Three kinds of people really get my vote in a big way:

1. Those who stand up to be counted for what they believe in irrespective of the Popularity Vote - given a Logical stance on the topic in question, lunatics need not apply.

2. Those who are loyal to their friends and colleagues - in both good times and bad

3. Those who are prepared to either acknowledge they were wrong, or will unreservedly take a Hit, knowing they were wrong, when doing the two above activities.

From where I sit SpacePony scores on all three - despite my own feelings against vigilante activities.

Regards
Zy

Nor do I.

I do have sympathy with consequences being out of all proportion to the offense.

I spent 25 years in the military, my respect for, and adherence to, the Rule of Law is absolute. I also acknowledge that The Law cannot prescribe for all scenarios, we would never stop writing the case law. The Law has to be as clear cut and unambiguous as possible. The latter will never be perfect, human beings are complex beasts.

The provision for that is in sentencing and giving Judges the latitude to take into account circumstances. Many individuals are placed under suspended sentence for blowing away an unarmed intruder with the legal shotgun they had in the house. A direct parallel? Of course not, only an illustration of the principle of latitude, not insane strict adherence to the Rule of Law.

The Law in of itself is not there to dispense "justice", facilitate it for sure, but its not the principle methodology of dispensing Justice - Judges and Juries are. "Justice" is a subjective entity that depends on the moral code in vogue at the time in terms of right and wrong. The Rule of Law lays down "the rules of the game", Justice is the execution of the Rule of Law. Only Judges and Juries can do that.

Judges and Jurys are appointed by us to oversea what we consider to be morally correct, The Law cannot do that, our moral code and our sense of "Justice" is far too subjective and a moveable beast. In any case, as a crude illustration how do you describe the taste of Strawberries? You cant! In the same way, many aspects of our moral code are hard if not impossible to lay down in writing - back to the bureaucrats again..

The Law does not drive Justice, and god forbid it ever should. The Law would end up a never ending stream of bureaucratic self interest driven emotional guff. The Law is the bedrock for all decisions, not the decision itself - only a Judge and Jury can make decisions, and only a Judge and Jury can dispense Justice. It is a seemingly small but Hugely important principle, its not playing on words.

In SpacePony's case that principle is central to what happened to him. He broke the Law - as to his undying credit he has never denied - and there is no doubt some kind of sentencing for it was definitely appropriate (in my view a suspended sentence). In my view Justice was not served in his case, the consequences to him, with the sentence handed out in those particular unique circumstances, were far too high for the offense committed, and the Judge should have taken that into account. In that sense Justice was not served, and the System failed.

I hope his appeal succeeds, and sentencing changed to a reduced level. Not Guilty is not appropriate, a much reduced sentence due to the circumstances surrounding this particular case very definitely is, and should have been applied in the original Trial.

Regards
Zy

"The provision for that is in sentencing and giving Judges the latitude to take into account circumstances. Many individuals are placed under suspended sentence for blowing away an unarmed intruder with the legal shotgun they had in the house. A direct parallel? Of course not, only an illustration of the principle of latitude, not insane strict adherence to the Rule of Law."

One could also ask why such an insane case ever happened in the first place. Killing an intruder of any type should be the default action. You cannot put the onus of restraint on the victim, your nightmare scenario is already the case.

You can and must. Where does it stop? Blow someone away just because they upset your way of thinking? Blow his head off because he was drunk at the time and happened to be coming in a window because his key didnt fit the door - ie bye bye neighbor? Exterminate the latest proponent of road rage as he thumped the car door?

Extremes of course, but so is killing someone who is unarmed and provides no threat to physical life or well being. Precisely why we need Judges to give a sense of balance to the whole thing, else we would all be dealing out retribution just because we think its right. That road is the road to mayhem and anarchy, and why so many people fought for decades - centuries - to win basic freedoms.

Clearly it can be the case that an intruder raises the whole situation to a point where the occupant does genuinely feel threatened, in those cases thats where the Judge should step in, and very often do - unconditional discharge from the Case is common if the Victim can demonstrate reasons why they felt threatened, as clearly in many such cases they will.

Nonetheless, what cannot happen is for people to take the Law into their own hands without some kind of external review/judgement afterwards on their justification for such actions at the time of the event. It never works whatever emotion drives it. It just leads to individuals taking the law into their own hands whatever the law says - and the latter really is a nightmare.

Regards
Zy

I'm not certain I believe that. The only philosophy I know of that establishes that is the philosophy of revenge, not the philosophy of justice.



The reason for "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" philosophy found in many religions is to establish that the punishment should fit the crime. A punishment should not exceed the crime. This is far older than the "modern drivel" you accuse me of using.



That is the modern drivel, if there is any. The idea that there is some sort of "natural law," and that this "natural law" is more desirable than other philosophies of justice is far younger than most other philosophies of justice I am aware of.



I believe that "natural law" is perverse and ass backwards. Promotion of harmony is good, but it's not the philosophy of justice I follow either. I can guarantee I would not be harmonious in that situation either. I would be very rough in restraining the criminal and ensuring the criminal is not able to continue freely in his actions. I might even attempt to knock out the criminal if the criminal proves to be uncooperative. I would not, however, attempt vigilante justice.

No, I wouldn't be nice or harmonious to the criminal, don't get me wrong there. I'd be as brutal as necessary to restrain the criminal. But I would certainly not attempt further violence if the criminal is under control. That is not justice; that is revenge.

