Blackstone's ratio is hardly a new concept. Protecting innocent individuals is a cornerstone of Western jurisprudence (including Australian law, I might add, much of which is historically derived from British common law). Though William Blackstone's textual stipulation refers to a 10:1 ratio, Benjamin Franklin expanded it to 100:1 in a letter to Benjamin Vaughan dated March 1785.
Nevertheless, any reasonably intelligent and morally upright individual should've come to the conclusion that criminal justice and civil liberties shouldn't be reduced to a math problem; the number (whatever the precise number is), serves merely as a figure of speech to illustrate where the law's priorities should lie.
Unfortunately, that point flew over RedThornx's head, who in this CuckTears post described me and a few dozen others as an "idiot" and derided many others as "scum" who need an "ass-kicking".
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/hp7dy6/so_yeah_what_to_say_about_this_experiment_20/
Why did I make my post about rapists? The answer is simple: it is good philosophical practice to consider the consequences of your policy prescriptions. So I decided to type out the following statements and apply Franklin's formulation to various crimes:
A: "It is better that 100 guilty jaywalkers escape punishment, than that one innocent person be wrongly accused of jaywalking and punished. "
B: "It is better that 100 guilty tax evaders escape punishment, than that one innocent person be wrongly accused of tax evasion and punished. "
C: "It is better that 100 guilty rapists escape punishment, than that one innocent person be wrongly accused of rape and punished."
A and B are by and large uncontroversial. By substituting "jaywalking" or "tax evasion" with a more heinous crime (as in C), and by forcing one to consider the negative implications of their beliefs (i.e. a hundred rapists going unpunished), I can expose whether one has a genuine ideological commitment to the presumption of innocence and due process -- in this context, the evidentiary burden required of the state to deprive an individual of his or her liberties. In this U.S., this is known as "beyond a reasonable doubt".
And it looks like I've succeeded. Let me take the opportunity to respond to a few other comments while I'm at it.
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/hp7dy6/so_yeah_what_to_say_about_this_experiment_20/fxng5si?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x
icecat763 seems to believe that there is merit in the presumption of guilt -- he or she can find comfort with the knowledge that his or her beliefs are widely shared by authoritarian figures along the lines of Otto von Bismarck and Pol Pot. A society where the state has no burden to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant is quite frankly incompatible with democratic norms and the rule of law. Ironic because such tough-on-crime propositions would increase crime in the long run.
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/hp7dy6/so_yeah_what_to_say_about_this_experiment_20/fxnkxm1?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x
I set up a controversial voting system so my post would precipitate a lively discussion. Looks like it worked.
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/hp7dy6/so_yeah_what_to_say_about_this_experiment_20/fxn96ut?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x
Sweaty, I think you seriously misunderstand the distinction between "morals" and "ethics". There is no "objectively truthful and fair ethical standpoint" where you can justify depriving anyone of their human rights.
Interesting comparison to the trolley problem, though. Well, I'd respond to this with John Rawls' "veil of ignorance" argument in A Theory of Justice; if you don't know your exact position on the tracks, a just system would rationally result in the "Maximin Criterion". How exactly would you feel if you were the one innocent person being imprisoned, supposedly for utilitarian reasons?
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/hp7dy6/so_yeah_what_to_say_about_this_experiment_20/fxoqfdt?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x
Yet another straw man.
Nevertheless, any reasonably intelligent and morally upright individual should've come to the conclusion that criminal justice and civil liberties shouldn't be reduced to a math problem; the number (whatever the precise number is), serves merely as a figure of speech to illustrate where the law's priorities should lie.
Unfortunately, that point flew over RedThornx's head, who in this CuckTears post described me and a few dozen others as an "idiot" and derided many others as "scum" who need an "ass-kicking".
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/hp7dy6/so_yeah_what_to_say_about_this_experiment_20/
Why did I make my post about rapists? The answer is simple: it is good philosophical practice to consider the consequences of your policy prescriptions. So I decided to type out the following statements and apply Franklin's formulation to various crimes:
A: "It is better that 100 guilty jaywalkers escape punishment, than that one innocent person be wrongly accused of jaywalking and punished. "
B: "It is better that 100 guilty tax evaders escape punishment, than that one innocent person be wrongly accused of tax evasion and punished. "
C: "It is better that 100 guilty rapists escape punishment, than that one innocent person be wrongly accused of rape and punished."
A and B are by and large uncontroversial. By substituting "jaywalking" or "tax evasion" with a more heinous crime (as in C), and by forcing one to consider the negative implications of their beliefs (i.e. a hundred rapists going unpunished), I can expose whether one has a genuine ideological commitment to the presumption of innocence and due process -- in this context, the evidentiary burden required of the state to deprive an individual of his or her liberties. In this U.S., this is known as "beyond a reasonable doubt".
And it looks like I've succeeded. Let me take the opportunity to respond to a few other comments while I'm at it.
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/hp7dy6/so_yeah_what_to_say_about_this_experiment_20/fxng5si?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x
icecat763 seems to believe that there is merit in the presumption of guilt -- he or she can find comfort with the knowledge that his or her beliefs are widely shared by authoritarian figures along the lines of Otto von Bismarck and Pol Pot. A society where the state has no burden to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant is quite frankly incompatible with democratic norms and the rule of law. Ironic because such tough-on-crime propositions would increase crime in the long run.
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/hp7dy6/so_yeah_what_to_say_about_this_experiment_20/fxnkxm1?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x
I set up a controversial voting system so my post would precipitate a lively discussion. Looks like it worked.
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/hp7dy6/so_yeah_what_to_say_about_this_experiment_20/fxn96ut?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x
Sweaty, I think you seriously misunderstand the distinction between "morals" and "ethics". There is no "objectively truthful and fair ethical standpoint" where you can justify depriving anyone of their human rights.
Interesting comparison to the trolley problem, though. Well, I'd respond to this with John Rawls' "veil of ignorance" argument in A Theory of Justice; if you don't know your exact position on the tracks, a just system would rationally result in the "Maximin Criterion". How exactly would you feel if you were the one innocent person being imprisoned, supposedly for utilitarian reasons?
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/hp7dy6/so_yeah_what_to_say_about_this_experiment_20/fxoqfdt?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x
Yet another straw man.
Last edited:
