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:


Rakeesh, just change my situation to the person who has yet to commit any crimes being beyond a reasonable doubt dangerous to society. That, and take into account what fugu said. This could be the source of our disagreement. Oh, and I agree with your definition of deserve, or at least close enough.

I don't understand what you're speaking out against. Is it that you're speaking out against the idea that someone who has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt could potentially be punished by the criminal justice system? If so, then I wholeheartedly agree with you-folks who have not been proven beyond a etc. etc. should not be punished. But since that is the mechanism by which we decide who will be punished, I'm not really sure why you're speaking out.
No, what I am saying is that if the reason we punish people is to protect society from them, then we can create a situation in which someone has not committed any crimes, but it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that they are a danger to society. As such, according to your conditions, this person ought to be cordoned off.

Rollainm. I don't know. Or I don't know with certainty, or even very much certainty. Oftentimes laws relate to a violation of the principle of harm (malum in se). And we are punishing them because they violate the law. Alternatively, they may violate coordinative laws (malum prohibitum).
Some laws are on the edge, such as anti-drug laws, with regards to whether they are malum in se or malum prohibitum. Obviously we do not make illegal all unethical behavior, but usually we make illegal those illegal behaviors that cause harm to others (and sometimes one self).

So, summarizing, someone deserves to be punished if they knowingly and intentionally violate a law. In the case of malum in se laws, the intention did not have to be specifically to violate the law by any means, but rather to do the bad action.

This still doesn't answer the question of purpose. Why is punishment, specifically, the proper response to violation of the law? Why not, say, give them a puppy instead?
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post 
Oh. That's way way too deep a question for me to even begin to answer here. It relies on metaethical theorizing followed by application in a particular fashion. So, I can't do it here, but there are many many wonderful books on the topic. Alternatively, it just is.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Jon,

quote:
No, what I am saying is that if the reason we punish people is to protect society from them, then we can create a situation in which someone has not committed any crimes, but it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that they are a danger to society. As such, according to your conditions, this person ought to be cordoned off.
How would you go about creating such a situation? I don't think you mean 'beyond a reasonable doubt' the same way I do. When I say it, one of the key components is 'evidenced by the fact that this person has done something to endanger society'. It really feels like you're changing other peoples' conditions in order to demonstrate how they're unsound.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post 
I mean beyond a reasonable doubt in the sense that there are no reasonable reasons to doubt it. I was under the impression that this is what beyond a reasonable doubt meant. And an example would be one such as that which was previously stated; i.e., the case in the film Minority Report. Alternatively, if we become more adept at neuroscience, we might be able to examine people's minds and determine that someone is uncontrollably violent, and there is a 99% chance this person is dangerous (which is considerably more than most legal scholars consider beyond a reasonable doubt to be for legal purposes).

Edit: Unless you have direct evidence of me doing so, I would appreciate for the sake of cordiality that you did not accuse me of being deceptive in my arguments.

Edit2: Your definition of beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond not corresponding to what I think the common-sense definition of the term is, has several other problems for this context.
a) It is redundant in many contexts.
e.g., "You must determine that he did the action beyond a reasonable doubt" would transform into "you must determine that he did the action in a way such that it is 'evidenced by the fact that this person has done something to endanger society'" Well, you must determine that he did in in a way that he did it. That is a tad redundant.


b) Your reasonable doubt is simply coming close to how I define someone having deservedness (though not incorporating the epistemic conditions). As such, I *really* think that your definition of beyond a reasonable doubt is altogether an amphigory.

Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Exactly who is charging them with murder, and to what extent is that charge linked to their comments on Facebook?

Hack.

ETA: I'll be interested to see how you weasel your way out of this, malanthrop. Will you ignore this post completely? Suggest you were misinterpreted? Claim that that's what some people want to charge them with?

You are correct. They were charged with "violations of civil rights, criminal harassment, and stalking". Felony charges.

The teens will be felons if they lose. It isn't murder, but a felony nonetheless.

'


Did they COMMITT felonies? If so....charge them. Not with murder...they didn't, under any definition of the word, murder her.

They DID physically assault and batter her, sexually assault her, slander her and cyber stalk her.

And they should be charged with it. None of this is age dependent. They were all old enough to understand it was wrong, but they did it anyways, probably thinking they were untouchable.


They were wrong, and society will be better off with them being punished because of it.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2