This is my John Galt speaking cartoon

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think you can hold individuals responsible for the crimes they commit, ...

As long as their "crimes" were such in their time and by their code. Not in our time and by our codes. I'm tired of all this crap of blaming people for not behaving as we would behave. We're not all that great, just arrogant.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Hi,

I think you can hold individuals responsible for the crimes they commit, ...

As long as their "crimes" were such in their time and by their code. Not in our time and by our codes. I'm tired of all this crap of blaming people for not behaving as we would behave. We're not all that great, just arrogant.

--Pete

I take the empirical natural law view that "crimes" are the ones that intentionally or through negligence, cause harm, or loss to another person or their property. But, of course, the law of land prevails.

For example, if the headhunter eats our friend the tourist, I'll still hold them accountable for causing the death. If he doesn't want us to exact justice, then he shouldn't go around eating our friends. Without clear mostly "universal" definitions of crime, you get into that whole morass of moral relativism. I just happened to be thinking about this yesterday, in recognizing the difference between a "crime malum in se" as inherently criminal; whereas a "crime malum prohibitum" being criminal only because the law has decreed it so. I was explaining to my son how our driving laws have become so numerous and complex, such that most people are guilty of numerous infractions throughout their driving journey. A police officer, if motivated to do so by suspicion, can choose to follow a person until the person inevitably commits an infraction. It is probably the principle way that bias enters the judicial system. Certain classes of people are targeted as suspicious more often, and so, their incarceration and conviction rates are higher.

But, there are sticky points to my simple definition as well; Is it a crime to harm oneself, or ones own property? So, we get into gray areas like animal cruelty, or environmental damage. What about cutting down a 300 year old tree on my own property? Or, performing euthanasia my own sick animal?

[--Pete]

Hi,

I take the empirical natural law view that "crimes" are the ones that intentionally or through negligence, cause harm, or loss to another person or their property. But, of course, the law of land prevails.

If I break your physical body to save your immortal soul, is that a crime? Who gets to decide and on what basis?

--Pete

[kandrathe]

If I break your physical body to save your immortal soul, is that a crime? Who gets to decide and on what basis?

Well, yes. You would have no proof you could or did accomplish the task of saving my immortal soul. One might similarly profess that criminals are possessed by demons, and that only through sufficient torture would they be exorcised. Proof of the existence of the demon or that the exorcism worked would be impossible. It reminds me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, with the witch. If she sinks (and drowns) she is innocent, but if she floats then she will be burned as a witch.

Another problem during dark ages (and also still in some more backwards nations) was that the accused were assumed guilty, and needed to present proof of innocence.

This is why the argument for the death penalty as justice also fails. It is murder by the State as justice for a similar crime. If the death penalty has merit, it is either in its harshness as a preventive warning, or as the extreme ultimate means to protect society against convicted monsters.

[--Pete]

Hi,

If I break your physical body to save your immortal soul, is that a crime? Who gets to decide and on what basis?

Well, yes. You would have no proof you could or did accomplish the task of saving my immortal soul.

Yes, I do. I have the whole dogma of Catholicism and the infallibility of the pope. I know that god and demons and spirits exist. I know that we're here to win salvation or suffer eternal punishment. I am an extremely well educated fifteenth century man. How dare you judge me by the unholy morals of your time, a time when man has slipped from the grace of god.

There is now and never has been a moral or a legal code that is based on objective reason. Such a thing may not even be possible. Again -- do not judge the behavior of the people of the 15th century in the light of the knowledge, sensibilities, and prejudices of the 21st.

One might similarly profess that criminals are possessed by demons, and that only through sufficient torture would they be exorcised.

Isn't that what we do, anyway? The daemons of today are abusive parents, or a chemical imbalance, or a tumor in the brain, or cognitive dissonance, or ... We come up with a brazilian reasons why people "go wrong" (it's not PC to say "are scumbags" -- scumbags might be offended). Then we torture them (by giving them an all expenses paid at a state run hellhole) and exorcise them through the incantations of a shrink. Yeah, we really are way ahead of the people who dunked a woman to see if she was a witch.

Another problem during dark ages (and also still in some more backwards nations) was that the accused were assumed guilty, and needed to present proof of innocence.

If you check that out in detail, you'll find that the legal presumption of guilt or innocence makes little difference in the actual proceedings. Of much more importance is the prejudice of the court. "We'll give him a fair trial and then we'll hang him" was not, AFAIK, translated from the Arabic. Or French.

This is why the argument for the death penalty as justice also fails. It is murder by the State as justice for a similar crime. If the death penalty has merit, it is either in its harshness as a preventive warning, or as the extreme ultimate means to protect society against convicted monsters.

Déjà vu all over again I believe this is covered in book 4 of The Collected LL Rants and Ramblings -- the first (Mayan) edition to be published New Years Eve, 2012. Available in translation if there is a 2013.

I am for executing human shaped predators. We've done it for other species that had less fault.

I am against killing people under the present system of legality and chance. No system is perfect, but the USA's legal system is highly imperfect -- except as an example of the free market. You can buy "justice" if you've got the money.

Either we have capital punishment or we don't. Texas and the states that don't have it are closest to being consistent. The states that have it but don't use it or seldom use it are a large part of why it is inefficient as a deterrent.

If we are to have capital punishment as a deterrent, then it has to be public. Not much deterrence is needed by the people who read newspapers and watch the news. Those that don't will not be deterred by what they do not know.

And, if it is to be a deterrent, then it has to be nearly inevitable. You do such and such and you die -- no ifs, buts, or ands.

