Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Green Git wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:In an individual case that may be true, however the justice system has to consider society as a whole.

I fail to see how considering each and every individual case would somehow leave "society as a whole" out of consideration. By definition if you take care of the individual cases equally, you get society as a whole in the process.

What normally happens in the US and British criminal justice systems is that each case (of rape, robbery, battery, etc) is taken on its merits, and a sentence is handed down within recommended limits for the general type of crime.

By this method the needs of society as a whole and the needs of individual cases are both taken into account.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The hate crime laws are trying to express the concept that people who are more prone to be attacked should have greater protection.

The corollary to this is that increased punishment (for hate crimes) decreases the incidence of (hate crime) violence.

If so, why not increase punishment for all crimes, thereby reducing the incidence of all violence?

If a particular social group, let's say women, is 20% more likely to be attacked than the population as a whole, then decreasing all attacks equally on everyone by 50%, still leaves them more likely to be attacked. I have invented these numbers merely to illustrate the mathematical argument.

The only way around this would be to increase all punishments to the level where no-one ever attacks anyone. I don't think history supports the argument that such a course would work in practice.

Kilkrazy wrote:You seem to arguing for the same penalty for all crimes regardless of circumstances. That is hardly individual justice.

What exactly do you mean by "individual justice"?

i saw this vid and was shocked that people could be heard laughing,this wasn't a one on one (a square go as we call it)
this was two people(colour irrelevant) going to town on a helpless victim who wasn't fighting back.whether you can call it a hate crime is irrelevant to me this was a sustained violent attack.the perpetrators should be charged for the violence.

They should go to jail, but stil it was a "Man" trying to get into the ladies room. Trans gender gets tricky at the public bathroom level.

sexiest_hero wrote:They should go to jail, but stil it was a "Man" trying to get into the ladies room. Trans gender gets tricky at the public bathroom level.

Last I saw, picking the wrong john wasn't a capital murder offense.

could be heard laughing,this wasn't a one on one (a square go as we call it)

One thing I learned in Cali, there's no such thing as a "fair fight." There's an attack you win (and survive) and an attack you don't.

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The hate crime laws are trying to express the concept that people who are more prone to be attacked should have greater protection.

The corollary to this is that increased punishment (for hate crimes) decreases the incidence of (hate crime) violence.

If so, why not increase punishment for all crimes, thereby reducing the incidence of all violence?

If a particular social group, let's say women, is 20% more likely to be attacked than the population as a whole, then decreasing all attacks equally on everyone by 50%, still leaves them more likely to be attacked. I have invented these numbers merely to illustrate the mathematical argument.

The only way around this would be to increase all punishments to the level where no-one ever attacks anyone. I don't think history supports the argument that such a course would work in practice.

But decreasing attacks on everyone would decrease the number of attacks by 50%, while best-case scenario for hate-crime legislation is decreasing the number of attacks by 20%.

Is it OK to permit a higher level of violence as long as that violence is racially/sexually/religiously proportionate?

Kilkrazy wrote:I think my reply to The Green Git shows that I don't consider there needs to be a division between justice for the individual and justice for society.

Fair enough. The term "justice" tends to be thrown around pretty haphazardly as rhetoric without any real definition.

Walk into a woman's bathroom and see if you don't get murdered by Purse smacking and angry spouses

Yeah every fight ends up to the death, as it should.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The hate crime laws are trying to express the concept that people who are more prone to be attacked should have greater protection.

The corollary to this is that increased punishment (for hate crimes) decreases the incidence of (hate crime) violence.

If so, why not increase punishment for all crimes, thereby reducing the incidence of all violence?

If a particular social group, let's say women, is 20% more likely to be attacked than the population as a whole, then decreasing all attacks equally on everyone by 50%, still leaves them more likely to be attacked. I have invented these numbers merely to illustrate the mathematical argument.

The only way around this would be to increase all punishments to the level where no-one ever attacks anyone. I don't think history supports the argument that such a course would work in practice.

But decreasing attacks on everyone would decrease the number of attacks by 50%, while best-case scenario for hate-crime legislation is decreasing the number of attacks by 20%.

Is it OK to permit a higher level of violence as long as that violence is racially/sexually/religiously proportionate?

I'm not clear as to your meaning.

