View Poll Results: If someone breaks the law...

Voters
12. You may not vote on this poll
  • They should receive the applicable sentence, regardless of circumstances (I am Ti)

    2 16.67%
  • They should receive the applicable sentence, regardless of circumstances (I am Fi)

    1 8.33%
  • Different factors e.g. financial circumstances, past record must be taken into account (I am Ti)

    7 58.33%
  • IDifferent factors e.g. financial circumstances, past record must be taken into account (I am Fi)

    2 16.67%
Results 1 to 40 of 62

Thread: You On The Law

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,168
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default You On The Law

    I'm interested to know your stand on this.

  2. #2
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This has nothing to do with and .

    Usually, you won't punish someone with the applicable sentence, regardless of circumstances, unless you're an autistic bureaucrat.

  3. #3
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    I'm not voting because I won't commit to Ti vs Fi (and no I'm, as you say, "taking the piss" ) I think that if a person gets caught then circumstances should be considered and punishment applied accordingly. That said, I don't believe in people being punished simply because they committed a crime (as in all crimes should be punished/all perpetrators must be caught). If you can get away with it and nobodies dead, maimed or taken a personal loss (notice I said personal, not corporations) then more power to ya in my opinion. I personally wouldn't turn somebody in even if they did break the above "rules", and I'm not a revenge/vindictive person who needs to see others punished when they wrong those I know, beyond social punishments such as telling others of their "sins". I do understand the need for laws though, and have no problem with others living in a world defined by them.

    The only circumstances I would personally involve the cops in would be for safety sake, my own or those I'm close to.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc View Post
    This has nothing to do with and .

    Usually, you won't punish someone with the applicable sentence, regardless of circumstances, unless you're an autistic bureaucrat.
    lol in your own machintruc way, you expressed my own sentiments pretty well (:

    (i hope glamourama doesn't mind me using those reverse smileys, they're just so cool)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bionicgoat View Post
    I'm not voting because I won't commit to Ti vs Fi (and no I'm, as you say, "taking the piss" ) I think that if a person gets caught then circumstances should be considered and punishment applied accordingly. That said, I don't believe in people being punished simply because they committed a crime (as in all crimes should be punished/all perpetrators must be caught). If you can get away with it and nobodies dead, maimed or taken a personal loss (notice I said personal, not corporations) then more power to ya in my opinion.
    What about social costs?

  5. #5
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hellothere View Post
    What about social costs?
    ehh... personally I think social costs are alot of hype. At the very least they aren't important to my little world (of course I have to qualify this by saying I'm a drug addict and have had several criminal oriented aquaintences over the course of my life)

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bionicgoat View Post
    I'm not voting because I won't commit to Ti vs Fi (and no I'm, as you say, "taking the piss" ) I think that if a person gets caught then circumstances should be considered and punishment applied accordingly. That said, I don't believe in people being punished simply because they committed a crime (as in all crimes should be punished/all perpetrators must be caught). If you can get away with it and nobodies dead, maimed or taken a personal loss (notice I said personal, not corporations) then more power to ya in my opinion. I personally wouldn't turn somebody in even if they did break the above "rules", and I'm not a revenge/vindictive person who needs to see others punished when they wrong those I know, beyond social punishments such as telling others of their "sins". I do understand the need for laws though, and have no problem with others living in a world defined by them.

    The only circumstances I would personally involve the cops in would be for safety sake, my own or those I'm close to.
    do you think that law should evolve in order to catch more people? Your stance seems more like a reactive one rather than an opinion on the law or what it should do.

  7. #7
    jessica129's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,121
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc View Post
    ... regardless of circumstances, unless you're an autistic bureaucrat.
    The autistic statement of the day. Knew we couldnt possibly go one day without it!

  8. #8
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Let the punishment fit the crime and the spirit of the law given greater supremacy over the letter of the law.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  9. #9
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Italy
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,615
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The law already takes into account the possibility of different circumstances. No crime is perfectly equal to any other crime, so of course it is up to each judge to inflict the punishment he finds optimal. I tend to be in disagreement with the notion of punshiment and law and be more in line with what Bionicgoat says here, but that's another story.

