Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should someone get away with a crime...

MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 3:29:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Should someone get away with a crime, because a lot of people think it is okay to break the law? I put this article about a teenage rape victim forward; basically what she did was violate a gag order and post the names of her attackers on Twitter. She confessed to the crime, but people are trying to petition for her to not be charged with a crime.

http://news.yahoo.com...

My personal opinion is that we live in a society that is ruled by the word of law, and nobody should be above the law-rape victims included. Her attackers had their day in court and were charged with a crime, and the judge did exactly what the law demanded for him to do, which was to seal the records and give them a punishment that befitted a juvenile offender.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 3:33:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 3:29:51 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Should someone get away with a crime, because a lot of people think it is okay to break the law? I put this article about a teenage rape victim forward; basically what she did was violate a gag order and post the names of her attackers on Twitter. She confessed to the crime, but people are trying to petition for her to not be charged with a crime.

http://news.yahoo.com...

My personal opinion is that we live in a society that is ruled by the word of law, and nobody should be above the law-rape victims included. Her attackers had their day in court and were charged with a crime, and the judge did exactly what the law demanded for him to do, which was to seal the records and give them a punishment that befitted a juvenile offender.

She committed a crime, she should suffer the consequences.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 3:36:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
While laws by themselves are easily relativist among cultures, within those specific cultures, the laws are taken to be objective- albeit they have no universal truth value. As a result, if society decides to disregard a law as a whole, then it can do that since laws are based on the philosophical judgements of society.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 3:37:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Although it can be argued that if laws in society are objective, then they ought to be followed at all times. However, that makes the wishes of society null so you will have to justify laws in a completely other way, which quickly leads to other irrelevant stuff.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 3:39:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 3:36:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
While laws by themselves are easily relativist among cultures, within those specific cultures, the laws are taken to be objective- albeit they have no universal truth value. As a result, if society decides to disregard a law as a whole, then it can do that since laws are based on the philosophical judgements of society.

I agree that laws change as society changes, but laws that are on the books should not be ignored, but changed. If enough people think a law is absurb, then they should petition to get it changed, especially if breaking that law is not a victimless crime. Now I do believe there are some laws on the book that are far too absurb to be followed (such as the ban on sodomy in some states,) but breaking those laws is committing a victimless crime and in many ways those laws violate the spirit of the constitution.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 3:41:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 3:37:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Although it can be argued that if laws in society are objective, then they ought to be followed at all times. However, that makes the wishes of society null so you will have to justify laws in a completely other way, which quickly leads to other irrelevant stuff.

Laws can be objective, while the creation of laws can be subjective if you believe in subjective morality. If you believe in objective morality than it is a whole different story, because the laws should reflect the moral absolutes that society can objectively agree upon.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 3:42:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If the law is sufficiently unjust, then yes.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 3:44:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 3:39:48 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 7/23/2012 3:36:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
While laws by themselves are easily relativist among cultures, within those specific cultures, the laws are taken to be objective- albeit they have no universal truth value. As a result, if society decides to disregard a law as a whole, then it can do that since laws are based on the philosophical judgements of society.

I agree that laws change as society changes, but laws that are on the books should not be ignored, but changed. If enough people think a law is absurb, then they should petition to get it changed, especially if breaking that law is not a victimless crime. Now I do believe there are some laws on the book that are far too absurb to be followed (such as the ban on sodomy in some states,) but breaking those laws is committing a victimless crime and in many ways those laws violate the spirit of the constitution.

It's irrelevant what kind of crime it is or whether it is a victimless crime or not. What matters is that if society as a whole wants laws to change, then it makes no sense to not change the laws since laws are based on society.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 3:46:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 3:41:45 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 7/23/2012 3:37:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Although it can be argued that if laws in society are objective, then they ought to be followed at all times. However, that makes the wishes of society null so you will have to justify laws in a completely other way, which quickly leads to other irrelevant stuff.

Laws can be objective,

Laws are objective WITHIN their respective societies; outside of that society, they are completely worthless. Regardless, they are not objective in the sense that they can never be changed, because their objectiveness is guaranteed by the individuals within a society. They are objective in the sense that they ought to be followed by society as a whole if society agrees upon the laws.