Society doesn't permit violence. It is something that happens because we haven't found a good way to stop it. All society can do is to discourage it.

sexiest_hero wrote:Walk into a woman's bathroom and see if you don't get murdered by Purse smacking and angry spouses

Yeah every fight ends up to the death, as it should.

Are you just trolling or on drugs? The person was having seizures when olod lady #1 managed to stop the fight.

If someone says they hate me and then punches me, I would think that would be a hate crime too.

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm not clear as to your meaning.

Society doesn't permit violence. It is something that happens because we haven't found a good way to stop it. All society can do is to discourage it.

Here's your example:

If a particular social group, let's say women, is 20% more likely to be attacked than the population as a whole, then decreasing all attacks equally on everyone by 50%, still leaves them more likely to be attacked. I have invented these numbers merely to illustrate the mathematical argument.

There are two options that have been proposed in this thread:
1) pass hate crime legislation, increasing penalties for hate crimes against women.
2) increase criminal sentencing, increasing penalties for all crimes.

If you pass #1, what is the best case scenario? If all hate violence against women stops, then we have decreased crime by 20%.

In your example, #2 reduces all violence by 50% (still leaving hate-crimes against women as 1 in every 5 victims).

From a societal standpoint, is it better to (1) reduce violence towards a specific group, thereby stopping hate crimes; or (2) reduce violence across the board, thereby preventing the most harm? If society chooses option 1 and excludes option 2, then they are making the decision that preventing hate crimes is a better goal than reducing violence.

Please let me know if I have misinterpreted your example.

As a further point, if increasing penalties only reduces crime by 50% (even hate crimes), then the proposed hate crime legislation would be empirically worse than the across-the-board cuts.

No change: 100 victims of crime, 20 victims from hate crimes. (20%)
Option 1: Reduce hate crimes by 50%: 90 victims of crime, 10 are from hate crimes. (11%)
Option 2: Reduce all crime by 50%: 50 victims of crime, 10 are from hate crimes. (20%)

There's no practical (law enforcement) benefit to Option 1. You have the same number of special-interest victims, but a higher pool of non-special interest victims.

edit: Mathematically, for all positive, non-zero A and B and P<1: P(A+B) < A + P(B)
edit2: changes in red.

Your math is off, and your premises flawed.

If women are 20% more likely to be victims of violent crime (hypotherical number), and women comprise 50% of the population, then attacks on women represent roughly 60% of violent crime. If legislation reduces attacks on women by x percentage, that is a significant reduction in the overall rate of violent crime as well.

The thesis that an across-the-board increase in severity of punishment for crimes would reduce the crime rate is also not granted.

-----------

Side note: I'd never seen Monster Rain so badly misconstrue something before. Wow. That was practically "all dogs are Collies" bad.

Mannahnin wrote:Your math is off, and your premises flawed.

I understood KK's point to be that the 'extra' 20% was due to hate crimes. I will amend my post to make it more clear (the last bit got jumbled).

Mannahnin wrote:If women are 20% more likely to be victims of violent crime (hypotherical number), and women comprise 50% of the population, then attacks on women represent roughly 60% of violent crime. If legislation reduces attacks on women by x percentage, that is a significant reduction in the overall rate of violent crime as well.

Significant, but not better than reducing attacks across the board.

Mannahnin wrote:The thesis that an across-the-board increase in severity of punishment for crimes would reduce the crime rate is also not granted.

Take it up with Kilkrazy, it was his example.

No, that's not accurate.

Mannahnin wrote:No, that's not accurate.

Given the lack of further information regarding specific supposed "inaccuracies," yes, it is.

You're going to have to come up with more than "nuh uh."

That's not the thesis he was putting forward.

Mannahnin wrote:
Side note: I'd never seen Monster Rain so badly misconstrue something before. Wow. That was practically "all dogs are Collies" bad.

Break it down for me then.

Where did I go wrong?

Mannahnin wrote:That's not the thesis he was putting forward.

You're right. His thesis appears to be: by reducing hate crimes, we reduce the percentage of hate crimes. By reducing all crime, we don't reduce the percentage of hate crimes. This thesis was based on an assumption of facts.

I took those assumptions and showed how his thesis was flawed.