    Actually, I am not really against the law. Oftentimes the law (at least, here) is very well organized and reasonable. People that create laws are cultured, civilized and really care about the well-being of society. The real problem is police. I hate the police, and I would find it awesome if all policemen died in very much pain.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  10. #10
    ~~rubicon~~ Rubicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chatbox
    TIM
    SEI, 9
    Posts
    5,248
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    The law already takes into account the possibility of different circumstances. No crime is perfectly equal to any other crime, so of course it is up to each judge to inflict the punishment he finds optimal. I tend to be in disagreement with the notion of punshiment and law and be more in line with what Bionicgoat says here, but that's another story.

    Actually, I am not really against the law. Oftentimes the law (at least, here) is very well organized and reasonable. People that create laws are cultured, civilized and really care about the well-being of society. The real problem is police. I hate the police, and I would find it awesome if all policemen died in very much pain.
    I don't know about the 'dying in pain' thing :-), but I don't like their mentality either. They're not really promotors of the law - they're slaves to it, because they don't have any real authority to circumvent it or apply mercy. And government workers annoy me - I guess it's not their fault really, but I hate how they just 'do their job' without considering the circumstances of the particular case.

    When I first moved to Melbourne for instance, I got on a tram having never been on one before, and I bought a concession ticket because I had a student card. And this ticket inspector gets on and looks at my card and tells me that you have to get a sticker or something put on the card before they'll recognise it. So I think "yeah ok, that's a stupid rule .. but anyway", and I tell her that I've just moved down from Queensland so I didn't know, and I show her my Qld driver's license, and I think that's that. Then, I couldn't believe it - she proceeds to write me out a ticket! She was like 'you can appeal this if you don't want to pay the fine'. How stupid is that! I have to go through all this trouble of appealing when this woman could have simply utilised her brain and not given me a ticket. If I had a job like that where I wasn't allowed to take into account different circumstances I would go insane.
    "Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."

  11. #11
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE
    Posts
    24,507
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There has to be some form of consistency, but things like previous record should be considered. And killing someone in self-defense should be weighed differently than premeditated murder or a "crime of passion".

    I think of the legal system as pretty much a way to provide the highest degree of safety to society, not about evaluating and punishing right and wrong. Sentences should be about preventing the same person from doing something like that again and preventing others from doing it. It's about cause and effect relationships.

    I don't like it, but I don't know of a better option that's realistic.
    SEE

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    173
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is kind of interesting, because although not taking into account circumstances at all is ridiculous, this is exactly what happens with statutory or mandatory sentences. Some politicians who want to look tough on crime like to talk about this, and unfortunately others actually pass it into law for various offences. And alot of people think mandatory sentences are a good idea, though I've never worked out why. Perhaps the one person who voted for that could tell us.
    LII

  13. #13
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE
    Posts
    24,507
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I heard something interesting a little while back, and I think I've mentioned it here before.

    One of the politicians in my state was pushing for a tough mandatory sentence for those who commit homicide against black people. His idea was criticized as being an attempt to keep black people in prison for longer.
    SEE

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    I think of the legal system as pretty much a way to provide the highest degree of safety to society, not about evaluating and punishing right and wrong. Sentences should be about preventing the same person from doing something like that again and preventing others from doing it. It's about cause and effect relationships.
    + 10 billion

    ETA also to keep people away from society for a sufficient period of time
    Last edited by hellothere; 06-08-2008 at 04:40 AM.

