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.

This is becoming less true with mandatory sentencing, so I'm guessing you're opposed to that recent fad?

To some extent, yes. I think there's a problem when the rules tell a judge that their assessment isn't good enough, that somebody looking at the "big picture" has a better idea of what justice is than a person looking at a specific case.

I'm far from a legal expert. I suspect that on average, things are pretty consistent and fairly run... But I still get an impression that we spend too much time pretending to be objective, and it's simply not reflective of the reality on the ground.

As such it is a useful addition to a court system to have one level in which you can be judged by people drawn from the general population.

I agree, that's why I'd suggest a reduction in the extent of the attorneys' ability to select the jury. As you point out, though, very little actually goes to trial, and some that does goes to a trial by judges. So it's not like the jury trial is really the central function of the legal system. It's actually pretty minor.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

RustyKnight wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:It is kind of like prisoners getting vaccines etc .

It's kind of like criminals getting medical care at all...

Hell, we should just take them out behind the shed and shoot them.

Exactly, thank you!

This.

Wrexasaur wrote:It is a complicated issue and a tough sell to people that have already decided they would take great offense if 'required' to opt-out. I am not sure what the problems really are, besides checking a single box on a form for records. Privacy maybe, not sure I can even understand why one guy who didn't actually get a transplant, would call for pretty crappy system to be left in place.

A lack of active refusal is not the same as legitimate consent, morally or legally. An opt-out system effectively weakens your ownership of your own body, which I do not feel is acceptable. It also rewards poor record-keeping in the health system rather than punishing it, which may encourage an unethical hospital to "misplace" a non-consent form.

Personally, I feel that the problems that could arise are not sufficient to deny outright, the possibility for an opt-out system. There are bound to be problems with any system, and there may be explicit legal reasons why it would be iffy to have opt-out in the first place.

The chance that a hospital may do something unethical, while faced with serious legal action for doing so, is not significant enough to be a substantial argument against opt-out. With the possibility to save many, many lives, you really need a very convincing premise to consider it a bad idea altogether, and the main reason I can see, would be the wave of legal action against the very thought of opt-out.

I understand that complete control over your remains after death, is very important for some people. Those who have convictions of that manner, can opt-out. You could argue in terms of theoretical problems that MAY arise on a large scale, but the fact remains that opt-out would save an awful lot of people from painful and prolonged death.

Wrexasaur wrote:I had a family member die under similar circumstances, though it wasn't in such a harsh manner as Relapse' experience. I also know a couple of other people that are waiting on the list, and living rather uncomfortable lifestyles without their needs addressed. None of this leads me to conclude that mass opinion should have any direct say over who gets that assistance, and that is awesome. I would not have wanted my family member to face even more bureaucracy, in the hope that their chances could have possibly been increased because one dude who did bad things then tried to kill himself got a liver before them.

That's a really good argument. I hadn't considered it from that point of view, and know I can see how the argument to prioritise donations to 'better' citizens is even more dubious.

The guy from the article didn't even get the transplant, and it was ONE DUDE. I don't get it.

This is the internet and we are nerds, so among nerds there is a common undercurrent of wanting to a more cruel government. Nerds are the people that took the Judge Dredd satire seriously, afterall. Now there's people saying in all honesty that criminals shouldn't get medical care.

It is very strange.

If it matters, I would certainly support opt-out. The amount of good a system like that could do is really quite amazing. I assume you meant opt-out, not opt-in.

Whoops, I meant opt-out.

RustyKnight wrote:What did you all have to do to become donors? All I had to do was say "yes" when I was getting my driver's license.

It's the same here. Now, what about the people who don't have a driver's license? Stats in the US around 10% of people at the legal driving age don't have licenses, and this is likely understated (some states have more licenses than people of driving age due to expired or deceased people still being on the system). In heavily urbanised states like New York its down around 75%. Imagine adding all those people to the list of potential donors.

Phryxis wrote:To some extent, yes. I think there's a problem when the rules tell a judge that their assessment isn't good enough, that somebody looking at the "big picture" has a better idea of what justice is than a person looking at a specific case.