Damn, that is sounding very collectivistic.

while the creation of laws can be subjective if you believe in subjective morality. If you believe in objective morality than it is a whole different story, because the laws should reflect the moral absolutes that society can objectively agree upon.

Please don't descend that route.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 3:47:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's irrelevant what kind of crime it is or whether it is a victimless crime or not. What matters is that if society as a whole wants laws to change, then it makes no sense to not change the laws since laws are based on society.

The question is whether or not it is okay for someone who breaks the law to get away with it, simply because a lot of people want them to. We're not really talking about changing the law, but ignoring it.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 3:48:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 3:47:11 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
It's irrelevant what kind of crime it is or whether it is a victimless crime or not. What matters is that if society as a whole wants laws to change, then it makes no sense to not change the laws since laws are based on society.

The question is whether or not it is okay for someone who breaks the law to get away with it, simply because a lot of people want them to. We're not really talking about changing the law, but ignoring it.

Lol. My whole answer revolved around that. Yes, it is okay because laws are based on the wishes of society.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 3:49:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Laws are objective WITHIN their respective societies; outside of that society, they are completely worthless. Regardless, they are not objective in the sense that they can never be changed, because their objectiveness is guaranteed by the individuals within a society. They are objective in the sense that they ought to be followed by society as a whole if society agrees upon the laws.

You're basically agreeing with me here. Again though, the argument is not whether or not the law can or cannot be changed, but rather if it is okay to let someone get away with breaking the law in a republican government, which has its foundation in the principal of rule of law.

while the creation of laws can be subjective if you believe in subjective morality. If you believe in objective morality than it is a whole different story, because the laws should reflect the moral absolutes that society can objectively agree upon.

Please don't descend that route.

Why not?
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 3:50:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 3:48:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/23/2012 3:47:11 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
It's irrelevant what kind of crime it is or whether it is a victimless crime or not. What matters is that if society as a whole wants laws to change, then it makes no sense to not change the laws since laws are based on society.

The question is whether or not it is okay for someone who breaks the law to get away with it, simply because a lot of people want them to. We're not really talking about changing the law, but ignoring it.

Lol. My whole answer revolved around that. Yes, it is okay because laws are based on the wishes of society.

So you believe that people are above the law, so long as they can get enough people to agree that they are above the law?
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 3:51:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No, but if the law is changed and the wording is made correctly she could and should be released.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 3:53:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 3:50:56 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 7/23/2012 3:48:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/23/2012 3:47:11 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
It's irrelevant what kind of crime it is or whether it is a victimless crime or not. What matters is that if society as a whole wants laws to change, then it makes no sense to not change the laws since laws are based on society.

The question is whether or not it is okay for someone who breaks the law to get away with it, simply because a lot of people want them to. We're not really talking about changing the law, but ignoring it.

Lol. My whole answer revolved around that. Yes, it is okay because laws are based on the wishes of society.

So you believe that people are above the law, so long as they can get enough people to agree that they are above the law?

Pretty much, although your phrasing is negative. I believe that people can eliminate/implement laws as long as they can get enough people to agree on the elimination/implementation of the law.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 3:54:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 3:49:55 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Laws are objective WITHIN their respective societies; outside of that society, they are completely worthless. Regardless, they are not objective in the sense that they can never be changed, because their objectiveness is guaranteed by the individuals within a society. They are objective in the sense that they ought to be followed by society as a whole if society agrees upon the laws.

You're basically agreeing with me here. Again though, the argument is not whether or not the law can or cannot be changed, but rather if it is okay to let someone get away with breaking the law in a republican government, which has its foundation in the principal of rule of law.

The two are mutually exclusive. If the law can be changed, then a government based on the rule of law has to change it if it is changed.

while the creation of laws can be subjective if you believe in subjective morality. If you believe in objective morality than it is a whole different story, because the laws should reflect the moral absolutes that society can objectively agree upon.

Please don't descend that route.

Why not?

