Moral Dilemma

[peterb]

An interesting statement...
What would/could be done with someone who has not actually offended, though?
There are people I most certainly would love to stab through the face and probably would, if it weren't a crime or if I thought I could get away with it... But I haven't actually murdered anyone (yet), so what would be done with me? Are we looking at Pre-Crime level stuff, here?

Well it was a discussion point - but, just as someone feeling depressed or with any illness may go to a doctor who may refer to a specialist or prescribe treatment, if someone recognised their sexual urges as being a symptom of mental illness, they could refer themselves for help.

Is it likely to happen? Probably not - and as wasabi says is it a mental illness or just the way someone is wired?

But that leads down the path of questioning the origin of other conditions that are described as mental illness - the psychopathic murderer for example. Serial murderers - hardly normal behaviour, but is punishment deserved because 'it is the way they are'?

That then comes down to the other aspects of punishment - the protection of society at large and the prevention of re-offending.

[santa claus]

Off with his nuts!

[wasabi]

The big question as i see it is how do we get rid of someone who is no longer part of acceptable society? Yes we can punish him, but he is always going to be a danger. And slamming him away for years is going to cost us millions that could be better spent. Back in the day we could send people to Australia. We nowadays have a mindset that if you have your feet on our island you're part of our society, and cannot be removed no matter how dangerous or useless. Surely time to bring back some sort of legal ostracism? Otherwise our young dangerous predatory paedophile rots for 20 years then gets out on the streets with expensive supervision as a middle-aged dangerous paedophile.

[Saracen]

The big question as i see it is how do we get rid of someone who is no longer part of acceptable society? Yes we can punish him, but he is always going to be a danger. And slamming him away for years is going to cost us millions that could be better spent. Back in the day we could send people to Australia. We nowadays have a mindset that if you have your feet on our island you're part of our society, and cannot be removed no matter how dangerous or useless. Surely time to bring back some sort of legal ostracism? Otherwise our young dangerous predatory paedophile rots for 20 years then gets out on the streets with expensive supervision as a middle-aged dangerous paedophile.

Like I said, short rope, long drop. Or some equivalent.

[opel80uk]

Like I said, short rope, long drop. Or some equivalent.

And it's not like anyone has ever been wrongly convicted before

[peterb]

And it's not like anyone has ever been wrongly convicted before

And its not like anyone convicted of murder have been released on licence and gone on to murder again.

However - I accept that in some cases a conviction may subsequently be overturned because new evidence comes to light, or there has been some perversion of justice through perjury or other cause, or inadequate investigation.

That then raises the argument of "only when the evidence is incontrovertible" - but then how is that determined? The burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt - if the death sentence were applicable, perhaps that burden should be raised to something like "with absolute certainty" - and could that ever be reached?

[opel80uk]

And its not like anyone convicted of murder have been released on licence and gone on to murder again.

What does that mean? That we should bring back the death penalty, and potentially execute innocent people, because of the flawed licence system? Surely a more measured argument would be to introduce whole-life tariffs, no?

[peterb]

What does that mean? That we should bring back the death penalty, and potentially execute innocent people, because of the flawed licence system? Surely a more measured argument would be to introduce whole-life tariffs, no?

Perhaps you'd like to read the rest of my post?

But to answer you question - it means that a life sentence does mean life, but someone serving life usually has the option of release on licence - and a small proportion of those released on licence have gone on to kill again.

[opel80uk]

Perhaps you'd like to read the rest of my post?

Apologies, but did the rest just pop up?! I ‘replied with quote’, and didn't remove anything?

As for the rest of the post, like you imply, how do you get to 'absolute certainty'? It's not really possible, even with a confession. What we now take as closest to that, such as DNA evidence, could potentially be found in years to come to be not as reliable as we first thought (as has happened previously), we just have no way of knowing. And that’s what I find hard to understand – why would people advocate the death penalty, and open up society to all the potential repercussions, when they know that there is always a risk that the innocent will be executed? I often suspect, though never heard anyone admit it, that, rather than truly believing that convictions are far safer these days, rather they believe executing a minority of innocent people a price worth paying to see their ideal of ‘justice’ delivered to the (presumably) guilty majority.

And that doesn’t even take in to account the fact that, if the US is anything to go by, the cost of executing someone to be far higher than even a whole-life prison term.

It really is, to me, a no brainer. Bring back whole-life tariffs and let that be that.

[Saracen]

And it's not like anyone has ever been wrongly convicted before

That's a matter of process, and what cases and in what circumstances it's applied.

It risks getting into the whole death penalty argument, again, which is not my intention and this isn't the right thread for it, but there are also cases where guilt is certain.

Just because you can execute in some cases doesn't mean you have to in all.

[peterb]

Apologies, but did the rest just pop up?! I ‘replied with quote’, and didn't remove anything?

It really is, to me, a no brainer. Bring back whole-life tariffs and let that be that.

My turn to apologise - I must have been editing when you posted - your post wasn't there when I added a bit.

Whole life tariffs were challenged in, IIRC, in court (under Human Rights legislation - again IIRc).

But Saracen has also answered, and as he says, in some cases guilt can be established absolutely, beyond a shadow of doubt.

