tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post7549126990884205666..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Preventing Future CrimesAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-36154367709824440752009-06-02T23:35:53.527-06:002009-06-02T23:35:53.527-06:00Alonzo:
Those sound like reasons either to reform...Alonzo:<br /><br />Those sound like reasons either to reform the law, or to reform the process by which the evidence is gathered, not reasons to hold people captive despite absence of a legal conviction of a crime.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-28983339767305383402009-06-01T05:28:30.665-06:002009-06-01T05:28:30.665-06:00Tim:
As I understand it, the evidence is tainted....Tim:<br /><br />As I understand it, the evidence is tainted. It is the type of evidence that typically gets thrown out in a civilian court - even though it does legitimately imply that the accused is guilty.<br /><br />Every day, we release people back into the public that the justice system knows and can prove to be guilty of crimes because its evidence is not admissable in court.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-42509769375798766922009-06-01T04:49:56.697-06:002009-06-01T04:49:56.697-06:00anticant
You wrote that confinement without punis...anticant<br /><br />You wrote that confinement without punishment is an oxymoron.<br /><br />I answered that question by providing several types of cases in which it exists.<br /><br />What you should have said in response is, "Okay, Alonzo, I was wrong. Confinement without punishment is not an oxymoron. Furthermore, it is even legitimate in cases where a person voluntarily enters into certain situations and where the subject is declared incompetent. That does not prove it is legitimate in the types of situations you described."<br /><br />This response would be accurate, and would not be an instance of moving the goal posts.<br /><br />I will agree that I have not fully answered the question of its legitimacy. However, I will premise its defense with the question:<br /><br />If there are two legitimate types of cases in which confinement without punishment is legitimate, why not a third?<br /><br />Particularly in the light of the fact that I have already demonstrated that we PUNISH people to prevent future crimes on a massive scale.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-59816132819622012012009-06-01T01:21:55.831-06:002009-06-01T01:21:55.831-06:00Your examples don't convince me, Alonzo. Submarine...Your examples don't convince me, Alonzo. Submarine crews and airline passengers have submitted voluntarily to their situation. The inmates of psychiatric hospitals and children are not perceived in law as being fully responsible agents.<br /><br />Good try - must do better.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-34087024434269385792009-05-31T12:53:33.418-06:002009-05-31T12:53:33.418-06:00Surely, a way to reconcile this is to define demon...Surely, a way to reconcile this is to define demonstrable intent to commit a crime as a crime itself.<br /><br />And, indeed <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offense" REL="nofollow">the law does so</A>.<br /><br />Given this, why can't these captives be convicted of conspiracy in a fair, lawful trial? Is it because there is insufficient evidence for conviction? If so, how does it justify their imprisonment?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-53356872136615505492009-05-31T06:06:41.869-06:002009-05-31T06:06:41.869-06:00anticant:
No, confinement without punishment is n...anticant:<br /><br />No, confinement without punishment is not an oxymoron.<br /><br />The crew of a submarine, or the passengers in an airplane, for example, are confined, but are not being punished. Particularly passenger in a plane where the "fasten seatbelt sign" is on - meaning that one is not permitted even to leave one's seat.<br /><br />Certain people in mental hospitals or children who are told that they cannot go outside and visit their friends are being confined, but not being punished.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-88410442137513213912009-05-30T13:48:49.381-06:002009-05-30T13:48:49.381-06:00"Confinement without punishment" is an oxymoron."Confinement without punishment" is an oxymoron.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-46731230878105663332009-05-30T01:54:07.392-06:002009-05-30T01:54:07.392-06:00It's amazing what surprising ideas you end up with...It's amazing what surprising ideas you end up with when you strive to make your thinking <I>consistent</I>.Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12968634190280933116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-54783270684859965132009-05-29T16:19:05.313-06:002009-05-29T16:19:05.313-06:00If it were possible to prove that people were goin...If it were possible to prove that people were going to commit crimes, the state would be obliged to arrest them, try them, and lock them up to keep them from doing what they would otherwise do. The problem is no such evidence can exist, unless we're talking about a clear attempt. <br /><br />I think we must draw a utilitarian distinction between those who are captured in the context of a military conflict in another country and those who are detained here in the aftermath of a crime. In Afghanistan, Iraq, or Pakistan, the presumption is against a captive because levels of violence are high, personal security is low, and the social contract is weak to nonexistent. The legitimate reason to hold these people is not that they are or "will be" criminals, but that they are <I>prisoners of war</I>, people on the other side of an armed conflict. In the United States, the presumption is in favor of the captive because the security situation is not so dire and we all subscribe to the same underlying social arrangements, which call for general peace and the rule of law.<br /><br />Am I missing something?AndrewSimpsonnoreply@blogger.com