gerhard1
Abominable Snowman
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 875
Yes; I believe that was my point. It rarely happens but it does happen.So the original suspect was wrongly convicted?
Yes; I believe that was my point. It rarely happens but it does happen.So the original suspect was wrongly convicted?
I believe you are correct, there.I can believe this in the case of a partial print, or perhaps a distorted print in a plastic medium, e.g. putty or butter, but I find it hard to believe that two full, clear fingerprints have ever been demonstrated to be identical in two different people.
I am open to being contradicted, though.
maximus otter
Yes; IF the government is corrupt and tyrannical. But where the rule of law prevails, such as the US, the UK and other Commonwealth countries, the government is also bound by the law--the same law that it enforces.That's a decent point. However, if the law is simply "the rules" laid down by a government with no moral or ethical component, then surely it's just a tyranny? "Do what we tell you".
By extension then aren't you arguing that 'stealing' isn't ethically wrong and that we just imprison the thief for it to discourage them from stealing other stuff. If law is not a question of ethics, what's wrong with stealing?
As I understand it: there either is moral equivalence in a system of law, in which case the citizens are protected simply in the name of protection of it's citizens from behaviour defined by the system of law as criminal; i.e. the populace and the system of law have an ethical equivalence; or there isn't moral equivalence, in which case the system of law and order answers to a higher ethical standard that the populace.The point that I was trying to make earlier was that the moral equivalency you alluded to is just not there when the law acts to protect the community from a criminal. If it were, the government could not function.
I can believe this in the case of a partial print, or perhaps a distorted print in a plastic medium, e.g. putty or butter, but I find it hard to believe that two full, clear fingerprints have ever been demonstrated to be identical in two different people.
I am open to being contradicted, though.
maximus otter
...no two clear fingerprints have been interpreted as identical.
What matters is human interpretation and presentation of that evidence. That's what judges/juries use to come to their decisions.
A skilled prosecutor's job is to get a jury to understand the odds.
Good luck with that. Everyone I've encountered, apart from those expert in the field of statistics, seem to have great difficulty interpreting the true nature of "odds".
Your basic point seems to elude me. You appear to argue that in the the case of the death penalty, society is complicit in murder; that is that the death penalty is the moral equivalent of murder thus we should not lower ourselves to the level of the murderer. Is this a fair statement of your position?As I understand it: there either is moral equivalence in a system of law, in which case the citizens are protected simply in the name of protection of it's citizens from behaviour defined by the system of law as criminal; i.e. the populace and the system of law have an ethical equivalence; or there isn't moral equivalence, in which case the system of law and order answers to a higher ethical standard that the populace.
Surely it's in the latter that I'm suggesting capital punishment is unacceptable? In the same way due process in the latter (for example making a defendant aware of his rights on arrest) is a 'higher ethical standard' as it is designed to ensure the executors of the process are acting ethically and not (say) corruptly.
Your basic point seems to elude me. You appear to argue that in the the case of the death penalty, society is complicit in murder; that is that the death penalty is the moral equivalent of murder thus we should not lower ourselves to the level of the murderer. Is this a fair statement of your position?
As I understand it: there either is moral equivalence in a system of law, in which case the citizens are protected simply in the name of protection of it's citizens from behaviour defined by the system of law as criminal; i.e. the populace and the system of law have an ethical equivalence; or there isn't moral equivalence, in which case the system of law and order answers to a higher ethical standard that the populace.
Surely it's in the latter case that I'm suggesting capital punishment is unacceptable? In the same way due process in the latter (for example making a defendant aware of his rights on arrest) is a 'higher ethical standard' as it is designed to ensure the executors of the process are acting ethically and not (say) corruptly.
If I am understanding your question, there is no moral equivalency between the law breakers (under most circumstances*) and those who enforce the law. If we accept the premise of government, we also accept that in certain cases the agents of the government have the authority to compel others to do things that they would otherwise not do, such as submit to lawful arrest. Other examples of this might be seen in the field of eminent domain, or taxation.I conceded your point was valid in this respect, as I admit I hadn't considered my stance in this way. I'm exploring your point about moral equivalency and exactly what it means in the context you used it.
So have I got this right? That 'moral equivalence' as you used it assumes the same ethical standards on both sides of the law, that is 'law breakers' and 'the process of law' are ethically equivalent?