'Cause objective morality and universal laws are stupid.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 3:55:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think everybody should be under the law, including the government. So, all citizens and people in a country are beholden to the rule of law, including the gov't, so George Bush should've been dealt with for violating many people's 4th amendment rights.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 3:57:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 3:55:50 PM, Contra wrote:
I think everybody should be under the law, including the government. So, all citizens and people in a country are beholden to the rule of law, including the gov't, so George Bush should've been dealt with for violating many people's 4th amendment rights.

*Cough*ObamaextendingPatriotAct*Cough*

Regardless, that's not the disagreement. The disagreement is whether you can actually change the laws due to public opinion, since laws are based on public opinion.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 4:00:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 3:57:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/23/2012 3:55:50 PM, Contra wrote:
I think everybody should be under the law, including the government. So, all citizens and people in a country are beholden to the rule of law, including the gov't, so George Bush should've been dealt with for violating many people's 4th amendment rights.

*Cough*ObamaextendingPatriotAct*Cough*
*cough*He was compromising with republicans hoping they would reciprocate *cough*

Regardless, that's not the disagreement. The disagreement is whether you can actually change the laws due to public opinion, since laws are based on public opinion.
Sapere Aude!
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 4:01:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The two are mutually exclusive. If the law can be changed, then a government based on the rule of law has to change it if it is changed.

I think that if you want to maintain a society where nobody is above the law, you have to enforce the law, even if it is unpopular. Hell, enforcing the law is sometimes the very engine behind changing said law, because people then realize how absurd it is. I'm sure if someone actually enforced sodomy laws, the sodomy laws would be changed within a week of a conviction.

'Cause objective morality and universal laws are stupid.

I disagree, I think there are some universal laws and rights in this world.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 4:03:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 4:00:48 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 7/23/2012 3:57:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/23/2012 3:55:50 PM, Contra wrote:
I think everybody should be under the law, including the government. So, all citizens and people in a country are beholden to the rule of law, including the gov't, so George Bush should've been dealt with for violating many people's 4th amendment rights.

*Cough*ObamaextendingPatriotAct*Cough*
*cough*He was compromising with republicans hoping they would reciprocate *cough*

Regardless, that's not the disagreement. The disagreement is whether you can actually change the laws due to public opinion, since laws are based on public opinion.

And Obama hasn't wiretapped my phone when I'm calling someone overseas, at least I hope to God he hasn't, that would pretty much eradicate my support for him on civil liberties, period.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 4:03:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 4:01:05 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
The two are mutually exclusive. If the law can be changed, then a government based on the rule of law has to change it if it is changed.

I think that if you want to maintain a society where nobody is above the law, you have to enforce the law, even if it is unpopular. Hell, enforcing the law is sometimes the very engine behind changing said law, because people then realize how absurd it is. I'm sure if someone actually enforced sodomy laws, the sodomy laws would be changed within a week of a conviction.

Nobody is above the law if there is no law. If laws are not based on popular opinion, then what are they based on?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 4:04:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 4:03:22 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/23/2012 4:00:48 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 7/23/2012 3:57:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/23/2012 3:55:50 PM, Contra wrote:
I think everybody should be under the law, including the government. So, all citizens and people in a country are beholden to the rule of law, including the gov't, so George Bush should've been dealt with for violating many people's 4th amendment rights.

*Cough*ObamaextendingPatriotAct*Cough*
*cough*He was compromising with republicans hoping they would reciprocate *cough*

Regardless, that's not the disagreement. The disagreement is whether you can actually change the laws due to public opinion, since laws are based on public opinion.

And Obama hasn't wiretapped my phone when I'm calling someone overseas, at least I hope to God he hasn't, that would pretty much eradicate my support for him on civil liberties, period.

So your criticism is not of the actual implementation of the law- for which you have perfect information- but for the usage of the law, for which you have virtually no information? Very logical.

How do you know that Bush tapped your phone?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 4:05:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 4:03:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/23/2012 4:01:05 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
The two are mutually exclusive. If the law can be changed, then a government based on the rule of law has to change it if it is changed.

