Lisa Montgomery

[Cunt]

I am tempted to say that imprisonment is a kind of wrong, that would be my first reaction to get away from this anyway....

I think so too. It IS a 'kind of wrong', but also a result of our society being poor.

If rich, we would have an abundance of trained personell, who's job it would be to follow the suspect around, preventing them taking any illegal action.

Since we can't afford it, we put them in a box and start stacking up responsibilities...

I think jails suck ass, but without them, I think a lot more crimes end up being 'capital crimes'.

[JimC]

But that's not all he said, is it? He provided examples. Being dragged out of your home by strangers and thrown into a cell is not meaningfully different physically from being kidnapped. But it is not considered morally equivalent. Yet, for executions, you've provided nothing but a physical equivalence and assumed the moral one.

Try this: Executing political dissidents is not murder when they are lawfully executed.

No, try this: Executing car thieves is not murder when they are lawfully executed.

Same thing.

Not really the same thing. Executing political dissidents is a real thing, done by authoritarian governments (and perhaps technically legal). Clearly it is ethically wrong, but for authoritarian governments, it serves a very real, if dark purpose.

Executing car thieves is just a fantasy made up to investigate an ethical issue. No current governments do that, it has no useful purpose (although some nasty Islamic ones might cut off a hand)

[Sean Hayden]

and perhaps technically legal

The excerpt doesn't even make that argument though. It doesn't say that because it's legal, where what is legal can mean anything, it's not murder. The author has in mind a particular conception of justice which would exclude executing political dissidents as readily as it would car thieves!

What he does do is point out that the physical similarities between a punishment and a crime are not sufficient to make them morally equivalent.

[Hermit]

I'm satisfied with my response:

But that's not all he said, is it? He provided examples. Being dragged out of your home by strangers and thrown into a cell is not meaningfully different physically from being kidnapped. But it is not considered morally equivalent. Yet, for executions, you've provided nothing but a physical equivalence and assumed the moral one.

I am tempted to say that imprisonment is a kind of wrong, that would be my first reaction to get away from this anyway....

...and I don't think your "try this" really means much.

Not much? The statements "Executing political dissidents is not murder when they are lawfully executed." and "Executing car thieves is not murder when they are lawfully executed" test van den Haag's more general assertion that lawful killings are not murder.

Do try them out, please, and post your conclusion no later than February the 30th 2021.

[Sean Hayden]

Jeesh. No thanks Hermit. If you don't want to engage with what I've written, fine.

[Sean Hayden]

I am tempted to say that imprisonment is a kind of wrong, that would be my first reaction to get away from this anyway....

I think so too. It IS a 'kind of wrong', but also a result of our society being poor.

If rich, we would have an abundance of trained personell, who's job it would be to follow the suspect around, preventing them taking any illegal action.

Since we can't afford it, we put them in a box and start stacking up responsibilities...

I think jails suck ass, but without them, I think a lot more crimes end up being 'capital crimes'.

That's a fairly wild idea.

I think we should work to incorporate some kind of AI to communicate with those who have to be isolated in jail.

[JimC]

The AI's will learn how to be criminals, and the world will end...

[Sean Hayden]

Hey, has that one been written yet Jim? That sounds like a good story.

[Hermit]

The excerpt doesn't even make that argument though. It doesn't say that because it's legal, where what is legal can mean anything, it's not murder. The author has in mind a particular conception of justice which would exclude executing political dissidents as readily as it would car thieves!

What he does do is point out that the physical similarities between a punishment and a crime are not sufficient to make them morally equivalent.

Van den haag does not as much as imply that he has in mind a particular conception of justice which would exclude executing political dissidents as readily as it would car thieves. His statement "The difference between crimes and lawful acts is not physical, but legal" is as categorical as one can get.

Funnily enough had he made a distinction between laws that can be used to justify capital punishment and laws that cannot, he would have undermined his own assertion that the only difference between murder and capital punishment is provided by the law. He makes that point right here: "The difference between crimes and lawful acts is not physical, but legal." Then he repeats it by way of example. Twice. 1) "Driving a stolen car is a crime, although not physically different from driving a car you own." 2) "Unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping need not differ physically from the lawful arrest and incarceration used to punish unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping."

[Cunt]

I am tempted to say that imprisonment is a kind of wrong, that would be my first reaction to get away from this anyway....

I think so too. It IS a 'kind of wrong', but also a result of our society being poor.

If rich, we would have an abundance of trained personell, who's job it would be to follow the suspect around, preventing them taking any illegal action.

Since we can't afford it, we put them in a box and start stacking up responsibilities...

I think jails suck ass, but without them, I think a lot more crimes end up being 'capital crimes'.

That's a fairly wild idea.

I think we should work to incorporate some kind of AI to communicate with those who have to be isolated in jail.

