On 2/8/2012 7:45 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> If it were completely dependent though, there would no experience of
decision at all.
I don't understand why people insist on infusing great mystery and significance and
resort to mystical crap like "free floating glow" to explain the commonplace observation
that you don't know what the result of a calculation will be until you've finished the
calculation and you don't know what you will decide to do until you have decided to do it.
> This is why US law
And there is no better place to seek answers to existential questions than to
ask a lawyer.
> includes a continuum of possibilities of intention, like premeditated
murder,
second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter,
criminally
negligent manslaughter, and not guilty.
And that's why US criminal law makes absolutely no sense. You are not responsible for
your crime, that is to say you should not be punished, if you did the crime because you
had bad genes or because you had bad potty training when you were a baby, or because of
random circumstances and were just unlucky; so you should not be punished if you did it
for a reason or if you did it for no reason, and yet US laws nevertheless finds millions
of people worthy of punishment. Idiotic!
You think it's idiotic to provide different punishment for killing someone in a fight as
compared to killing them in a plan to collect insurance? I don't see that your rant
against considering mitigating backgrounds has anything to do with the categories of crime
Craig listed. None of them depend on potty training.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