I do hope I have addressed the issue that you raised.
The point that I was trying to make earlier was that the moral equivalency you alluded to is just not there when the law acts to protect the community from a criminal. If it were, the government could not function.
What I meant was the belief that the actions of the law-breaker are no less moral than the actions of the law-enforcer. Or conversely, that the actions of the law-enforcer have no more morality than those of the law breaker.My apologies, I'm trying to understand what you meant by 'moral equivalency' in your original post:
What exactly do you mean by 'moral equivalency' in the context of this statement?
What I meant was the belief that the actions of the law-breaker are no less moral than the actions of the law-enforcer. Or conversely, that the actions of the law-enforcer have no more morality than those of the law breaker.
An illustration, if I might: an armed robber is about is about to kill his victim and a policeman happens upon the scene before the murder can take place. He shoots the robber and saves the life of the victim. There are those that would say that the officer's killing the robber was as immoral as what the robber was about to do, and there was no moral basis for the robber being killed. After all, he was a human being with a family, he was good to his dog, and circumstances forced him into crime, etc. If they believe, as a few do I imagine, that the state or it's agents should never kill, then what this policeman did was wrong. That is one example of moral equivalency.
Or that the state cannot ethically do anything to force anyone to do anything. As in imprisoning a criminal. But, in fairness, you seem to have conceded this point.
I think our basic difference concerning state actions seems to be one of degree: in other words, where is the line drawn? For myself, I think that the death penalty is warranted in limited, rare instances, whereas you do not.
Here is a good example of what I'd call misplaced moral equivalency. It comes from the old (and now defunct) IMDb board for the 2013 Tom Hanks film Captain Phillips, concerning an act of piracy off the coast of Somalia in 2009. The OP asked the question about how many kidnappers can be killed to save the life of a hostage.Aha, I see (thank you). So in effect the case would be that the same ethical code (such as it might be) is applied equally to both parties, that is ‘the state and its agents’ and the ‘law breaker’, irrespective of circumstance.
Quite, but I now need to consider how I arrived at this position as it appears as if I've committed the error of having an opinion, then finding an argument to support it, which if followed through, proves to be faulty reasoning.
I just woke up and my mind is struggling a bit. What I meant to ask was this: will the UK still be bound by the decisions of the European Court after Brexit?
After Brexit would the Home Office legally be able to keep someone such as Sutcliffe behind bars forever?
At this stage it's unknown.
There are possibilities:
We may enter into an agreement to be bound by the court's future judgments (May is yes-no-yes-no and currently yes on this, but if we don't reach an actual working agreement before departure it's a 'No'). I think those who voted out will be livid if we remain under the court.
We may set up a system whereby judgments are ordinarily enforced and incorporated into law but this is subject to veto.
We may opt out of jurisdiction entirely and have our fairly newly established Supreme Court replace it.
Even if we remove ourselves from formal jurisdiction, British courts already take into account the judgments of foreign courts in their deliberations (I forget the legal term for this). I presume the European Court will simply become another foreign court in this respect.
Quite.he was a bit of a shit though
I'd certainly agree there.he was a bit of a shit though
Van Gogh never died.Why has he only got one ear?
Why has he only got one ear?
''Closer to home, one summer day in 1987, I was collecting the material for the first Manson File. I’d had trouble making a copy of the coroner’s drawing of Gary Hinman’s wounds, which clearly showed how his ear had been sliced by Manson’s sword a few hours before Hinman was killed by Bobby Beausoleil. The copy kept coming out wrong so that I had to look at this picture again and again. That night, I was attacked by unknown assailants who cut my right ear off. If that wasn’t magical warning enough, as soon as I got to the hospital, a social worker told me that I was eligible for financial compensation from a fund Doris Tate, Sharon Tate’s mother, had set up for victims of violent crime in Los Angeles. A magician ignores such obvious synchronicities at his peril.''
ITEM: Schreck’s right ear was cut off by a gay bodybuilder who’d spied him putting up homophobic flyers on Santa Monica Blvd. Embarrassed over the fact that this “sissy” was obviously far more manly than himself, Shreck has since told the story that he was attacked by “a gang of blacks”. Look closely; he now wears a plastic ear.
I was wondering about the name Schreck. There was a Max Schreck, a German actor best known for his portrayal of Count Orlok in the 1922 film Nosferatu by FW Murnau.