1) The simplest way to quantify religious violence is probably to look at wars and look at how often the governments or sides involved invoked God, and if they invoked God as a motivation for the war in question
( ... )
I thought for a moment whether I should use that word. And it's not like I look at Rick Perry and see Charles Manson. Actually, Charles Manson might have more fans than Rick Perry. Anyway, my use of the word is rhetoric-y. "Killer-in-error" might be less emotionally loaded, but it irks me that there's killing at all. I'd still be against the death penalty even if they did only use it to kill the people who really committed the transgressions which the state deems capital. Look at Japan for evidence that the death penalty even acts as a perverse incentive.
I wondered about those crescents, too. Maybe they're supposed to be where the "Istanbul Period" line ends, representing (NATO ally) Turkey. It could be that this was originally a quasi-legitimate measure of something like campaigns by conquerors and was subsequently altered for this purpose.
The Ottomans weren't Muslim at any point by any chance, right? ;-p
Rick Perry deserves plenty of shame for being a terrible arbiter of justice. But that's a very different crime from murder (though I would be open to arguments that it's actually a worse one
( ... )
Well, maybe one can generalize about groups and their behaviour, but one's ability to make predictions about any individuals is suspect. Maybe it's like the weather forecast in that we sometimes have general ideas of what's going to happen, but we might not know if it will rain or snow on your particular driveway.
I could live with an exile system in place of the death penalty, but requiring similar standards to the ones you posit. I am firmly against the death penalty not only because it can't be corrected if it turns out the judgement was in error, but because two wrongs don't make a right. It's hard to resort to such a hackneyed phrase, but what I mean is that killing the (alleged) murderer won't bring back the victim(s). It's only necessary that he not be able to or be inclined to kill again, and that there is some sort of deterrent to killing in the first place.
The ability to make predictions about individuals from groups is basically what lets society function. Such predictions should not be relied on as though they were inarguable truth, but asking the FBI to distribute their limited resources according to some notion of equity as opposed to some notion of probability seems like a questionable decision.
Exile systems are morally questionable on the basis that if the person is such a big problem, why is it OK to offload him onto others? Telling a thief to go next door because your neighbors aren't home is a scummy thing to do.
The problem with your second statement is that you assume the sole goals of the justice system are rehabilitation and crime prevention. Those aren't even the sole goals of the current one:
718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives
( ... )
I get what you're saying about the problems of offloading, but getting a fresh start in a new place might be just the thing for some people. It'd just be a more serious version of your local narcissist that can't keep the same set of friends for more than twenty minutes. j/k Exile would be just the thing were we not very much interested in other places and cultures. Now we need to treat the world as being one place with one people (for some purposes anyway) and exile won't work anymore
( ... )
You're kind of missing the point re: denunciation (and it used to be punish - evidently we got wussy in 1995). It's about denouncing the offense in question, not criminality generally.
In regard to the examples you offer: congratulations for supporting the illegal drug trade, downloading is legal in Canada, running red lights is dangerous and your behavior was dumb, and interfering in other people's parental rights is the sort of thing that can get you into a nasty civil suit. The fact that people may do these things does not mean they shouldn't be illegal.
Me, I'd say if you get to the point where you can prove he did it to a standard even higher than that at criminal trials, to the Supreme Court, and let him use up his appeals? You've officially gone out of your way.
1. Why thank you. I'd grow my own but I can't be assed and don't have a safe place for it anyway.
2. Not for much longer, I imagine.
3. Yes to both. That was probably a poor example.
4. Parental rights? Give me a break. Just because parents by code of law have authority over their 17-18 year olds when they're out of the house doesn't make it right.
Gone out of the way, sure. But if capital punishment returns to a mainstream debate in this country, I'm on the "no" side. No government should have a codified right to end a person's life.
Can't the legislative branch reorganize the judiciary or legislate the judiciary out of existence? And who appoints Supreme Court justices? And who pays the bills for the CA's office? They're a separate branch, yes, but still part of the government. People who think we live in an ideally-functioning democracy might even say we all are the government.