I've run the numbers before, but in any state that has a death penalty and seldom uses it, you are safer killing somebody than you are jaywalking. The occasional Greyhound Bus isn't much of a deterrent, either.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

There is now and never has been a moral or a legal code that is based on objective reason. Such a thing may not even be possible. Again -- do not judge the behavior of the people of the 15th century in the light of the knowledge, sensibilities, and prejudices of the 21st.

This is the crux of the injustice I see in our modern laws. Too many people trying to force other people to do things that they believe are "correct". Our society interposes governance and rules into almost every part of our lives.

Here is an example of a law governing business hours of operation from nearby me in Minnetonka, (note the special provisions for Massage Therapists);

810.085. Hours of Operation.

1. Except with respect to massage therapist businesses, no customers or patrons may be allowed to enter the licensed premises after 6:00 p.m. and before 8:00 a.m. daily. No customers or patrons may be allowed to remain on the licensed premises after 7:00 p.m. and before 8:00 a.m. daily.

2. At massage therapist businesses, no customers or patrons may be allowed to enter the licensed premises after 11:00 p.m. and before 6:00 a.m. daily. No customers or patrons may be allowed to remain upon the licensed premises after 12:00 a.m. and before 6:00 a.m. daily.

810.090. Penalty.
A person who commits or attempts to commit, conspires to commit or aids or abets in the commission of an act constituting a violation of this ordinance, whether individually or in connection with one or more other persons or as principal, agent, or accessory is guilty of a misdemeanor. A person who falsely, fraudulently, forcibly or willfully induces, causes, coerces, permits or directs another to violate a provision of this ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor."

If I suggest that you to get a massage (not even the special kind) after 11pm, then I'm guilty of a misdemeanor. This is why I think we've reached the point of anarchy.

[--Pete]

Hi,

This is the crux of the injustice I see in our modern laws. Too many people trying to force other people to do things that they believe are "correct". Our society interposes governance and rules into almost every part of our lives.

Here is an example of a law governing business hours of operation from nearby me in Minnetonka, (note the special provisions for Massage Therapists);

[snip]

If I suggest that you to get a massage (not even the special kind) after 11pm, then I'm guilty of a misdemeanor. This is why I think we've reached the point of anarchy.

Is that an April 1st law? Please, please tell me it is.

That's not anarchy. Anarchy makes sense, there are no rules. We need a new word; I suggest idarchy -- rule by idiots. Morarchy (rule by morons) is, unfortunately too similar to a term already used for a similar situation.

--Pete

[LavCat]

This is why the argument for the death penalty as justice also fails. It is murder by the State as justice for a similar crime. If the death penalty has merit, it is either in its harshness as a preventive warning, or as the extreme ultimate means to protect society against convicted monsters.

Déjà vu all over again I believe this is covered in book 4 of The Collected LL Rants and Ramblings -- the first (Mayan) edition to be published New Years Eve, 2012. Available in translation if there is a 2013.

I am for executing human shaped predators. We've done it for other species that had less fault.

I am against killing people under the present system of legality and chance. No system is perfect, but the USA's legal system is highly imperfect -- except as an example of the free market. You can buy "justice" if you've got the money.

Either we have capital punishment or we don't. Texas and the states that don't have it are closest to being consistent. The states that have it but don't use it or seldom use it are a large part of why it is inefficient as a deterrent.

If we are to have capital punishment as a deterrent, then it has to be public. Not much deterrence is needed by the people who read newspapers and watch the news. Those that don't will not be deterred by what they do not know.

And leave the remains on public display for many years.

[kandrathe]

Is that an April 1st law? Please, please tell me it is.

That's not anarchy. Anarchy makes sense, there are no rules. We need a new word; I suggest idarchy -- rule by idiots. Morarchy (rule by morons) is, unfortunately too similar to a term already used for a similar situation.

Unfortunately, I live in a nanny state so we have a perpetual majority of meddlesome idiots and morons. Idiocracy? It seemed that it was going that direction when Gov. Ventura came to office, embarrassingly as a libertarian. But, Minnesota has suffered more than most in being abused by Democrats and Republicans, and so the uncommitted middle is more willing to explore third parties. Maybe it's just "legalism", but that doesn't sound evil enough. Maybe we could call it "Legalistic Totalitarianism".

Philip K. Howard has written three good books on the topic of legal reform; Death of Common Sense, The Collapse of the Common Good:How America's Lawsuit Culture Undermines Our Freedom and Life Without Lawyers: Liberating Americans from Too Much Law.

[--Pete]

Hi,

If we are to have capital punishment as a deterrent, then it has to be public.

And leave the remains on public display for many years.

I don't know if that statement is serious or tongue in cheek. Either way, I think not. The unusual makes impressions, the common is ignored.

Idiocracy?

That's good; I'll inform the OED.

Maybe we could call it "Legalistic Totalitarianism".

I like that. We've gone from the capricious and often unfair rule of a monarch to the inflexible and often unfair rule of a legal code. Once again, the sweet spot is away from the extremes.

Philip K. Howard has written three good books on the topic of legal reform; Death of Common Sense, The Collapse of the Common Good:How America's Lawsuit Culture Undermines Our Freedom and Life Without Lawyers: Liberating Americans from Too Much Law.

Thanks, added to my to read list.

--Pete

[LavCat]

Hi,

If we are to have capital punishment as a deterrent, then it has to be public.

And leave the remains on public display for many years.

I don't know if that statement is serious or tongue in cheek. Either way, I think not. The unusual makes impressions, the common is ignored.

Only for the most heinous crimes, of course.