Philosophical question

Post Reply New Topic

On one level I agree with you. However, I can think of a couple of problems. First, court dockets (at least in the U.S.) are already overburdened. Limiting precedent would only compound that problem. Second, there is a controversy regarding differential justice. The same offense might be punished in vastly different fashions in various jurisdictions. Your suggestion would increase that differential.

Cheers,

Mark

I'll juxtapose these to keep it clear. Well stated here. ^^ But how does it address this? vv



This is a board for aspies, I wouldn't exactly call us most people. We seem to tend to be more introspective than your typical John Doe. If there's a place for this discussion, this should be a good place. That last sentence ironically is somewhat of an outwards statement of your own internal bias. Whether that's really not good is once again a moral question.



I'm not convinced that increasing that differential is really all that bad. Injustices would inevitably occur, but they already do anyway, and there is no way to prove whether that differential would increase or decrease the rate of injustice because injustice is in the eye of the beholder. The courts are overburdened, though. My statement was not calling for an elimination of precedent, I was just suggesting that we currently use the wrong level of it, for it can be abused.

Such cases are few and far between. Pragmatically, the problem with the U.S. court system is its three-tiered system of "justice." There is justice for those who can afford the top legal representation; justice for those who just hire a lawyer; and justice for those who must rely upon court-appointed attorneys.

Regarding that last category, I tell my students a few stories which invariably leaves a few of them weeping.

Cheers,

Mark

By looking at the logical underpinnings of the system that I based these thoughts.

We are more introspective, but we are not so incredibly different from most boards. The last sentence isn't so much a statement of bias so much as a colloquial expression, the use of "good" there was not done with so much moral intention, but rather an indication that I believed that not much would result of this. I am not denying that I am biased, however, we learn our language patterns before we learn our thoughts, it is similar to how an atheist might still make references to God or a theist mention "mother earth".

If a man commits atrocities with frequency(murder or rape) that would mean that this fellow is a serial rapist/killer.
Such people belongs to category of sociopathy and psychopathy.
If a man gets amnesia,that wouldn't change his personality,just his memory.
So he will remain psychopath,but with amnesia.
Highly likely that,as such he would continue to rape and murder.

Many killers in history didn't remembered all of their victims.
But lack of memory does not imply lack of crime.

Killer with amnesia is still the same person.

But there's nothing to cover up for after the bump, right?


If indeed the bump stopped him doing anything bad, the only remaining reason for punishment would be revenge.