So, the Polanski thread inspired me to start this one - now, as a caveat, I don't think statutory rape is a case where this question would apply, but are you, at least in principle, willing to concede that there are certain crimes for which someone who has been contributing a lot to the society should receive a lighter penalty than your average Joe?
I think the best example would be victimless crimes. These crimes are penalized not because they cause harm to some victim (in which case there would be an element of justice and retribution that we couldn't just ignore) but because whoever makes the law decides they are harmful to the society. However, obviously, by removing a person committing such a crime from the society (via an imprisonment, a disgrace of criminal sentence or, in the most extreme case, death penalty) we may be depriving the society of contributions such person could have otherwise made, and as a result causing more harm to the society than if we let the person go.
Examples of this would be Wilde or Turing - in this day and age, replace sodomy with, say, drug possession.
I never thought you'd be defending Grallonesque sexual practices.
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2009, 12:00:33 PM
I never thought you'd be defending Grallonesque sexual practices.
Thanks for a nice troll.
The truth will set you free.
Prolific? What about prochoicic?
Quote from: The Brain on September 27, 2009, 12:04:10 PM
Prolific? What about prochoicic?
What are you talking about?:)
No.
No.
On topic: seems to me that the problem that different sentencing would solve is much better solved by informal means. There's a bunch of ways to keep key personnel producing.
The problem with that is who decides what value someone gives to society? Is a celebrity worth more the an unknown, but important scientist? then you get into fun stuff like a rich person providers more to society then a poor person and all that jazz. So no, i don't think what a person has or can provide to society whould effect their sentence.
To TheBrain and HVC - all points conceded. However I didn't say that this would need to be specifically some official and procedural/legal system - this could very well be implemented informally, e.g. by judges simply taking this into account - as many of them do.
My question is less of a structural/organisational nature, and more about morality/fairness - I mean if a judge would, say, fined a genius scientist (or dropped charges altogether) for a crime that a hobo would be sent to prison for, many people would probably voice their opposition.
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2009, 12:20:59 PM
My question is less of a structural/organisational nature, and more about morality/fairness
You lost me.
Yes, and it should be quantified. For every movie a guy makes that I really like, he should be able to get away with one felony.
Since I have helped feed the poor, I should be able to enslave some to work on the strawberry farm.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 27, 2009, 12:44:22 PM
Since I have helped feed the poor, I should be able to enslave some to work on the strawberry farm.
Have you made any good movies?, if not, no...
It'd only really be a question in some tiny society of a few hundred people where you have just the one doctor or whatnot. In the world at large- no.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on September 27, 2009, 12:55:12 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 27, 2009, 12:44:22 PM
Since I have helped feed the poor, I should be able to enslave some to work on the strawberry farm.
Have you made any good movies?, if not, no...
My movies are unreleased.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 27, 2009, 01:08:43 PM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on September 27, 2009, 12:55:12 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 27, 2009, 12:44:22 PM
Since I have helped feed the poor, I should be able to enslave some to work on the strawberry farm.
Have you made any good movies?, if not, no...
My movies are unreleased.
To bad, I am sure that the world and human kind is missing out on some big...
Besides why slaves, dont you know that tenant workers are the new big thing, so much more easy to handel. Ofcourse if you do like useing the whip, then slaves are definitely the way to go...
Dan White should be honored and given a holiday to remember his heroism.
Hmmm, so you're saying if a person is, say, President of the United States, and he perjures himself he should get a lesser sentence than a regular schmuck? Maybe you're onto something here... :shifty:
It shouldn't, no. But the pragmatist in me would pardon those valuable to society anyway. Or if too dangerous put them to work in captivity for perks.
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2009, 11:59:43 AM
So, the Polanski thread inspired me to start this one - now, as a caveat, I don't think statutory rape is a case where this question would apply, but are you, at least in principle, willing to concede that there are certain crimes for which someone who has been contributing a lot to the society should receive a lighter penalty than your average Joe?
I think the best example would be victimless crimes. These crimes are penalized not because they cause harm to some victim (in which case there would be an element of justice and retribution that we couldn't just ignore) but because whoever makes the law decides they are harmful to the society. However, obviously, by removing a person committing such a crime from the society (via an imprisonment, a disgrace of criminal sentence or, in the most extreme case, death penalty) we may be depriving the society of contributions such person could have otherwise made, and as a result causing more harm to the society than if we let the person go.
Ethically I don't think you can justify that. How can we punish someone more harshly than someone else because they make more contributions to society?
But I think there is a real issue here - when the time between the offence and the sentencing is quite separate, do we sentence the offender as they are now, or as they were at the time?
