Hello Readers!
I'm powering along with my extended project and have created a short 5 question survey to gain some feedback about how far people think that intentions matter in varying situations.
You can find it here! >> http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GMJW97D
Please give me a hand and lend me 5 minutes of your time - if you'd be so kind.
Tuesday 30 July 2013
Tuesday 16 July 2013
"I'd rather kill myself"
This is just a quick one, as I'm mid-Extended-Project at the moment.
I heard on the news this morning that a man is appealing against his extradition to America by saying that he'd "rather kill himself than be extradited." It's ridiculous. If everyone could get out of things by threatening suicide, then we'd have murderers running rampant in the streets. Nobody would pay taxes, because they'd "rather kill themselves."
"I'd rather kill myself than go to school."
"I'd rather kill myself than tidy my room."
"I'd rather kill myself than not win the lottery."
If we all got what we wanted by threatening to kill ourselves, then we'd all be very rich, very lazy, and very spoiled. Lock him up with nothing to kill himself with, and then there'll be nothing to worry about. A precedent cannot be set that says that if a criminal starts making threats against their own life, they'd receive a lesser sentence.
I heard on the news this morning that a man is appealing against his extradition to America by saying that he'd "rather kill himself than be extradited." It's ridiculous. If everyone could get out of things by threatening suicide, then we'd have murderers running rampant in the streets. Nobody would pay taxes, because they'd "rather kill themselves."
"I'd rather kill myself than go to school."
"I'd rather kill myself than tidy my room."
"I'd rather kill myself than not win the lottery."
If we all got what we wanted by threatening to kill ourselves, then we'd all be very rich, very lazy, and very spoiled. Lock him up with nothing to kill himself with, and then there'll be nothing to worry about. A precedent cannot be set that says that if a criminal starts making threats against their own life, they'd receive a lesser sentence.
Saturday 13 July 2013
The Life Sentence
With the "whole-life" sentences being questioned in the news at the moment, I was actually quite shocked to read that only 50 people in the whole of the British prison system actually have these whole-life sentences. It's probably because I'm a little sceptical about the nature of human beings, I'm unconvinced that people are intrinsically good - and I'm blatantly surprised that it's a mere 50 people that have committed crimes worthy of this whole-life sentence.
This week (if you've been under a rock and haven't seen it in the news), three men who have been given this sentence have made appeals to the European Court of Human Rights, that the sentence they've been given is "inhumane and degrading."
Let's take Jeremy Bamber. He killed 5 people to gain his sentence of "at least 25 years" - his two step-parents, his sister and her two 6 year old sons. The next appellant is Peter Moore, in the early 1990s, Mr Moore killed 4 men, reportedly "for fun." The final man (at least mentioned by the newspapers) was Douglas Vinter who was sentenced to a life sentence for killing his work mate and then killed his wife upon his release.
Personally, I would rather that these people were never released. The British penal system has three strands:
(1) Rehabilitation and Reform
(2) Protection of Society
(3) Punishment
If these men are 'beyond reform' - as I'd argue, at the very least, Douglas Vinter is (after all, the life sentence didn't do much to reform him last time, did it?) then there shouldn't be any opportunity for release. For me, release without reform is, frankly, irresponsible and too much of a risk to society. By this, I'm not saying that the penal system is good in every case, for petty crimes, there are often better options than prison - as community service often has a better track record with keeping criminals from reoffending than locking them up (where they can interact and learn from worse criminals...) What I'm saying, is that it is in the best interest of society to keep them where they cannot cause further harm.
But apparently, the European Court of Human Rights doesn't agree with me. Or, at least, that's the view that many newspapers are portraying. What the ECtHR have said is that there should be an opportunity for review, and that this does not have to lead to release. So, nobody is telling us that they have to be released. What they're saying is, that without the incentive to reform, they won't - which is true - and that the only incentive to reform when given an indefinite sentence, is the opportunity for release. I don't know how many hoops they'd have to jump through to gain their release, but I can't imagine the British government would make it easy for them. And besides, despite my incredulity, there are only 50 people that this would apply to. In theory, I'm happy with them getting the opportunity to appeal their sentence every once in a while, but somehow I question whether I'd be as happy if I thought they'd actually succeed...
So, should there be an appeals system? Does "good-behaviour" in prison really matter if they might be faking reform just for release? Do you, even, believe that it would be cheaper, easier and more humane to bring back the death penalty? Your thoughts are very welcome :)
This week (if you've been under a rock and haven't seen it in the news), three men who have been given this sentence have made appeals to the European Court of Human Rights, that the sentence they've been given is "inhumane and degrading."
Let's take Jeremy Bamber. He killed 5 people to gain his sentence of "at least 25 years" - his two step-parents, his sister and her two 6 year old sons. The next appellant is Peter Moore, in the early 1990s, Mr Moore killed 4 men, reportedly "for fun." The final man (at least mentioned by the newspapers) was Douglas Vinter who was sentenced to a life sentence for killing his work mate and then killed his wife upon his release.
Personally, I would rather that these people were never released. The British penal system has three strands:
(1) Rehabilitation and Reform
(2) Protection of Society
(3) Punishment
If these men are 'beyond reform' - as I'd argue, at the very least, Douglas Vinter is (after all, the life sentence didn't do much to reform him last time, did it?) then there shouldn't be any opportunity for release. For me, release without reform is, frankly, irresponsible and too much of a risk to society. By this, I'm not saying that the penal system is good in every case, for petty crimes, there are often better options than prison - as community service often has a better track record with keeping criminals from reoffending than locking them up (where they can interact and learn from worse criminals...) What I'm saying, is that it is in the best interest of society to keep them where they cannot cause further harm.
