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 :)
Thursday, 27 June 2013
What is meant by intent?
According to the Google Dictionary, "intent" means "intention". When a dictionary describes a word using the word itself, you know it's something that is going to have a variety of interpretations.
So, "intention," apparently it's the "act of intending." Wow. Enlightening. I'll have a look at the alternative definition, let's see... "an aim or a plan." Now at least I have something to work with - if when committing a crime, you have an aim or a plan, that suggests pre-meditation; so if there is no pre-meditation, can there still be intent?
I think so. Intent is all about wanting to do something. So, I walk into the kitchen, see an apple, cross the room "intending to eat it" and then eat it. Not much pre-meditation occurred, but I cannot honestly say that I didn't not want to eat the apple. In which case, I might argue that intention is about not being forced to do something: it might have been a spur of the moment decision - eating the apple - but I did it, and even if I regret it, I cannot say that it wasn't a conscious choice.
But when the lines of choice become blurred, when there is pressure involved, a hard decision where you have to pick between two things - choose the lesser of two evils, as it were - does the choice to commit a crime still have intent if you didn't necessarily want to do it? In the same vein, does intention count when the intention is not to commit the crime, but to benefit from the result? And why does committing that crime matter if it hurts nobody but yourself and somebody else who consents? I've probably talked about it before on this blog, but my favourite case to discuss when taking this line of attack is of a man and a woman who, in favour of getting a tattoo, shaped a metal coat-hanger into each others' initials, and branded it into each others' skin. They intended to do it; they didn't want to hurt each other, but they mutually benefitted from the mark of love left behind by the 'abuse.' So, if accused of abuse, what is their defence? That they wanted to show their love for each other? Many abusers and abuse victims might argue the same, but in this case they were acquitted. Why is that? Because there was no enjoyment or pleasure in the actual hurting of one another, and if there was, it would be an entirely different issue. In the same way that the self-defence plea is used, the person did not derive any pleasure or benefit beyond the immediate protection of their life.
So, clearly, to me at least, intention is more than simply wanting to do something. Intention can be present even if no pleasure was derived from committing the act - so the full interpretation of what intention is about includes the intricate reasoning behind why a person chose to do something. Yes, yes I did it, because...
And thus concludes this post, comments appreciated :)
So, "intention," apparently it's the "act of intending." Wow. Enlightening. I'll have a look at the alternative definition, let's see... "an aim or a plan." Now at least I have something to work with - if when committing a crime, you have an aim or a plan, that suggests pre-meditation; so if there is no pre-meditation, can there still be intent?
I think so. Intent is all about wanting to do something. So, I walk into the kitchen, see an apple, cross the room "intending to eat it" and then eat it. Not much pre-meditation occurred, but I cannot honestly say that I didn't not want to eat the apple. In which case, I might argue that intention is about not being forced to do something: it might have been a spur of the moment decision - eating the apple - but I did it, and even if I regret it, I cannot say that it wasn't a conscious choice.
But when the lines of choice become blurred, when there is pressure involved, a hard decision where you have to pick between two things - choose the lesser of two evils, as it were - does the choice to commit a crime still have intent if you didn't necessarily want to do it? In the same vein, does intention count when the intention is not to commit the crime, but to benefit from the result? And why does committing that crime matter if it hurts nobody but yourself and somebody else who consents? I've probably talked about it before on this blog, but my favourite case to discuss when taking this line of attack is of a man and a woman who, in favour of getting a tattoo, shaped a metal coat-hanger into each others' initials, and branded it into each others' skin. They intended to do it; they didn't want to hurt each other, but they mutually benefitted from the mark of love left behind by the 'abuse.' So, if accused of abuse, what is their defence? That they wanted to show their love for each other? Many abusers and abuse victims might argue the same, but in this case they were acquitted. Why is that? Because there was no enjoyment or pleasure in the actual hurting of one another, and if there was, it would be an entirely different issue. In the same way that the self-defence plea is used, the person did not derive any pleasure or benefit beyond the immediate protection of their life.
So, clearly, to me at least, intention is more than simply wanting to do something. Intention can be present even if no pleasure was derived from committing the act - so the full interpretation of what intention is about includes the intricate reasoning behind why a person chose to do something. Yes, yes I did it, because...
And thus concludes this post, comments appreciated :)
Monday, 24 June 2013
GCHQ Data-Tapping
Before you read this, I'm just going to say that I'm going to play Devil's Advocate - meaning that I'm arguing a point of view that isn't necessarily my own. If you agree or don't agree with what I'm writing here, I'd really welcome comments explaining your reasoning in the nature of an honest debate (abusive comments will be deleted if I can work out how to do that).
If you've got nothing to hide, why would you mind about who's reading what you're writing or listening to what you're saying? GCHQ might be a branch of the "corrupt and obviously untrustworthy" Government, but weren't they trying to protect us?
We're protected by a freedom of speech, so in all fairness we can say whatever we like publicly, and we can't be prosecuted for it (as long as we're not being racist, sexist, terrorist, homophobic, etc). And I really doubt that the government cares that you're texting your mum about the fact you need more shampoo - what they care about is if your next door neighbour is planning a terrorist attack on a nearby primary school.
In this case, you could probably call yourself collateral damage - yes, it's a shame that the government has been looking through your dubious internet history, but if - as a result of doing this to everybody - they catch a few would-be-mass-murderers, then I can't see why there should be a massive problem.
Public opinion is that this is something that is inherently wrong, and that the government has no right to access the personal data that they have been - but I'd argue in this case that if you're doing something that somebody bound by confidentiality shouldn't see, you probably shouldn't be doing it. You can be outraged all you like about the Government sticking their noses into your business, but it was perfectly legal when it was done, and it was done in the public interest.