Sure, but there are minimum and maximum terms for crimes that can temper a judge's opinion. This is quite different to saying 'if you get caught a third time for minor theft we will put you in prison for ten years, regardless of whether you were stealing a $10,000 worth of jewellery or shoplifting a packet of twinkies'.

I'm far from a legal expert. I suspect that on average, things are pretty consistent and fairly run... But I still get an impression that we spend too much time pretending to be objective, and it's simply not reflective of the reality on the ground.

I'm not sure there's all that much effort put into being objective, to be honest.

I agree, that's why I'd suggest a reduction in the extent of the attorneys' ability to select the jury. As you point out, though, very little actually goes to trial, and some that does goes to a trial by judges. So it's not like the jury trial is really the central function of the legal system. It's actually pretty minor.

It is fairly minor, but fairly important in some areas. A lot of social progress has been made by juries reflecting the general consensus on - in the UK public decency laws were very strictly interpreted by

I do agree that jury selection needs improvement, though. Like yourself, I've read in the US the system works to encourage cerrtain types onto juries (rather than just filter out the crazies), and I know in Australia the rules that allow someone to be exempted are so loose that only an idiot would fail to get exempted - and the result is juries full of idiots.

AlexHolker wrote:A lack of active refusal is not the same as legitimate consent, morally or legally. An opt-out system effectively weakens your ownership of your own body, which I do not feel is acceptable. It also rewards poor record-keeping in the health system rather than punishing it, which may encourage an unethical hospital to "misplace" a non-consent form.

Right now there is a very real situation where people die while in need of organs, while people die in accidents wholly indifferent to the fate of their organs, but who never became organ donors because it never occurred to them they might die in an accident.

That seems a considerably more likely and considerably more tragic event than the idea that a hospital might 'lose' a record in order to unethically use a person's organs. Especially when you consider the hospital itself wouldn't actually be keeping the records.

sebster wrote:That's a really good argument. I hadn't considered it from that point of view, and know I can see how the argument to prioritise donations to 'better' citizens is even more dubious.

I would be lying if I said that I wanted this guy specifically to get a transplant, but I am certainly happy that I don't have control over who does get transplants. Everyone wants the help first, obviously, and denying certain individuals access to advanced medical care, would more than likely have all sorts of extra craziness attached. I can't even begin to imagine what a transplant list would look like if the general populous gained control over it. I can only imagine it being scary.

This is the internet and we are nerds, so among nerds there is a common undercurrent of wanting to a more cruel government. Nerds are the people that took the Judge Dredd satire seriously, afterall.

Judge Dredd was a patriot and an upstanding citizen.

Now there's people saying in all honesty that criminals shouldn't get medical care.

It is very strange.

It really depends on what type of care we are talking about.




There are also good arguments for limiting healthcare for inmates substantially. It pisses me off that good people are going without, where convicts are cared for. Again, my opinion nor the majority has enough sense to put anything together that would work. It is a divisive issue, but talking about limiting vaccines and other very cost effective health care, is a rather crappy idea. Talking about whether a criminal who was convicted for raping and murdering children should receive thousands upon thousands of dollars of advanced healthcare, is an entirely different story. I don't know how all of that would work, but the rising costs will hopefully spark some kind of solution.

I feel that being jailed for years at a time, for petty crimes, is punishment enough in itself. Where the most expensive care should be avoided, basic care is no less than an assumption. Vaccines save lives of staff just as much as inmates. They do have to interact, there is really no way around it. It would be interesting to know how prisons deal with problems like AIDS/HIV, or if they actually have any way of doing anything about it.

Prisoners shouldn't get cadillac health care IMO, but they absolutely require basic coverage. Just so we are clear a liver transplant is not a matter of cost, rather one of limited supply. If anything, I would not be surprised if a transplant in this case would save a great deal of money for the prison, even if it is not the only consideration. People will hopefully never see the day where inmates are treated like dogs. Scum some of them may be, but they are certainly still human.

I agree it is bull he should be in a prison rotting or hooked to a chair not getting his life saved. It is like commuting Jason to the er and making the victims wait.