Monster Rain wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:
Side note: I'd never seen Monster Rain so badly misconstrue something before. Wow. That was practically "all dogs are Collies" bad.

Break it down for me then.

Where did I go wrong?

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:In an individual case that may be true, however the justice system has to consider society as a whole.

-
Society shouldn't be concerned with individual justice? Interesting... I really couldn't disagree more.

That's a combination Strawman/False Dichotomy maneuver. KK didn't say or imply that society shouldn't be concerned with individual justice. Your interpreting his words that way is only possible if you presuppose that society can't be concerned BOTH with individual justice and with greater societal social impacts, which I think is taking that line badly out of context, and reading his words in the worst possible light. As usual, KK's position is a bit more nuanced.

The justice system is clearly founded on individual justice. The exact circumstances and motive of each crime are weighed as a matter of course. But some sentencing laws and guidelines are aimed at achieving certain effects on a larger, societal level. Whether three strikes laws, laws which give stiffer penalties for violent crimes committed with a firearm, or hate crimes.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:That's not the thesis he was putting forward.

You're right. His thesis appears to be: by reducing hate crimes, we reduce the percentage of hate crimes. By reducing all crime, we don't reduce the percentage of hate crimes. This thesis was based on an assumption of facts.

I took those assumptions and showed how his thesis was flawed.

First, he didn't make a statement of fact about how successful hate crimes laws are. He's usually a bit more conservative than that. He merely explained the reasoning behind them.

Secondly, he questioned the thesis that increasing the severity of criminal punishments across the board would necessarily be successful. As he put it, in theory one might try to increase the punishment for crimes to the level that the crime rate drops to zero. But history seems to demonstrate that this doesn't actually work.

Okay...

I'm not just being argumentative here, and I wasn't trying to cast any aspersions on kk( maybe we should take a breath?) but it still seems to me that making decisions that are unjust for any individual for the perceived greater good of society would mean that you value one of those things over the other. I'm not saying this makes anyone an donkey-cave, I just happen to disagree. I genuinely don't see it as a false dichotomy, since at a certain level thinking in terms of what is best for a society vs. What is best for an individual is mutually exclusive.

Within the justice system the standard assumption is individual justice, with extenuating circumstances and motive accorded important consideration. Witness the difference between Manslaughter and Premeditated Homicide. That being said, there are quite a lot of laws out there which are designed to ALSO achieve greater societal goals. I mentioned three of them. That's the nature of our justice system. KK was just explaining it.

I get that there's a difference between manslaughter and premeditated homicide.

Perhaps I was imprecise in my wording, but I'm not saying that the the punishments for all violent crimes should be the same. I'm saying that say, for example, the punishment for aggravated assault should be the same for everyone who commits it, regardless of the motive. And please, make the punishment as harsh as you would for these hate crimes.

But then your disagreement is not with KK, it's with some fundamental assumptions underpinning the justice system. In reality, and in justice, motive matters.

I enjoy these viral videos to some extent. They make it onto every major forum and almost every thread is different. On most of the Concealed Carry Weapon forums the discussion has mostly been based on if Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy all exist.

Ability: Disparity of force is present as the "fight" is unfair. Any reasonable person can deduce that one of the participants (in this case, a group) could kill or permanently damage the victim even though no deadly weapon is present.

Opportunity: The assailants are actively participating in the assault.

Jeopardy: Again, due to the active assault, jeopardy is imminent.

If the three parameters above meet the Reasonable Person standard, deadly force is justified. 939.48 - ANNOT.
A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a 3rd-person or one's self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other. Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F. 2d 79 (1975).

Th law differs but in my state it defines great bodily harm as bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death, serious permanent disfigurement, or a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or other serious bodily injury.


Now that's a sticky situation it's borderline until she starts seizing or they try to drag her out of the building. At that point anyone with a CCW permit could have shot the pair of them. There was effectively a kidnapping and great bodily harm. The general consensus has been most permit holders would have stayed out of it until that point. You don't fire warning shots and you don't involve yourself in a scrap while carrying.

Vandil wrote:I enjoy these viral videos to some extent. They make it onto every major forum and almost every thread is different. On most of the Concealed Carry Weapon forums the discussion has mostly been based on if Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy all exist.

Ability: Disparity of force is present as the "fight" is unfair. Any reasonable person can deduce that one of the participants (in this case, a group) could kill or permanently damage the victim even though no deadly weapon is present.

