jtfanclub Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Seriously, what is your point, that since some guilty people go free it is irrelevant that more guilty people go free? The system is designed so that as much as it can stupid mistakes may cause people guilty people to free, but they will never allow innocent people to be imprisoned. Therefore, just because someone is fallible is a good reason for them to be unable to declare that someone should be imprisoned, but it is not a good reason for them to be unable to declare that someone should be set free. What, I have to put this in math terms or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Seriously, what is your point, that since some guilty people go free it is irrelevant that more guilty people go free? The system is designed so that as much as it can stupid mistakes may cause people guilty people to free, but they will never allow innocent people to be imprisoned. Therefore, just because someone is fallible is a good reason for them to be unable to declare that someone should be imprisoned, but it is not a good reason for them to be unable to declare that someone should be set free. What, I have to put this in math terms or something? Sorry, I didn't realize "the system" is my god, judge, religion, world view, and moral compass, and that any reason to do something that goes against "the system" must not be a good reason. I must be in the matrix or something. Btw I also notice you don't say the system wouldn't like to reduce stupid mistakes, only that they must go in one direction as often as possible. I would enjoy seeing you put it in math terms, then I could prove to you that you're wrong instead of simply laughing about it to myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Not even then. The Pope is only infallible when he's ex cathedra, which in effect means that he's infallible when he says he's infallible. Papal infallibility is a fairly recent concept, although it has since been applied retroactively. Because Rome endured the dark ages, the Roman church diverged from the original Christian church in ways unacceptable to Orthodox christians. The main sticking point is the Roman church changing the original Christian doctrine of the Trinity by inserting the filioque into the Nicene creed. (Protestant churches, too, perpetuate this historical error.) The pope was originally "first among equals" of the Christian bishops because of the political importance of Rome at the time. But the concept of papal infallibility would have been ridiculous to the original Christians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 I would enjoy seeing you put it in math terms, then I could prove to you that you're wrong instead of simply laughing about it to myself. Um, sure. If you're attempting to show A+B<C, and A and B are ranges, there is a good argument for using the largest value in the range for A and B. There is no good argument for using the smallest value. Our system is based on "innocent until proven guilty".This principle is violated by a fallible person imprisoning people arbitrarily.This principle is not violated by a fallible person freeing people arbitrarily. That's why the President shouldn't be allowed to declare people enemy combatants and avoid the justice system, but the President can be allowed to pardon people without violating these rules. Fallibility means that a person could, in theory, make a mistake. If you think that pardons are a bad idea because the President has a miniscule chance of being wrong, that just goes against our whole idea of justice. If you want to throw out the whole equation, and start with a whole new justice system, then let's see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Our system is based on "innocent until proven guilty". This principle is violated by a fallible person imprisoning people arbitrarily.This principle is not violated by a fallible person freeing people arbitrarily. I don't know that that's quite accurate; that's one way of construing it, but the system is also "based on" the notion that guilty people should be punished. It just so happens that there are extensive safeguards to attempt to be sure that people are not wrongly convicted, but that doesn't make "innocent until proven guilty" the be all, end all as far "THE basis for our system." The principle that guilty people should be punished IS violated by a fallible person freeing people arbitrarily. As is the principle that people are equal in the eyes of the law - yet another principle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Our system is based on "innocent until proven guilty". Awesome. That helps show why the infallibility of anyone is a good reason that one person shouldn't be able to pardon a convict who has already been proven guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted February 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 "A pardon is the forgiveness of a crime and the penalty associated with it. It is granted by a head of state, such as a monarch or president, or by a competent church authority" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon I always viewed the pardon as more of an act of Grace.....undeserved forgiveness. Not as an act of Justice. For me, I am very happy, indeed proud, our Founding Fathers gave the Executive such a broad power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 The holocaust-denying bishop is investigating whether or not he should recant: Bishop Will Read Up On Auschwitz, But May Not Recant And if that were not trouble enough, some liberal nit-pickers are objecting to some of his other statements also: In one letter from 2001, addressed to his “friends and benefactors” in Canada, Bishop Williamson came down firmly against college education for women, arguing that “women going to university is part of the whole massive onslaught on God’s Nature which characterizes our times,” and concluding: “True universities are for ideas, ideas are not for true girls, so true universities are not for true girls.” In the same letter the Bishop also asserted that for women, wearing trousers was another violation against nature and should be discouraged.Note the careful use of logic in the bishop's argument. On the other hand, there is some good news for catholics also: Indulgences Return,and Heaven Moves a Step Closer for Catholics In recent months, dioceses around the world have been offering Catholics a spiritual benefit that fell out of favor decades ago — the indulgence, a sort of amnesty from punishment in the afterlife — and reminding them of the church’s clout in mitigating the wages of sin.Lutherans are not eligible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 I am in the market for a writ of absolution - slightly used OK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peachy Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Some extra information to put things in perspective. 1) Inciting hatred against a minority group is a violation of Dutch Law. This is a direct consequence of what happened when in 1933 our neighbors democratically elected a government. Don't wish to be a devil's advocate here, but the wording must have suffered in translation from Dutch, or maybe the text is not complete and only relevant part was quoted. Implication I get is, that inciting hatred against a majority group is not a violation of Dutch Law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Some extra information to put things in perspective. 1) Inciting hatred against a minority group is a violation of Dutch Law. This is a direct consequence of what happened when in 1933 our neighbors democratically elected a government. Don't wish to be a devil's advocate here, but the wording must have suffered in translation from Dutch, or maybe the text is not complete and only relevant part was quoted. Implication I get is, that inciting hatred against a majority group is not a violation of Dutch Law.That is pretty much correct. The reason for this is that the majority can protect itself against a minority by way of the democratic process. (They can simply outvote the minority.) The minority can't do that. This is part of the checks and balances in most modern Western European democracies. Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 In a separate development, Geert Wilders was invited by the Brittish House of Lords to show his movie Fitna and participate in a discussion. In response, the British government decided that Geert Wilders is not permitted to enter the country. The Dutch government and parlement have protested this decision. They claim that a member of parlement should be allowed to do his job, which includes explaining his point of view in other parlements. Obviously, Geert Wilders is taking the plane to Heathrow anyway today (BD 104, to be precise :D). So it is expected that Geert Wilders will be an illegal alien by this afternoon. Can politics get more ironic than this? Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 And yes... As expected, Geert Wilders is held in a Brittish cell. And as expected, he is furious about it, in his own typical way in a phone call to the Dutch press agency ANP. If he isn't careful, he may be convicted for hate crimes in two countries, one of which he wasn't even allowed to enter. :) Edited on Feb 12 2009, 12:55 PM: Geert Wilders has been put on a plane back to The Netherlands, about an hour ago. Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.