On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 at 21:20, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 5:52 AM Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> > wrote: > > *> you don't act of your own free will if you do something accidentally, >> or you are forced,* >> > > Everybody is always subjected to force, sometimes, as when an > electromagnetic force enters your eye and prevents you from walking into a > brick wall it's a good thing because you don't want to walk into a brick > wall, and sometimes, such as when the gravitational force prevents you > from jumping over a mountain, it's a bad thing because you want to jump > over that mountain. > It's different if you say "I was forced by someone holding a gun to my head" or "I was forced by the laws of physics". > > *> There is nothing clever about this, it's the layperson's definition,* > > > Yeah, it's just saying sometimes you can will what you want to do and > sometimes you can't. I don't see why lawyers need to get involved in that > but under our legal system they certainly are. > > >>Yes, and that is why the legal system is such a ridiculous incoherent >>> mess. There could be no other outcome if something is based on pure >>> nonsense. >>> >> >> *>> The legal system might be a mess, but at least in principle it's a >> good idea not to punish people who didn't do it, did it under coercion, or >> didn't know what they were doing because they were dementing, for example.* >> > > The first question you have to ask is what is the purpose of punishing a > murderer? I think the only legitimate answer to that is to prevent a > similar murder in the future, anything more than that is not justice, it's > just vengeance; I'm no different from anybody else and sometimes I'd like a > little vengeance, but I am not proud of that reptilian part of my brain and > so I will not defend it. Therefore from a legal point of view it shouldn't > matter if somebody is a murderer because he had bad genes, or bad > upbringing, or a random cosmic ray distroyed the crucial part of his brain > that generates empathy for his fellow creatures, the important point is > regardless of the cause he remains a murderer spreading misery wherever he > goes and needs to be dealt with accordingly. The only legitimate mitigating > circumstance would be if it could be proven that the murder occurred > because of extremely unlikely circumstances that were very unlikely to be > repeated. We should assume he is likely to murder again unless proven > otherwise, and that would not be easy to prove. > Whether punishment could act as a deterrent corresponds with whether the action was done "of his own free will" as per the above definition. That is the main utility of the idea. For example, there is no point in punishing a sleepwalker who kills someone because it won't deter other sleepwalkers from doing the same thing. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypUsZ7U-0cHrJ9%3DtVO_mBOXutYOGdwCP6WKJaB2djq6M3Q%40mail.gmail.com.