Our office has a a similar issue on appeal. I man was charged with drunk driving, and he had a bad record for drunk driving. But he was "on the lam" for almost 10 years. By the time he was caught he had stopped drinking and become a much more productive member of society. It was generally agreed that if he had been sentenced right at the time he would have gone to jail for a considerable length of time. But should he still get a lengthy sentence now given the steps he had taken to clean himself up?
Just declined to give the sentence he would have gotten at the time. We have appealed.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 27, 2009, 01:41:58 PM
Dan White should be honored and given a holiday to remember his heroism.
For what? Helping to encourage gay activism?
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2009, 02:12:12 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 27, 2009, 01:41:58 PM
Dan White should be honored and given a holiday to remember his heroism.
For what? Helping to encourage gay activism?
I was trolling. :blush:
But I doubt Marti knows who he is anyways, so I was wasting my time.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 27, 2009, 02:20:59 PM
I was trolling. :blush:
But I doubt Marti knows who he is anyways, so I was wasting my time.
Yeah, I just figured that you trolling choice was poor because of his legacy.
Anyway, Mart knows who he is. Why he's only seen Milk about a hundred times!
I imagine Marty fantasies he's one of those important people with significant contribution.
The answer to the question is yes..and no.
It comes down to the nature of one's character.
If one serves the community in good standing for many years and has a slip up, there may be room for leniency. If for example a well beloved police officer with 30 years of service loses his cool and punches out someones car window after being cut off, it will likely be viewed less severely than someone who is an established threat to the community.
However, in a case like R. Polanski's there can be no wiggle room. A brutal, horrendous rape that shatters the innocence and youth of a child ? No mercy.
Quote from: Barrister on September 27, 2009, 02:01:14 PM
Ethically I don't think you can justify that. How can we punish someone more harshly than someone else because they make more contributions to society?
But I think there is a real issue here - when the time between the offence and the sentencing is quite separate, do we sentence the offender as they are now, or as they were at the time?
Our office has a a similar issue on appeal. I man was charged with drunk driving, and he had a bad record for drunk driving. But he was "on the lam" for almost 10 years. By the time he was caught he had stopped drinking and become a much more productive member of society. It was generally agreed that if he had been sentenced right at the time he would have gone to jail for a considerable length of time. But should he still get a lengthy sentence now given the steps he had taken to clean himself up?
Just declined to give the sentence he would have gotten at the time. We have appealed.
In the above case I, as a bystander, would say that his efforts over the last ten years should count in his favour - in fact, it seem the fear of jail has actually served its' purpose here, as a deterrent encouraging reform.
It's a shame that it did not work until it got to the point where he would actually be sent to jail, he knew it, and he decided he had no choice but to go "on the lam" and reform.
On the other hand, where does this stop - do I excuse a heart surgeon for drink driving, but say that a factory worker should go to jail? Should I excuse the factory worker if he is supporting a family and send the heart surgeon to jail if he has no dependants?
I am glad I am not a judge, who, whatever the law says, make these judgements a lot of the time.
I am in favor of a judicial system that gives the Honored Men an easier time, since their service to the state ensure that the traditions of the Republic last and that the Senate remains powerful and able.
The people, that vile and wretched mass, must be handed draconian sentencing whenever possible, their lands taken from them, and their children made slaves.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 04:10:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 27, 2009, 02:01:14 PM
Ethically I don't think you can justify that. How can we punish someone more harshly than someone else because they make more contributions to society?
But I think there is a real issue here - when the time between the offence and the sentencing is quite separate, do we sentence the offender as they are now, or as they were at the time?
Our office has a a similar issue on appeal. I man was charged with drunk driving, and he had a bad record for drunk driving. But he was "on the lam" for almost 10 years. By the time he was caught he had stopped drinking and become a much more productive member of society. It was generally agreed that if he had been sentenced right at the time he would have gone to jail for a considerable length of time. But should he still get a lengthy sentence now given the steps he had taken to clean himself up?
Just declined to give the sentence he would have gotten at the time. We have appealed.
In the above case I, as a bystander, would say that his efforts over the last ten years should count in his favour - in fact, it seem the fear of jail has actually served its' purpose here, as a deterrent encouraging reform.
It's a shame that it did not work until it got to the point where he would actually be sent to jail, he knew it, and he decided he had no choice but to go "on the lam" and reform.
On the other hand, where does this stop - do I excuse a heart surgeon for drink driving, but say that a factory worker should go to jail? Should I excuse the factory worker if he is supporting a family and send the heart surgeon to jail if he has no dependants?
I am glad I am not a judge, who, whatever the law says, make these judgements a lot of the time.
Isn't that then an incentive to run?
