tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (02/18/85)
First of all, I want to say that this group has rapidly turned nearly as verbose, idiotic, and unreadable as net.politics, which I unsubscribed to a year ago. Could people try to minimize dogmatic harangues, and to express themselves concisely? Thank you. Now. I am not a Libertarian. I am not a Capitalist. Nor am I a Socialist, Communist, or any other "-ist" you care to throw at me. I think all economic systems that exist are bullshit because they fail to measure the success of an economy by the ONE THING THAT REALLY MATTERS: the standard of living of those under the system. They all go on and on about how our system (unlike the evil Brand X) accomplishes this or that philosophical objective of dubious value. What a waste. The hard case referred to in the subject is this. Does a starving (or sick) person without financial resources have the right to steal the food (or medicine) that will sustain his or her life? If so, how can this be made into law, so that we don't toss the "thief" into prison for an ethically appropriate act? If not, then why does the right of property take precedence over the right to live? I feel the implications of either answer are far-reaching, and I cannot claim to have grasped them all myself. What do the rest of you think? -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (02/19/85)
>The hard case referred to in the subject is this. Does a starving (or sick) >person without financial resources have the right to steal the food (or >medicine) that will sustain his or her life? >Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center Yes. The operative word here is steal. If I am really so bad off that I must steal to live, then I steal. If I am caught, I still deserve a reasonable punishment for stealing; but I'm still alive--ahead of the game. I had better be damn sure that I don't do something in the process of stealing that is "worth my life"; threaten someone with deadly force, for example. I would then have no moral grounds whatsoever (I don't believe you have a right to kill (innocent people) to survive). No system of morals can be correct if it requires someone to be merely a means for someone else's ends. Thus we cannot allow the starving thief to live off people without reprisal (as in a Socialist system). Neither can we do the reverse--we cannot kill the thief merely for stealing. The punishment must fit the crime. Thus if you are in a need more desperate than the punishment, justice is still served. --JoSH
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (02/19/85)
Josh, when I explicitly include questions on the consequences of the answers, I wish you would neither delete them from your quote nor ignore them entirely. I repeat, how can this right be written into law so as to avoid unjust imprisonment of those who exercise it? -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (02/20/85)
>Josh, when I explicitly include questions on the consequences of the >answers, I wish you would neither delete them from your quote nor ignore >them entirely. I repeat, how can this right be written into law so as to >avoid unjust imprisonment of those who exercise it? >Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center It can't. --JoSH
jlg@lanl.ARPA (02/20/85)
> I had better be damn sure that I don't do something in the process of > stealing that is "worth my life"; threaten someone with deadly force, > for example. I would then have no moral grounds whatsoever (I don't > believe you have a right to kill (innocent people) to survive). Is someone 'innocent' if he is refusing you the food you need to survive? It seems to me that any force used to prevent the starving thief from getting food is potentially lethal force. Is the thief justified in using lethal force in response to this? I don't know the answer to this. I prefer a society which tries to prevent stavation to the point of theft, even if this society has to remove wealth from people involuntarily to do it. After all, an orderly taxation system is at least more peaceful than midnight confrontations between starving thieves and property holders. Besides, the starving thief doesn't steal from the rich, but only from those people that can't afford a security system. J. Giles
reza@ihuxb.UUCP (Reza Taheri) (02/21/85)
> > >Josh, when I explicitly include questions on the consequences of the > >answers, I wish you would neither delete them from your quote nor ignore > >them entirely. I repeat, how can this right be written into law so as to > >avoid unjust imprisonment of those who exercise it? > > >Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center > > It can't. > > --JoSH Before I begin let me tell you that I am not trying to glorify any particular religion or convert anybody. Islam, the religion that is, punishes a thief by cutting his finger or arm, as some of you might have seen on TV (:-)). The catch is that it has to be proven that the "thief" didn't have to steal to stay alive or feed his starving, near death child, etc. You don't punish one who has to steal to avoid starvation, but you make dam nsure that the punishment is so hard that nobody dares abusing the law. H. Reza Taheri ...!ihnp4!ihuxb!reza (312)-979-7473
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (02/22/85)
There is a basic problem with the traditional notion of ``crime and punishment''. From the time of Hammurabi and the cuniforms we have been told that having the punishments for a given crime written down where all (who could read) could read them was a good idea, since it limited the power of the judges who could pass any sentence for any crime. I think that this was the wrong fix. What we need is a better way to select judges. When it comes to ``the thief stealing bread'' we have 2 questions -- was a crime committed, and what do we do about it. There is no question that the crime was comitted, so we should find the thief guilty. *BUT* now what? It may be that the best thing to do is to sentence this person to show up at the local Salvation Army organisation, where he can be fed, and receive help in looking for work. Since this requires real wisdom on the part of judges, this is always going to be a difficult job. However, it may be that one corner of the problem is that, by and large, it is the lawyers who become the judges. The very personality traits which make for a great criminal lawyer may not be the ones that make for a great judge. I am not sure what should be used to select for judges, though -- how does one select for a good Rabbi, I wonder. Anybody have any proposed reforms of the Canadian or American justice system? I have one -- as a first cut, stop imprisoning anyone except for those who have committed violent crime and are considered a menace. Imprisonment is a stupid form of punishment -- an imprisoned man can not compensate his victims *anything* while in jail. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
jlg@lanl.ARPA (02/26/85)
> Anybody have any proposed reforms of the Canadian or American justice > system? I have one -- as a first cut, stop imprisoning anyone except > for those who have committed violent crime and are considered a > menace. Imprisonment is a stupid form of punishment -- an imprisoned > man can not compensate his victims *anything* while in jail. > > Laura Creighton > utzoo!laura This has, in effect, already happened in many large American cities. With the prisons so overcrowded, many judges can only sentence the most dangerous criminals to prison. A judge on 'The Constitution: That Delicate Balance' on PBS last week said that he would, as a rule, only give prison sentences to offenders in violent crime cases - all others got suspended sentences with parole. Of course, no law now requires criminals to compensate their victims directly in any way. J. Giles