Like I said, please comment with your thoughts and ideas about the issue below - thanks for reading!
If you've got nothing to hide, why would you mind about who's reading what you're writing or listening to what you're saying? GCHQ might be a branch of the "corrupt and obviously untrustworthy" Government, but weren't they trying to protect us?
.jpg)
We're protected by a freedom of speech, so in all fairness we can say whatever we like publicly, and we can't be prosecuted for it (as long as we're not being racist, sexist, terrorist, homophobic, etc). And I really doubt that the government cares that you're texting your mum about the fact you need more shampoo - what they care about is if your next door neighbour is planning a terrorist attack on a nearby primary school.
In this case, you could probably call yourself collateral damage - yes, it's a shame that the government has been looking through your dubious internet history, but if - as a result of doing this to everybody - they catch a few would-be-mass-murderers, then I can't see why there should be a massive problem.
Public opinion is that this is something that is inherently wrong, and that the government has no right to access the personal data that they have been - but I'd argue in this case that if you're doing something that somebody bound by confidentiality shouldn't see, you probably shouldn't be doing it. You can be outraged all you like about the Government sticking their noses into your business, but it was perfectly legal when it was done, and it was done in the public interest.
Like I said, please comment with your thoughts and ideas about the issue below - thanks for reading!
Saturday, 22 June 2013
Intentions vs Actions (Extended Project)
I've had my first meeting with my Extended Project Supervisor, and I went in with about 7 potential titles for my project - and now I have a really good idea of exactly what I'm going to write about.
The focus is going to be whether the intention that a person has when committing a crime should make them exempt from the consequences of that action, and what factors might be taken into consideration with sentencing. For me, it's an endlessly fascinating subject, and I really like the idea of being able to explore issues such as the manslaughter and murder debate, and also perhaps even look into whether the punishment ever really fits the crime.
Something else that I'd really like to explore, perhaps not as the major focus, but instead as a factor, is the Euthanasia debate. This is particularly poignant as the Tony Nicklinson case particularly caught my intention when it broke out in the news over the past three or so years, and it had been something that I was following as it progressed.
Personally, I think that Euthanasia, particularly "assisted suicide," is not an inherently bad idea, but something that I question is whether it would ever be able to implemented in society without some vulnerable people being put in danger. Not something for my essay perhaps, but it would be particularly interesting to explore what safe-guards and systems could be put in place to protect the greater society.
The main distinction that I'm going to have to make is what exactly "intention" means. I question whether pre-meditation should be taken into account, and whether perhaps some cases of pre-meditated murder may also be classed as self-defence, and whether killing a person may sometimes be the better of two evils (e.g. Euthanasia). There are even some cases where I want to explore whether the law has a right to interfere if people do not want or feel that they need protecting each other: this is particularly poignant in cases of sado-masochism, etc.
Similarly, the "anti-spanking movement" and the legislation which means that parents can no longer physically punish their children, families not only have a Right to Family Life, but - at least I found from when I was growing up - it was actually quite a good way of keeping me in line. I don't think I'm any less of a person, any more repressed than anyone else, and I think in some cases I literally gave my parents no other choice. But like I said, that's just my case - and I wouldn't presume to say that all children are safe from their parents - but I would perhaps argue that a blanket ban is not the answer. And besides, looking at my extended project title, the line between spanking children for punishment and abuse is that the intention is a loving one - parents want their children to learn from their mistakes, and be the best they can be. Perhaps this would take up some part of my Project, but I'll need to do a bit more research into the specific law.
Feel free to comment, in fact I encourage it - thank you for reading :)
The focus is going to be whether the intention that a person has when committing a crime should make them exempt from the consequences of that action, and what factors might be taken into consideration with sentencing. For me, it's an endlessly fascinating subject, and I really like the idea of being able to explore issues such as the manslaughter and murder debate, and also perhaps even look into whether the punishment ever really fits the crime.
Something else that I'd really like to explore, perhaps not as the major focus, but instead as a factor, is the Euthanasia debate. This is particularly poignant as the Tony Nicklinson case particularly caught my intention when it broke out in the news over the past three or so years, and it had been something that I was following as it progressed.
Personally, I think that Euthanasia, particularly "assisted suicide," is not an inherently bad idea, but something that I question is whether it would ever be able to implemented in society without some vulnerable people being put in danger. Not something for my essay perhaps, but it would be particularly interesting to explore what safe-guards and systems could be put in place to protect the greater society.
The main distinction that I'm going to have to make is what exactly "intention" means. I question whether pre-meditation should be taken into account, and whether perhaps some cases of pre-meditated murder may also be classed as self-defence, and whether killing a person may sometimes be the better of two evils (e.g. Euthanasia). There are even some cases where I want to explore whether the law has a right to interfere if people do not want or feel that they need protecting each other: this is particularly poignant in cases of sado-masochism, etc.
Similarly, the "anti-spanking movement" and the legislation which means that parents can no longer physically punish their children, families not only have a Right to Family Life, but - at least I found from when I was growing up - it was actually quite a good way of keeping me in line. I don't think I'm any less of a person, any more repressed than anyone else, and I think in some cases I literally gave my parents no other choice. But like I said, that's just my case - and I wouldn't presume to say that all children are safe from their parents - but I would perhaps argue that a blanket ban is not the answer. And besides, looking at my extended project title, the line between spanking children for punishment and abuse is that the intention is a loving one - parents want their children to learn from their mistakes, and be the best they can be. Perhaps this would take up some part of my Project, but I'll need to do a bit more research into the specific law.
Feel free to comment, in fact I encourage it - thank you for reading :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)