News for nerds, stuff that matters
Sections
About
Services
Slashdot Log In
Morosoph (693565)
Morosoph
(email not shown publicly)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/
My Amigos [slashdot.org]. Your Amigos [slashdot.org]. Everyone [slashdot.org]!
(email not shown publicly)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/
My Amigos [slashdot.org]. Your Amigos [slashdot.org]. Everyone [slashdot.org]!
Public Key [slashdot.org].
-- Thomas Jefferson.He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
+2 to Offtopic [slashdot.org].
The Problem of Law
Thursday September 11 2003, @08:37AM
A constant theme of Slashdot is what's going on through the courts, but the more we see coming through, the more we see just how crude the law is. Adrian Lamo seems to be clearly deserving of sympathy, but with the law comes, it seems, a crude association of a bad deed with punishment which is sometimes (as with this case) misapplied, or applied in an attempt to mirror The Laws of Physics, without realising that doing more harm cannot correct harm.
Why is it that so many apparently intelligent people do not decompose "justice" into its constituent parts? Punishment always comes after the act: that is, it is applied too late to do any good. This kind of Essentialist thinking is far too prevelent; we need to be more sceptical! Whilst I understand that punishment is meant to deter, people do not act as if they're going to get caught. One's values and simple mutual exchange keep the rest of us out of trouble; what is the cost in side-effects of deterence? An act can be done towards a higher end than that envisaged when framing the law controlling it. That the act is less likely to be engaged in when it is optimal with respect to one's values is a cost, although perhaps not sufficient to countermand the law in itself.
I am no longer an anarchist, as I used to be, but it amazes me how much people worship the law, without realising what a messy compromise it all is.
Why is it that so many apparently intelligent people do not decompose "justice" into its constituent parts? Punishment always comes after the act: that is, it is applied too late to do any good. This kind of Essentialist thinking is far too prevelent; we need to be more sceptical! Whilst I understand that punishment is meant to deter, people do not act as if they're going to get caught. One's values and simple mutual exchange keep the rest of us out of trouble; what is the cost in side-effects of deterence? An act can be done towards a higher end than that envisaged when framing the law controlling it. That the act is less likely to be engaged in when it is optimal with respect to one's values is a cost, although perhaps not sufficient to countermand the law in itself.
I am no longer an anarchist, as I used to be, but it amazes me how much people worship the law, without realising what a messy compromise it all is.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
wiggle room (Score:1)
Re:wiggle room (Score:1)
It just seems to me that Judges all too often apply their unworldly wisdom; this is really an argument for re-examining the process of law and getting it as good as possible. I suppose that this is the purpose of my journal entry: I'm really asking what kind of justice is right?, followin
Re:wiggle room (Score:1)
I suppose that I never quite managed full-blooded anarchism, but it has alway
Re:wiggle room (Score:1)
I could very well be wrong, but I suspect that money is less concentrated now than it was in the past. The landed aristocracy of Europe, the UK, and to a much lesser degree, early agrarian North American colonies and states, probably controlled a much higher percentage of wealth than any corporate interest can today. They also had complete control of the "justice" system. Further, the peasants of that time had no free press to use in an e
Re:wiggle room (Score:1)
I think that there is a problem in that corporations aggragate resources, rather than centralise them as such, and general faith in corporations amoungst conservatives makes the going difficult for your typical plaintiff with an insufficiency of cash.
But yes, maybe it is better; we hear horror stories that wouldn't have seen the light of day before.
Pr
Re:wiggle room (Score:1)
I tend to think of conservatives as having not so much faith in corporations, per se, but faith in the enlightened self-interest of corporations. The corps are looking out for themselves, but that includes, thanks to pervasive media, keeping a good public image. If they treat employees, customers, or the environment too badly (and fail to hide it well), it reflects poorly on their public image, and customers will switch business to one of
Re:wiggle room (Score:1)
That's a libertarian. Conservatives believe in natural law as far as I can tell. That is: that which is must be there for a (good) reason. Some more intelligent people call themselves conservative, but they're pretenders IMO (I know: no true Scotsman fallacy).
I think that you are in fact projecting decent, moderate views upon them. I do this all of the t
Re:wiggle room (Score:1)
I don't know if a real Left is going to exist in a country where things, on the whole, are as good as they are in the US. I think a country has to have more serious problems than we do in order to generate the desire for radical change that gives strength to a leftist (or far rightist) movement.
I us
Re:wiggle room (Score:1)
Far left and far right both scare me shitless.
Re:wiggle room (Score:1)
Not that there is any effective difference. I'm a firm believer in the circular nature of politics. What was the real difference between good old Uncle Joe on the far left and Herr Goosestep on the far right?
Re:wiggle room (Score:1)