I think that if you want to maintain a society where nobody is above the law, you have to enforce the law, even if it is unpopular. Hell, enforcing the law is sometimes the very engine behind changing said law, because people then realize how absurd it is. I'm sure if someone actually enforced sodomy laws, the sodomy laws would be changed within a week of a conviction.

Nobody is above the law if there is no law. If laws are not based on popular opinion, then what are they based on?

Morality, logic, and reason.

I'd rather be led than an intelligent few than an idiotic many.

I'm sure you prefer economists, rather than say, basket weavers, to help weave the economy you participate in, as well.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 4:09:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 4:05:45 PM, Ren wrote:
At 7/23/2012 4:03:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/23/2012 4:01:05 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
The two are mutually exclusive. If the law can be changed, then a government based on the rule of law has to change it if it is changed.

I think that if you want to maintain a society where nobody is above the law, you have to enforce the law, even if it is unpopular. Hell, enforcing the law is sometimes the very engine behind changing said law, because people then realize how absurd it is. I'm sure if someone actually enforced sodomy laws, the sodomy laws would be changed within a week of a conviction.

Nobody is above the law if there is no law. If laws are not based on popular opinion, then what are they based on?

Morality, logic, and reason.

Popular opinion is based on societal morality. Logic and reason are all ways of getting to this specific morality.

I'd rather be led than an intelligent few than an idiotic many.

I'm sure you prefer economists, rather than say, basket weavers, to help weave the economy you participate in, as well.

Strawman.

Economists should run economies because economics is more or less simple undeniable fact; if some people don't know economics, then they can't run an economy. On the other hand, philosophy is much more subjective and nobody knows what is truly "right" or what is "wrong," even the philosophers themselves. Therefore, it makes no sense for philosophy of a country to be decided by a select few.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 4:10:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nobody is above the law if there is no law. If laws are not based on popular opinion, then what are they based on?

Positive and negative rights are determined by popular opinion, and natural rights are protected by the constitution; it isn't really black and white. The fact is that there is a legal code, and if it isn't enforced we'll lose respect for it. I'm not against changing laws, I'm just against ignoring them, because I believe that the rule of law is a cornerstone of our society.
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 4:23:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The context of the crime can be taken into account during sentencing. But she committed it and should be charged in contempt of court. Whether or not that jeopardizes her case, I don't know.
Sapere Aude!
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 4:52:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 4:10:38 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Nobody is above the law if there is no law. If laws are not based on popular opinion, then what are they based on?

Positive and negative rights are determined by popular opinion, and natural rights are protected by the constitution; it isn't really black and white.

Natural rights just pretty much boil down to objective morality, which is nigh impossible to justify without god.

The fact is that there is a legal code, and if it isn't enforced we'll lose respect for it. I'm not against changing laws, I'm just against ignoring them, because I believe that the rule of law is a cornerstone of our society.

So we're in agreement?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 4:59:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 4:10:38 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Nobody is above the law if there is no law. If laws are not based on popular opinion, then what are they based on?

Positive and negative rights are determined by popular opinion, and natural rights are protected by the constitution; it isn't really black and white. The fact is that there is a legal code, and if it isn't enforced we'll lose respect for it. I'm not against changing laws, I'm just against ignoring them, because I believe that the rule of law is a cornerstone of our society.

Likewise, there're legal and moral fictions called "natural rights", and if they aren't protected in practice, people will ignore them. There's a tension there.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
nerdykiller
Posts: 856
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 5:17:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 3:33:44 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 7/23/2012 3:29:51 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Should someone get away with a crime, because a lot of people think it is okay to break the law? I put this article about a teenage rape victim forward; basically what she did was violate a gag order and post the names of her attackers on Twitter. She confessed to the crime, but people are trying to petition for her to not be charged with a crime.

http://news.yahoo.com...

My personal opinion is that we live in a society that is ruled by the word of law, and nobody should be above the law-rape victims included. Her attackers had their day in court and were charged with a crime, and the judge did exactly what the law demanded for him to do, which was to seal the records and give them a punishment that befitted a juvenile offender.

She committed a crime, she should suffer the consequences.

I admit there is a better way to deal with these kinds(the boys that raped the girl), but she did what she thought was the best decision. If I was in the same position, I would have done the same.