Quote from: Barrister on September 27, 2009, 07:06:54 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 04:10:59 PM
In the above case I, as a bystander, would say that his efforts over the last ten years should count in his favour - in fact, it seem the fear of jail has actually served its' purpose here, as a deterrent encouraging reform.
It's a shame that it did not work until it got to the point where he would actually be sent to jail, he knew it, and he decided he had no choice but to go "on the lam" and reform.
On the other hand, where does this stop - do I excuse a heart surgeon for drink driving, but say that a factory worker should go to jail? Should I excuse the factory worker if he is supporting a family and send the heart surgeon to jail if he has no dependants?
I am glad I am not a judge, who, whatever the law says, make these judgements a lot of the time.
Isn't that then an incentive to run?
I assume you mean that the implied uncertainty of the level of punishment, if it depends on the opinion of the judge as much as on legislation, acts as the incentive to run? I haven't really noticed this in the UK where judges quite clearly use their own discretion and judgement in many cases. Our law seems to allow a judge a great deal of leeway, even if sentencing guidelines have been tightened up recently.
Yes. And Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney should have been given suspended sentences, on account of the fact that their service to society was much greater than their crime.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AHendersonmckinney.jpg&hash=877fda0f97c846a73bc1048550bf295350a70cd3)
Look at those sweet, innocent faces!
Quote from: Neil on September 27, 2009, 07:30:09 PM
Yes. And Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney should have been given suspended sentences, on account of the fact that their service to society was much greater than their crime.
Again? They helped to encourage gay activism.
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2009, 07:53:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 27, 2009, 07:30:09 PM
Yes. And Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney should have been given suspended sentences, on account of the fact that their service to society was much greater than their crime.
Again? They helped to encourage gay activism.
They killed a homosexual. That's a service to society.
Plus, gay activism helps Neil compile his proscription list.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 27, 2009, 09:30:33 PM
Plus, gay activism helps Neil compile his proscription list.
I'm honored. :blush:
Meh. I think society ought to punish offenses on their own merit without taking into account any extra factors like what the accused does for a living, has accomplished in his life or what the motives are/were.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 27, 2009, 10:19:48 PM
Meh. I think society ought to punish offenses on their own merit without taking into account any extra factors like what the accused does for a living, has accomplished in his life or what the motives are/were.
Perhaps I should elaborate. I think the point defining the line of criminal activity and punishing those who cross it is society's way of delineating what behavior is acceptable and which is not. Punishment is society's deterrent against unacceptable behavior. If certain crimes are punished differently depending on the motive or the circumstances of the life of the accused, then justice goes out the window in favor of interest.
Now, there's nothing wrong per se with a court deciding based on interest in some things, particularly civil cases where the interest of society is judged against other interests or the onterest of a victim vs that of an attacker. But in a criminal case the interest of society can very well be in opposition to justice. So interest isn't a valid way to sentence a criminal case in my mind. For example, an interest of society is to discourage racism. But if society sentences racially-motivated murder more harshly than other murders in order to promote that interest, it is placing the value of the lives of the victims of non-racially-motivated murder victims at a lower value than those of racially-motivated ones. It's unjust.
Society may have an interest in not incarcerating a very rich person because he pays a lot of money into the public coffers in taxes every year. That value may be far more than the value to society of any single person. So, should the very wealthy man be allowed to commit murder as long as his victim contributes less to society than he does? That's where it all goes in the end.
Staying with murder as the example: The message from the law should be that murder is always unacceptable. There should be no caveats. When you add in factors like a person's contribution or whatever, the message becomes "murder is always unacceptable, but it's less bad if you murder person A, B or C than if you murder person X, Y or Z." Or, "It's less bad if you murder for reasons A, B or C than if you do it for reason X".
I can't see a moral way to justify it.
Quote from: PDH on September 27, 2009, 04:47:22 PM
I am in favor of a judicial system that gives the Honored Men an easier time, since their service to the state ensure that the traditions of the Republic last and that the Senate remains powerful and able.
The people, that vile and wretched mass, must be handed draconian sentencing whenever possible, their lands taken from them, and their children made slaves.
See, I knew we will see eye-to-eye on this issue. Just as your idea to kill off the poor, this is quite reasonable.
I don't think we should let rich and famous folks buy a jail free card with their wealth and fame.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 27, 2009, 10:54:58 PM
If certain crimes are punished differently depending on the motive or the circumstances of the life of the accused, then justice goes out the window in favor of interest.
Err, I am not sure whether you were trying to say something else here, but the motive plays a fundamental role in determining both the guilt of the accused and the gravity of the crime (and thus the sentence). :huh:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 27, 2009, 10:54:58 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 27, 2009, 10:19:48 PM
Meh. I think society ought to punish offenses on their own merit without taking into account any extra factors like what the accused does for a living, has accomplished in his life or what the motives are/were.