Opportunity: The assailants are actively participating in the assault.

Jeopardy: Again, due to the active assault, jeopardy is imminent.

If the three parameters above meet the Reasonable Person standard, deadly force is justified. 939.48 - ANNOT.
A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a 3rd-person or one's self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other. Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F. 2d 79 (1975).

Th law differs but in my state it defines great bodily harm as bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death, serious permanent disfigurement, or a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or other serious bodily injury.


Now that's a sticky situation it's borderline until she starts seizing or they try to drag her out of the building. At that point anyone with a CCW permit could have shot the pair of them. There was effectively a kidnapping and great bodily harm. The general consensus has been most permit holders would have stayed out of it until that point. You don't fire warning shots and you don't involve yourself in a scrap while carrying.

Oh wow Vendril just proffered a self defense argument for defense of the victim. Excellent.
INteresting. You're not under a legal duty to intervene. Are you under a moral duty to intervene?
If so, how far do you go in that intervention (again morally)? When is it morally justified to whip out the full auto weiner dogs? When is it morally ok NOT to whip out the full auto weiner dogs?



Frazzled answer. Once she's down and getting wailed on I think I'm acting, and I think I'm doing it before I realize it. This is based on previous behavior on my part (which has gotten me hurt I'll add).

Frazzled wrote:If so, how far do you go in that intervention (again morally)? When is it morally justified to whip out the full auto weiner dogs? When is it morally ok NOT to whip out the full auto weiner dogs?

Also, I prefer the "effectuating an arrest" argument. So much cleaner, and you don't have to get into any of the moral arguments.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If so, how far do you go in that intervention (again morally)? When is it morally justified to whip out the full auto weiner dogs? When is it morally ok NOT to whip out the full auto weiner dogs?

Also, I prefer the "effectuating an arrest" argument. So much cleaner, and you don't have to get into any of the moral arguments.

You stole my pic!

Frazzled wrote:

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If so, how far do you go in that intervention (again morally)? When is it morally justified to whip out the full auto weiner dogs? When is it morally ok NOT to whip out the full auto weiner dogs?

Also, I prefer the "effectuating an arrest" argument. So much cleaner, and you don't have to get into any of the moral arguments.

You stole my pic!

You can have this one. It's a Surface-to-air dachshund.
image broke :(

That is very sensible. Pulling a gun often accelerates the violence to a deadly level very quickly.

IMO the fight could have been broken up with a bucket of cold water.

Kilkrazy wrote:That is very sensible. Pulling a gun often accelerates the violence to a deadly level very quickly.

IMO the fight could have been broken up with a bucket of cold water.

The only reason a gun should be drawn is if the situation is already deadly\grievous. Loosing a firearm from a retention holster in a general melee with the intention of brandishing it is not a good idea even if it is legal (Utah, Montana, etc). I would have just stood over the victim and left the gun in it's holster on my hip. Neither one of those ladies looked willing to go through someone certainly not someone like myself. The repeatedly came back at the victim only because no one was willing to stand in their way with the exception of one old lady.

Keep your pimp hand strong!

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If so, how far do you go in that intervention (again morally)? When is it morally justified to whip out the full auto weiner dogs? When is it morally ok NOT to whip out the full auto weiner dogs?

Also, I prefer the "effectuating an arrest" argument. So much cleaner, and you don't have to get into any of the moral arguments.

You stole my pic!

You can have this one. It's a Surface-to-air dachshund.

Will have to wait until this weekend as the pic is blocked but AS rocket weiners will be a welcome addition to our combined dachshund offensive forces!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:That is very sensible. Pulling a gun often accelerates the violence to a deadly level very quickly.

IMO the fight could have been broken up with a bucket of cold water.

Unless they turn around and shoot you of course for throwing water on them. A chicka friend of mine from back in the day would have stabbed you about 20 times. Thats my girl!
FBI stats denote 2.5mm crimes a year stopped with brandishing. But not to go off topic. Besides we're talking full auto weiner dogs here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vandil wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:That is very sensible. Pulling a gun often accelerates the violence to a deadly level very quickly.

IMO the fight could have been broken up with a bucket of cold water.

Keep your pimp hand strong!