Aren't you fancy!

I want pay-per-view, and see how much worse it could be.

Pay-per-view with reward tiers...like onlyfans, except vulgar and exploitative.

[Hermit]

Jeesh. No thanks Hermit. If you don't want to engage with what I've written, fine.

I can't help but see the irony of you accusing me of not wanting to engage with what you've written. Only about two hours earlier you have done what you have now accused me of doing. (Link)

[Sean Hayden]

Well, if you think your question addresses the point raised what can I do? I don't think it does, and my reasons can be found above.

[Sean Hayden]

The excerpt doesn't even make that argument though. It doesn't say that because it's legal, where what is legal can mean anything, it's not murder. The author has in mind a particular conception of justice which would exclude executing political dissidents as readily as it would car thieves!

What he does do is point out that the physical similarities between a punishment and a crime are not sufficient to make them morally equivalent.

Van den haag does not as much as imply that he has in mind a particular conception of justice which would exclude executing political dissidents as readily as it would car thieves. His statement "The difference between crimes and lawful acts is not physical, but legal" is as categorical as one can get.

Funnily enough had he made a distinction between laws that can be used to justify capital punishment and laws that cannot, he would have undermined his own assertion that the only difference between murder and capital punishment is provided by the law. He makes that point right here: "The difference between crimes and lawful acts is not physical, but legal." Then he repeats it by way of example. Twice. 1) "Driving a stolen car is a crime, although not physically different from driving a car you own." 2) "Unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping need not differ physically from the lawful arrest and incarceration used to punish unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping."

It's an excerpt Hermit. Prior to this bit he discusses proportionality. But it's such an ingrained principle in our conception of justice I don't think it needed pointing out to avoid your mischaracterization of his argument.

[Hermit]

Please excuse me while I threaten to go off topic, but the more I think of justice systems, the less justice I see even in apparently wealthy, secular democracies. It is really unevenly applied. Worst off are schizophrenics. They are not criminals. They are sick. A bloke who lived across the road from me got five years jail for attempted murder when he hospitalised his neighbour. It was the 14th time he was arrested as a result of having a schizophrenic episode. He needs the attention of a psychiatric institutions, not incarceration. He and thousands of others with mental problems who finish up in the clink instead.

Then there are those prisoners whose charges would have been dismissed if they had the money to pay a competent defence lawyer. Yes, poverty opens many (cell)doors. Conversely, money spares many people from walking through it.

What outrages me the most is the injustice perpetrated by being part of a network of people with influence. Another anecdote: In 2016 Gary Brabham, the son of three times Formula One world champion, Sir Jack Brabham, was released from jail after six months of an 18 month sentence. He had been found guilty of one count of raping a six year old girl and one count of indecent treatment. The judge noted that Gary showed no remorse. He even tried to appeal his lenient sentence. And that was not all. In 2009 he pleaded guilty to charges of indecent dealing of a child under 12 years. He managed to have his name suppressed as he served out his time in jail. You can't get such a lenient sentence and preserve your anonymity without some behind-the-scenes assistance by influential friends. It makes me wonder how many well connected criminals we never even hear of and how many of them avoid prosecution altogether because the old boys network takes care of its own.

Then there are the judges with 18th century ideas about rape. I have a collection of outrageous judgments filed away somewhere, but now I am already too worked up to find it, let alone look through them in order to provide a summary.

So, yeah, where exactly is justice in our justice systems?

[Hermit]

The excerpt doesn't even make that argument though. It doesn't say that because it's legal, where what is legal can mean anything, it's not murder. The author has in mind a particular conception of justice which would exclude executing political dissidents as readily as it would car thieves!

What he does do is point out that the physical similarities between a punishment and a crime are not sufficient to make them morally equivalent.

Van den haag does not as much as imply that he has in mind a particular conception of justice which would exclude executing political dissidents as readily as it would car thieves. His statement "The difference between crimes and lawful acts is not physical, but legal" is as categorical as one can get.

Funnily enough had he made a distinction between laws that can be used to justify capital punishment and laws that cannot, he would have undermined his own assertion that the only difference between murder and capital punishment is provided by the law. He makes that point right here: "The difference between crimes and lawful acts is not physical, but legal." Then he repeats it by way of example. Twice. 1) "Driving a stolen car is a crime, although not physically different from driving a car you own." 2) "Unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping need not differ physically from the lawful arrest and incarceration used to punish unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping."

It's an excerpt Hermit. Prior to this bit he discusses proportionality. But it's such an ingrained principle in our conception of justice I don't think it needed pointing out to avoid your mischaracterization of his argument.

I went by what you presented. My reply was relevant, clear and not a mischaracterisation of his argument. I quoted the critical bits verbatim and drew valid conclusions from them.