Perhaps I should elaborate. I think the point defining the line of criminal activity and punishing those who cross it is society's way of delineating what behavior is acceptable and which is not. Punishment is society's deterrent against unacceptable behavior. If certain crimes are punished differently depending on the motive or the circumstances of the life of the accused, then justice goes out the window in favor of interest.
Now, there's nothing wrong per se with a court deciding based on interest in some things, particularly civil cases where the interest of society is judged against other interests or the onterest of a victim vs that of an attacker. But in a criminal case the interest of society can very well be in opposition to justice. So interest isn't a valid way to sentence a criminal case in my mind. For example, an interest of society is to discourage racism. But if society sentences racially-motivated murder more harshly than other murders in order to promote that interest, it is placing the value of the lives of the victims of non-racially-motivated murder victims at a lower value than those of racially-motivated ones. It's unjust.
Society may have an interest in not incarcerating a very rich person because he pays a lot of money into the public coffers in taxes every year. That value may be far more than the value to society of any single person. So, should the very wealthy man be allowed to commit murder as long as his victim contributes less to society than he does? That's where it all goes in the end.
Staying with murder as the example: The message from the law should be that murder is always unacceptable. There should be no caveats. When you add in factors like a person's contribution or whatever, the message becomes "murder is always unacceptable, but it's less bad if you murder person A, B or C than if you murder person X, Y or Z." Or, "It's less bad if you murder for reasons A, B or C than if you do it for reason X".
I can't see a moral way to justify it.
Notwithstanding your bizarre statement about motives playing no role (any lawyer will tell you that it's empathically not the case in any Western legal system), I think you missed the part where I said this reasoning would apply to only certain types of crimes, especially victimless crimes.
So arguing against it by using murder as an example is a strawman.
Quote from: Neil on September 27, 2009, 07:30:09 PM
Yes. And Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney should have been given suspended sentences, on account of the fact that their service to society was much greater than their crime.
I knew who Dan White was. I had to look these two up. :blush:
Conclusion: we need a movie.
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 02:14:13 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 27, 2009, 07:30:09 PM
Yes. And Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney should have been given suspended sentences, on account of the fact that their service to society was much greater than their crime.
I knew who Dan White was. I had to look these two up. :blush:
Conclusion: we need a movie.
About the terrible miscarriage of justice upon those two poor lads? Sure.
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 02:12:36 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 27, 2009, 10:54:58 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 27, 2009, 10:19:48 PM
Meh. I think society ought to punish offenses on their own merit without taking into account any extra factors like what the accused does for a living, has accomplished in his life or what the motives are/were.
Perhaps I should elaborate. I think the point defining the line of criminal activity and punishing those who cross it is society's way of delineating what behavior is acceptable and which is not. Punishment is society's deterrent against unacceptable behavior. If certain crimes are punished differently depending on the motive or the circumstances of the life of the accused, then justice goes out the window in favor of interest.
Now, there's nothing wrong per se with a court deciding based on interest in some things, particularly civil cases where the interest of society is judged against other interests or the onterest of a victim vs that of an attacker. But in a criminal case the interest of society can very well be in opposition to justice. So interest isn't a valid way to sentence a criminal case in my mind. For example, an interest of society is to discourage racism. But if society sentences racially-motivated murder more harshly than other murders in order to promote that interest, it is placing the value of the lives of the victims of non-racially-motivated murder victims at a lower value than those of racially-motivated ones. It's unjust.
Society may have an interest in not incarcerating a very rich person because he pays a lot of money into the public coffers in taxes every year. That value may be far more than the value to society of any single person. So, should the very wealthy man be allowed to commit murder as long as his victim contributes less to society than he does? That's where it all goes in the end.
Staying with murder as the example: The message from the law should be that murder is always unacceptable. There should be no caveats. When you add in factors like a person's contribution or whatever, the message becomes "murder is always unacceptable, but it's less bad if you murder person A, B or C than if you murder person X, Y or Z." Or, "It's less bad if you murder for reasons A, B or C than if you do it for reason X".
I can't see a moral way to justify it.
Notwithstanding your bizarre statement about motives playing no role (any lawyer will tell you that it's empathically not the case in any Western legal system), I think you missed the part where I said this reasoning would apply to only certain types of crimes, especially victimless crimes.
So arguing against it by using murder as an example is a strawman.
I think I'd categorize victimless crimes in the same category as civil suits, where none of what I posted above would really be applicable. It's when there is a victim involved that the state has to revert to a more black and white sentencing, IMO.
FYI Machiavelli seemed to be of the opinion that one-size-fits-all sentencing was the most attractive option.