4. I do think the age of majority should be lower, perhaps as low as 16. It'd be a hard pull just to get it to 18 in provinces where it's 19, though. Hard to rally around a banner of "Let's let younger people have access to liquor!" I'd be tempted to put a provision in the law allowing clubs to only allow access to those 18+, but since the age of consent is 16, that's probably not necessary.
They can't legislate the judiciary out of existence. And you must remember that there is always a large difference between what can theoretically be done and what is likely to be done.
The feds appoint all judges above the provincial trial division.
There are decent arguments for raising the age of majority above eighteen (people are fairly stupid, after all) - it's only as low as it is because that's as low as it's practical to make it and there's a lot of history behind eighteen.
I could make arguments for raising the ages for driving and voting, but even though I was an idiot when I was 18, does that mean every 18-year-old is? And if you're old enough to go to university (and pay for it)...
I read an interesting article on this subject on the NY Times website. Are you on Google Plus? otherwise, remind me to link you to the article.
Basically, it argues for something like a graduated approach, because the actual age matters less than the proper build-up of responsibility and experience. It's not constructive to just confer rights upon a certain age, regardless of that age, because adolescents don't just spontaneously develop the hardware to handle stuff as an adult at some arbitrary age, making some people precocious or delayed.
I'm going to stop now and make you read the article yourself. ;-)
Reply
I wondered about those crescents, too. Maybe they're supposed to be where the "Istanbul Period" line ends, representing (NATO ally) Turkey. It could be that this was originally a quasi-legitimate measure of something like campaigns by conquerors and was subsequently altered for this purpose.
The Ottomans weren't Muslim at any point by any chance, right? ;-p
Reply
Reply
I could live with an exile system in place of the death penalty, but requiring similar standards to the ones you posit. I am firmly against the death penalty not only because it can't be corrected if it turns out the judgement was in error, but because two wrongs don't make a right. It's hard to resort to such a hackneyed phrase, but what I mean is that killing the (alleged) murderer won't bring back the victim(s). It's only necessary that he not be able to or be inclined to kill again, and that there is some sort of deterrent to killing in the first place.
Reply
Exile systems are morally questionable on the basis that if the person is such a big problem, why is it OK to offload him onto others? Telling a thief to go next door because your neighbors aren't home is a scummy thing to do.
The problem with your second statement is that you assume the sole goals of the justice system are rehabilitation and crime prevention. Those aren't even the sole goals of the current one:
718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives ( ... )
Reply
Reply
In regard to the examples you offer: congratulations for supporting the illegal drug trade, downloading is legal in Canada, running red lights is dangerous and your behavior was dumb, and interfering in other people's parental rights is the sort of thing that can get you into a nasty civil suit. The fact that people may do these things does not mean they shouldn't be illegal.
Me, I'd say if you get to the point where you can prove he did it to a standard even higher than that at criminal trials, to the Supreme Court, and let him use up his appeals? You've officially gone out of your way.
Reply
2. Not for much longer, I imagine.
3. Yes to both. That was probably a poor example.
4. Parental rights? Give me a break. Just because parents by code of law have authority over their 17-18 year olds when they're out of the house doesn't make it right.
Gone out of the way, sure. But if capital punishment returns to a mainstream debate in this country, I'm on the "no" side. No government should have a codified right to end a person's life.
Reply
Reply
4. I do think the age of majority should be lower, perhaps as low as 16. It'd be a hard pull just to get it to 18 in provinces where it's 19, though. Hard to rally around a banner of "Let's let younger people have access to liquor!" I'd be tempted to put a provision in the law allowing clubs to only allow access to those 18+, but since the age of consent is 16, that's probably not necessary.
Reply
The feds appoint all judges above the provincial trial division.
There are decent arguments for raising the age of majority above eighteen (people are fairly stupid, after all) - it's only as low as it is because that's as low as it's practical to make it and there's a lot of history behind eighteen.
Reply
Reply
otherwise, remind me to link you to the article.
Basically, it argues for something like a graduated approach, because the actual age matters less than the proper build-up of responsibility and experience. It's not constructive to just confer rights upon a certain age, regardless of that age, because adolescents don't just spontaneously develop the hardware to handle stuff as an adult at some arbitrary age, making some people precocious or delayed.
I'm going to stop now and make you read the article yourself. ;-)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment