Nostr Web Client

If it is believed that he won't do it again, he is let out. This has happened in the US. It happens more frequently in some European countries. I'm not saying we should copy them. This is what happens. Its reality. And no, I don't want to live in a country where the state murders people, even if those people have committed murder. Is this too nuanced? This is bizarre...

mister_monster 11mo ago

So you don't think a murderer, particularly a one time murderer who you're sure will never murder again, should face any punishment?

Let's frame it this way: the dad in the video, hes done "assaulting" the guy on the bicycle. Why should he go to prison? The threat is neutralized, hes not going to keep attacking him...

The guy on the bicycle, how do you ensure he won't continue to be negligent without the lesson he was taught in the video? Maybe he should go in front of a jury and have his legs broken so he can't ride bicycles anymore? How would you handle that? Not punishment, right, so how do you teach someone that negligence is dangerous to others? I'm sure someone has told him somewhere that fact, obviously he didn't internalize it.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Comte de Sats Germain 11mo ago

You can make all these arguments in a court. I'm saying he should face the court. That was assault. It doesn't matter if you think it was justified. Tell the court that.

mister_monster 11mo ago

Why a court? Does a court have more of a right to enact retribution than the father of the kid? If the court doesn't have the right to enact retribution either, why should he face a court at all in the first place? I don't want to make these arguments in court, I want to understand exactly hwrte youre coming from because right now I just don't see a coherent moral framework here.

And I have a side question, why should I face a court just because I agree with the guy? Why shouldn't I, say, sit on the jury?

Comte de Sats Germain 11mo ago

A jury is supposed to be randomly selected. There's a chance you would sit on the jury, or someone who agrees with you.

It has to be a court because a society where people do violence when they feel like it is just a violent society, or more like a warlord situation. That exists in plenty of places - you can pick from Somalia (great name for wines), or Afghanistan (taliban gasolina, best gasolina), South Sudan, parts of Central America... You have options.

Comte de Sats Germain 11mo ago

Well, the discussion seems to have petered out. I just want to recognize the fact that no one called each other names (unless batman counts, my bad), and I like that. Thanks for that.

mister_monster 11mo ago

Batman and buffoon lol but I also called myself a buffoon.

Yeah I dunno. You don't want it to be acceptable to just hurt people. But there's a difference between just hurting people and hurting people justly in response to wrongdoing. I view negligence as wrongdoing.

I think justice is defined as making things right, and that sometimes that involves retaliation. And on that front, justice to me is measured and reasoned retaliation, and not defined by who perpetrates it. A jury of your peers is a lynch mob. It's no better than the person wronged retaliating, except that the person wronged knows with 100% certainty that you wronged them.

There is a subset of people in this world that would harm you if they knew you wouldn't retaliate. I agree with you that those people need to be removed from the environment. I disagree with you that caging them is the way to do that. But you can't get them all, and so sometimes they harm people, and they must fear consequences for that.

Comte de Sats Germain 11mo ago

Well we agree on pretty much everything then! Just not the minor detail of the guy in the video. Oh well. ☕

mister_monster 11mo ago

Wait, you think retaliation can be just?