But apparently, the European Court of Human Rights doesn't agree with me. Or, at least, that's the view that many newspapers are portraying. What the ECtHR have said is that there should be an opportunity for review, and that this does not have to lead to release. So, nobody is telling us that they have to be released. What they're saying is, that without the incentive to reform, they won't - which is true - and that the only incentive to reform when given an indefinite sentence, is the opportunity for release. I don't know how many hoops they'd have to jump through to gain their release, but I can't imagine the British government would make it easy for them. And besides, despite my incredulity, there are only 50 people that this would apply to. In theory, I'm happy with them getting the opportunity to appeal their sentence every once in a while, but somehow I question whether I'd be as happy if I thought they'd actually succeed...
So, should there be an appeals system? Does "good-behaviour" in prison really matter if they might be faking reform just for release? Do you, even, believe that it would be cheaper, easier and more humane to bring back the death penalty? Your thoughts are very welcome :)
Thursday 11 July 2013
What is Consent?
Definition Round Three! So, consent, Google dictionary says "Permission for something to happen or agreement to do something."
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. There are a whole plethora of complications when it comes to the application of consent, and sometimes although you "actually" consent, you "legally" do not. The example I'm going to use for this is the example that was used at the Cambridge Open Day in the Law sample lecture.
I have £1, and you need to borrow it from me. I know that you always play the lottery on a Friday (and in this hypothetical situation, it is Friday) and I also know that you left your wallet at home. I can gather that you're ashamed that you're playing the lottery with my money, so I'm still happy to give you my pound coin even though you told me that you needed to buy a birthday card for your mum. I feel that I'm consenting to you using my money to buy the lottery ticket, even though you're currently lying to me. In fact, by giving you the £1 despite knowing that you're lying, I'm making you a thief - as there was an attempt to mislead me, and I was "cheated" out of my money.
In fact, I'd be doing you more of a favour if I randomly gifted you my money. The premise of borrowing makes matters even worse. It would be seen as stealing if you didn't give me that exact pound coin back, as the law doesn't allow for exchange of similar or equivalent property. The intrinsic value of the money is superfluous, as I had specific ownership over that exact £1, and the law would expect for me to receive it back.
This makes sense, if you think about it. If you were to lend me your car, and I brought back a different car of the same value, you wouldn't be too happy, would you? (Let's presume this is a particularly unattractive car). So, for the law to protect your rights over your property, it has to count for the small things as well as the big things.
And even then, when does consent count in the first place? You might consent to me chopping your arm off for no reason, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to be prosecuted for it. There is some area where the law protects us from things that we may have given consent to. This idea is about a paternalistic government is condemned by those of a liberalist standpoint, as the restriction of freedom should be avoided in all circumstances. This would mean then, that the condemnation of sado-masochistic activities would be seen as wrong, although by mainly liberalists.
Despite this, consent is still questioned or challenged in court every day. Yes, the old man with dementia did give "consent" to the blonde money-grabber to empty his bank account - but should that have been allowed to happen? Consent only matters if it was informed and non-destructive, I can gather - but should the government ever have a right to interfere in your choices, or claim that you were incapable of making them?
Your thoughts please :)
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. There are a whole plethora of complications when it comes to the application of consent, and sometimes although you "actually" consent, you "legally" do not. The example I'm going to use for this is the example that was used at the Cambridge Open Day in the Law sample lecture.
I have £1, and you need to borrow it from me. I know that you always play the lottery on a Friday (and in this hypothetical situation, it is Friday) and I also know that you left your wallet at home. I can gather that you're ashamed that you're playing the lottery with my money, so I'm still happy to give you my pound coin even though you told me that you needed to buy a birthday card for your mum. I feel that I'm consenting to you using my money to buy the lottery ticket, even though you're currently lying to me. In fact, by giving you the £1 despite knowing that you're lying, I'm making you a thief - as there was an attempt to mislead me, and I was "cheated" out of my money.
In fact, I'd be doing you more of a favour if I randomly gifted you my money. The premise of borrowing makes matters even worse. It would be seen as stealing if you didn't give me that exact pound coin back, as the law doesn't allow for exchange of similar or equivalent property. The intrinsic value of the money is superfluous, as I had specific ownership over that exact £1, and the law would expect for me to receive it back.
This makes sense, if you think about it. If you were to lend me your car, and I brought back a different car of the same value, you wouldn't be too happy, would you? (Let's presume this is a particularly unattractive car). So, for the law to protect your rights over your property, it has to count for the small things as well as the big things.
And even then, when does consent count in the first place? You might consent to me chopping your arm off for no reason, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to be prosecuted for it. There is some area where the law protects us from things that we may have given consent to. This idea is about a paternalistic government is condemned by those of a liberalist standpoint, as the restriction of freedom should be avoided in all circumstances. This would mean then, that the condemnation of sado-masochistic activities would be seen as wrong, although by mainly liberalists.
Despite this, consent is still questioned or challenged in court every day. Yes, the old man with dementia did give "consent" to the blonde money-grabber to empty his bank account - but should that have been allowed to happen? Consent only matters if it was informed and non-destructive, I can gather - but should the government ever have a right to interfere in your choices, or claim that you were incapable of making them?
Your thoughts please :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)