I'll second that "he fell down the stairs Your Honor, I didnt push him ...." - Like Hell I didnt

I agree with your thoughts though, there is going too far, and that should not happen.

Regards
Zy

You mistake punishment with reaction. If you are attacked by an unarmed man and shoot him before he strikes you, by your logic, you've murdered someone for nothing. By my logic, you avoided possible death and don't know what would have happened if you hesitated.

You might not think the cash in the register is worth killing someone over but the guy robbing the store might not think your life is worth getting caught over. Assume they are a lethal threat unless you have an excellent reason not to.

Very good point... Had not thought much about the secound thought there!

You miss my critical point, I dont claim "you've murdered someone for nothing":



I have no problem with the ultimate reaction, providing the 'victim' feels threatened and can demonstrate that in a court of law. Clearly great latitude is given to such people, as very clearly they cannot place their own life at risk. If it ends up a mistake was made, and the 'victim' felt and demonstrated they were threatened to the extent life or serious bodily harm was imminent, thats life - case dismissed, and that very often happens.

That principle is shown in "The Yellow" card carried by UK soldiers when working "in support of the civil power". The words change slightly country to country, but all have the same principle, and carry similar cards on operations in support of the civil power.

"You are authorised to open fire without warning when you feel your own life or that of people around you is threatened to the extent that your's or their life maybe in danger"

That wording was taken from the civil statute book in order to give soldiers legal standing when supporting the Police, not a "one off for soldiers". If they do open fire without warning they must be prepared to justify it if called upon to do so later - and that is absolutely right and proper. The Public would be horrified at the thought of unrestrained military on the streets when supporting the police.

It is equally clear that to do so without any kind of check and balance into the killing of unarmed people as a private citizen, can and does lead to long term mayhem, as some people will abuse that in circumstances that are utterly wrong. In the same way that there is a check and balance in place for the military, and the Police (there's always an inquiry after a killing during a Police incident), so should it be there for anyone else.

Whenever emotion drives the Rule of Law, there is mayhem, thats why we have the Judicial system - with its Warts and all - the alternative is too horrific to contemplate - it would be back to the Middle Ages again.

Regards
Zy

No one should be jailed for drug use. Ever!!!

The Defense Rests M'Lud

Regards
Zy

I believe that we need to be a litte more serious about our crimes. Drug users should be FORCED to go to rehab by the government, otherwise they will never go to it. Same with mental patients. For cases like first degree murder it should be an eye for an eye. We need to learn that human life has value, not just useless things to be discarded at your own will. Child molesters need to be taught the same lesson in values. If we don't raise punishments, then the problem will never be solved because some people simpy don't care. Ronald Regan believed in peace by strenth, and that is the way it needs to be! If not, criminals will simply disregard the justice system and continue to do what they do once let out of prison. People who deal drugs should be the ones being shot down, not the addicts. Dealing drugs is the same as dealing death. Also, the government should privately supply weed to addicts to stop the freakin' problem, because if it is found at Wal-Mart, the problem will increase. These are just my views on the problem.

Why is weed a problem?

Legislating morality for the sake of morality never works. You need to have an actual reason, and there is no reason for weed in particular to be illegal. Smoking a joint is far less dangerous than a normal cigarette, and the mind altering side effects are sloth and hunger, nothing harmful to anyone else. It's terrible logic.

It's a hallucinogen, it deteriorates motor skills, it generally has very negative effects on the mind, and can exacerbate the symptoms of many mental disorders.

It contains 20 times more ammonia, and contains five times as much hydrogen cyanide and nitrous oxides as tobacco, and contains about as many carcinogens. The effects of second hand smoke from Cannabis are totally unknown, and indeed the effects of smoking it in general are not well studied. Studies from the USA and Sweden are in conflict, with the US study claiming no direct deaths from smoking it, while the Swedish study claims increased risk of violent deaths.

Indeed, while studies show the risk of cancer deaths is not higher than tobacco deaths, they still show the risk is much higher than people who do not smoke at all. In particular, bullous lung disease, which is normally uncommon, is found in many Cannabis smokers. Habitual inhalation of any form of smoke is unhealthy.



Keep in mind not everybody wants even cigarettes to be legal. Already it is forbidden in many places, and I personally hate inhaling second hand smoke in any form. I made the personal decision to not smoke, and that includes avoiding second hand smoke. The mind altering effects of Cannabis make it even worse IMHO, and I really hate the idea that second hand smoke may mess with my mind. I did not give anybody permission to mess with my mind.

I'm sorry, this is a far cry from the laughable "no reason" argument you have presented. I believe there are plenty of reasons.

I belive that drug users should get some form of punishment, but that should be more like hard labor then jail time, they do need to go to rehab or they just keep on going to jail. Like Greenkey15 said drug dealers are the ones that need to be rehablitated. The reasons drugs are being talked about is that it drugs are one of the biggest reasons that people are in jail. A problem though is that a drug dealers income could be matched or even surpasd in prison because of the skyrocket price for drugs. Dealers usually can smuggle in drugs from source and then sell it to the gangs. One way to stop this is keep drug dealers away from the other prisoners so they could only sell to themselves.

They would probally smuggle some to the addicts put it would be harder. The only other way I see is to stop them reciving mail, vistors, packages, and other contact with the outside world. Then they would be forced on having the prison staff smuggle it in. The only problem is this would be considert a huge breach in constituinal rights.