  15. #15
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,407
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    Well, sometimes. But think about it. I'll use the simple example of two identical murder crimes. The murderer in the first murder shot their victim in the head. They did it to defend themselves against their victim, who was also their attacker. In other words, it was a case or them or their attacker. The second murder was committed by someone who had premeditated attacking their victim. They shot their victim in in the head after months of planning. My question is this: do they get the same sentence, or are different circumstances (premeditated murder/self-defence) taken into account?
    So the wealthy should suffer more for committing the same crime because they are otherwise suffering less? That is simply bad karma (and very socialist, which is politically if not morally superficial in actual practice)...your example is already accommodated under current law as degrees of murder (1st, 2nd, 3rd). However, I think that you may be referring to objective vs subjective ethical issues. Mandatory law is much easier to enforce (and respect) than are de facto tendencies, and it is also more easily communicated as a complete and consistent set of ethics (with the exception of Gödel's Law). However discrepancies in the applicability of a benchmark crime due to novel circumstances or ambiguous evidence require judicial proceedings and so allow for interpretation. In practice, jury trials and minimum sentences essentially define the limits of arbitrary and literal interpretation. BTW I was considering a similar poll: do you think that a preference for sensory over intuitive information metabolism might contribute to a stronger tendency to rely upon visual identification for typing purposes?


    "inveniemus viam aut faciemus"
    I too am an admirer of Hannibal Barca.
    Have you ever read Polybius, Livy, or Appian?

  16. #16
    reckoner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    138
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    As someone schooled in U.S. criminal law, I can assure you that the circumstances surrounding the crime (and the offender's individual life situation - depending on the judge) are almost always factored in during sentencing.

    How do the people here feel about criminal law in general? Do you see the point of criminal law as being deterrence or retribution? Or do you think we should move towards a more rehabilitative model?

  17. #17
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,407
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckoner View Post
    As someone schooled in U.S. criminal law, I can assure you that the circumstances surrounding the crime (and the offender's individual life situation - depending on the judge) are almost always factored in during sentencing.

    How do the people here feel about criminal law in general? Do you see the point of criminal law as being deterrence or retribution? Or do you think we should move towards a more rehabilitative model?
    Retribution is the best deterrent. Rehabilitation requires different incentives for different criminals.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    173
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckoner View Post
    As someone schooled in U.S. criminal law, I can assure you that the circumstances surrounding the crime (and the offender's individual life situation - depending on the judge) are almost always factored in during sentencing.

    How do the people here feel about criminal law in general? Do you see the point of criminal law as being deterrence or retribution? Or do you think we should move towards a more rehabilitative model?
    In practice, I think the main point is as a deterrent. As I think people have already mentioned, maybe this is because it could be quite expensive to move towards a rehabilitative model. However I would have thought there are long-term costs in simply concentrating on deterrence - for example, low-grade criminals can go into prison and come out high-grade criminals thanks to the company they keep. Or, if there isn't really any effort to rehabilitate someone, they might just go and offend again - back into prison and back out. Like a revolving door. What a waste of a potentially productive life (not to mention a set of potentially avoidable crimes affecting the community). The government has to fork out huge sums to keep tabs on these possible repeat offenders as well as maintaining the prison systems. This seems like a rather depressing approach. Deterrence is very important, but how can we know whether rehabilitation is or not until we give it a real go? Luckily some countries are. For example, people might be interested in reading about this experimental prison is Norway: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6983186.stm

    I don't think the point of it should be retribution. This is because I am repelled by the notion of revenge replacing justice. Two wrongs do not make a right. Anyway, proportionate punishment for its own sake seems potentially counterproductive to me - it is both rehabilitation and deterrence that has the potential to improve safety in society, and these should always be the motives behind a Criminal justice system rather than getting carried away with an eye for an eye.
    LII

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If someone breaks the law...
    They should receive the applicable sentence, regardless of circumstances (I am Ti)
    They should receive the applicable sentence, regardless of circumstances (I am Fi)
    Different factors e.g. financial circumstances, past record must be taken into account (I am Ti)
    IDifferent factors e.g. financial circumstances, past record must be taken into account (I am Fi)
    So it's either the object or the subject, eh? Why not both?

    Why not factor in the motivation of the subject to violate the object? (the level to which the subject enjoyed violating the law?) On that token, assess whether the subject was right in what they did. Did the existing conditions justify the subject's reaction to the object? Were they merely fighting unjust oppression?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •