Re: hmmmmm.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
"By the same logic, we must release 10 convicted rapists because one might be innocent. "

Er, no. Individual criminal cases can be treated individually.

[/ QUOTE ]

My assumption was that we could not distinguish who the innocent person was. A certain percentage of convicted prisoners are innocent, but we don't know who.

Re: hmmmmm.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Actually that is almost an exact quote from someone.
Better to let 10 guilty go free than punish an innocent man.


[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose we know from statistics that 9 released rapists will commit 5 more rapes upon release. From a strictly utilitarian point of view, is it not better to do harm to the one innocent prisoner (by keeping them in jail) then to harm 5 more people in society by releasing all 10 prisoners (not knowing which is the innocent one)?

Reading Comprehension --- F
 

"Since when is nature's wrath a punishment imposed by us?"

It's not. The author is saying the innocent should suffer nature's wrath (because aid should be withheld) because of the collective guilt of the nation.

You said the article didn't say that. I showed the direct quote where it did.

You have shown that you do not understand or comprehend the article you posted. You are also trying (very badly) to twist my responses into saying something I am not, either deliberately, or because of this same reading comprehension failure.

Last post from me, useless to write anything further, since you can't comprehend what you read, or deliberately refuse to, even going so far as to lie about what the article says.

Not according to American Justice
 

which is why the accused is innocent until proven guilty, has a right to a trial, has a right to legal council, and strict standards of beyond a doubt certainty for a conviction.

By your logic, if it can be shown that the majority of people accused of a crime are actually guilty, then when anyone is accused of a crime they should just immediately be punished.

By doing away with any sort of trial or evidence, this would eliminate the chance that any guilty might go free. I think the Taliban in Afganistan practiced this form of Police, Judge, and Executioner form of Justice. You might want to move there.

Re: Reading Comprehension --- F
 

You seem to be suggesting that we are obligated to send aid to evil people because there are innocent people mixed among them. By that definition we must aid everyone, since who does not have some innocents in their midsts.

We should send aid to bin Laden, I am sure there are some innocents living nearby. If he used that aid for terrorism, well thats just too bad, we were trying to help innocents.

I say we have the right to decide that some innocents can not be reached without creating more harm in the process. Unfortunate but true, and we must regretfully take the path of not aiding them to avoid worse consequences in the future.

We bombed civilians in Germany in WWII, and I think it was the right thing to do, even though innocent people died.

Re: Reading Comprehension --- F
 

Here is a quote from your first post:
[ QUOTE ]
The author also threw in that all German citizens should have been punished, since the country did evil, and as citizens they were all guilty.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the same thing as you are now saying in your posts. I can comprehend the difference, can you?

I'm trying to argue ideas, not who said what. In your later posts, what we are saying is a lot closer. The USA is not "punishing" anyone by not sending aid.

Neither the author nor I ever said that the "citizens were all guilty", these are words you wrote, and now you are pretending you didn't say this?

Re: Not according to American Justice
 

[ QUOTE ]
By your logic, if it can be shown that the majority of people accused of a crime are actually guilty, then when anyone is accused of a crime they should just immediately be punished.

[/ QUOTE ]

Talk about twisting words. I was talking about people already convicted in our legal system with all its protections.

It is because we make as few mistakes as possible, that we can reasonably say that more harm would come from releasing a group of mostly bad criminals, than by keeping the few innocent in jail.

Re: Reading Comprehension --- F
 

That well may be true. But I don't need justification for that by some BS that it is the victims fault because they are "bad" or lacking in a "moral compass". And that we are "good" and therefore not going to help the "bad" people.

If bombing innocent civilians was the right thing to do in WWII, then it was the right thing to do. Don't BS me with they weren't innocent civilians they were actually evil because they were helping an evil nation.

If your action is right, moral, and just, then you don't need to twist and turn and justify, now do you?

If you find yourself looking for excuses like "we won't give aid because they won't accept aid from non-muslim dressed providers" or "we won't give aid because their leaders had bad policies in the past", then your actions probably aren't the moral, just, right things you are trying to make them out to be.

Re: Not according to American Justice
 

And as I pointed out (and you twisted), it breaks down when it comes to the death penality. Many people believe it is better to keep the guilty in jail rather than execute, on the chance you might execute an innocent person. You were the one that twisted that into throwing the jail doors open.

Re: Not according to American Justice
 

[ QUOTE ]
And as I pointed out (and you twisted), it breaks down when it comes to the death penality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never discussed the death penalty in this thread at all. It is irrelevant to the discussion - it is a red herring you throw in to confuse the issue. Try to discuss the issues at hand without throwing in red herrings.

Please stay on topic. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]