Edit - IIRC (I haven't looked it up) the ECHR stated that Ministers could not impose a whole life tariff - that was the prerogative of the Judiciary - but I think it also said that that the possibility of parole must never be ruled out. But IANAL so I'm not sure how that has been implemented.

But this has moved a long way from the original moral dilemma over listening to music written by a criminal - which has even more relevance since the conviction of Rolf Harris.

[opel80uk]

My turn to apologise - I must have been editing when you posted - your post wasn't there when I added a bit.

Whole life tariffs were challenged in, IIRC, in court (under Human Rights legislation - again IIRc).

But Saracen has also answered, and as he says, in some cases guilt can be established absolutely, beyond a shadow of doubt.

Edit - IIRC (I haven't looked it up) the ECHR stated that Ministers could not impose a whole life tariff - that was the prerogative of the Judiciary - but I think it also said that that the possibility of parole must never be ruled out. But IANAL so I'm not sure how that has been implemented.

But this has moved a long way from the original moral dilemma over listening to music written by a criminal - which has even more relevance since the conviction of Rolf Harris.

The Judges sitting at the time of the Guildford Four and Birmingham 6 both stated that if it was available to them, and given how secure they felt their convictions were based on the evidence, he would have executed them. So, the 2 judges at least, seemed pretty ‘certain’ at the time. You can't, imo, advocate the death penalty knowing full well that it is impossible to have it applied 100% correctly in practice, and then add a disclaimer which lays the blame for any miscarriages at the feet of 'process', which is what Saracen appears to me to be doing. That’s a cop out.

And yes, it isn’t really anything to do with the original moral dilemma, but it wasn't me who brought the death penalty up either. And this is the crux of it, listening to his music is one thing, but if his and his ilk’s malevolent actions mean that as a society we regress (and I’m in no doubt that the reinstatement of the Death Penalty is regressing), then they hurt us twice. Why would we allow them to do that? Lock them up, throw away the key and forget about them.

[Saracen]

The Judges sitting at the time of the Guildford Four and Birmingham 6 both stated that if it was available to them, and given how secure they felt their convictions were based on the evidence, he would have executed them. So, the 2 judges at least, seemed pretty ‘certain’ at the time. You can't, imo, advocate the death penalty knowing full well that it is impossible to have it applied 100% correctly in practice, and then add a disclaimer which lays the blame for any miscarriages at the feet of 'process', which is what Saracen appears to me to be doing. That’s a cop out.

...

Cop out, no. But a bit more explanation, perhaps.

If we had a death penalty it all depends on the process of when, and if, it's permitted. And that, we don't know, since we don't have one.

When it's applied depends on that process. You referred to previous injustices. And agreed, on that point. What previous judges said they might have done is irrelevant, because that can only be based on previous DP processes, which is not what I was suggesting ... or what I've suggested in previous DP threads.

However, there having been injustices in the past does not mean ALL cases might be injustices. There are circumstances where we KNOW who did what, when, how and why. For instance, most recently, the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby.

Suppose we had a DP that allowed for that sentence in a case like that. Do you consider that that case is open to misinterpretation of guilt?

So, when and if ANY sentence is applied is a matter of process, the process of the law that determines when, and indeed if, a given sentence is, firstly, an option for the judge, and secondly, appropriate in given circumstances of a case.

Hence, "process".

If we KNOW, for a certainty, that a party or parties are guilty, then "injustice" is not a consideration. That could be part of the process.

But like I said, this isn't a DP thread.

[wasabi]

Back to original subject - should the rest of the band be financially punished for the actions of one member?

[Ttaskmaster]

Back to original subject - should the rest of the band be financially punished for the actions of one member?

Definitely not.
As is, I heard they now call themselves something different and are performing new songs that distance themselves from paedo-bloke...

And this is the crux of it, listening to his music is one thing, but if his and his ilk’s malevolent actions mean that as a society we regress, then they hurt us twice. Why would we allow them to do that? Lock them up, throw away the key and forget about them.

All that Human Rights stuff means we cannot forget about them and they must survive in relative comfort, so they can experience the fullness of their sentence and be rehabilitated, so they can rejoin and contribute to society...
Whereas the Death Penalty removes that burden on the taxpayer, definitely means he won't reoffend *and* means he certainly won't be getting any more royalties from those who simply decide a song is sufficienty artistic/meaningful to warrant their listening... just sayin'...

See - Told you playing the Liberal card wasn't really my thing!!

[opel80uk]

Definitely not.
All that Human Rights stuff means we cannot forget about them and they must survive in relative comfort, so they can experience the fullness of their sentence and be rehabilitated, so they can rejoin and contribute to society...
Whereas the Death Penalty removes that burden on the taxpayer.....

The rehabilitation aspect wouldn't (and shouldn't) be an issue if there were mandatory whole-life tariffs for certain crimes. As for the taxpayers burden argument, as studies in America have shown, it costs the public more to carry out the DP than it does to keep them in prison for their entire life. With regards to the original point, I’m sure it can't be beyond the realms of imagination to ensure that royalties earned whilst in prison (or for their entire lives should it be a whole-life tariff), are diverted to related charities or, should the family wish financial compensation, to the family direct. Whatever is put in place, it can’t be too hard to ensure the criminal doesn’t see any of it.