4 ms·

Sometimes it's not only about the government. Sometimes victims of crime deserve justice, too.

Retric 11y ago
While I don't normally think in terms of slippery slope arguments, this would easily fall into such territory. After all how hard would it be to prosecute a cop whose illegal evidence goes a serial killer off the street? Give it a generation or two and we would end up with cops who only get convicted of the worst breaches, and effectively zero constitutional protection.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Sometimes it's not only about the government. Sometimes victims of crime deserve justice, too. When the power of the executive branch of government is being used as the means seek something, its always about the Constitutional limits on government. No matter what you feel you deserve, the Constitution is the deal by which the outer bounds of the scope of your privilege to have the coercive power of government deployed to get you what you deserve is limited. Government shouldn't get to escape the Constitutional limits on its application of power against those subject to it because "think of the victims of crime", or "think of the children", or "think of..." whatever else. Otherwise, we're tossing out the concept of limited government in favor of arbitrary power.
- fluidcruft 11y ago
  You can view government as an imperfect tool that attempts to achieve the impossible goal of justice, or your can view government as the definition of justice. It's a question of whether to judge an imperfect tool based on details of how its mechanism works or whether to judge it based on how well it performs the tasks we ask of it. I'm just saying that within this focus on microtransactions above all else the overall goals are lost and the balance of penalties is wrong. When the government goofs, we let the criminal go and deny the victims justice. The purpose of the justice system is justice. The focus on these microtransactions elevates government as the definition of justice which seems much more expansive than the alternative, IMHO.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > You can view government as an imperfect tool that attempts to achieve the goal of justice, or your can view government as the definition of justice. You could also view "justice" in such a way that the claim that a victim of crime "deserves justices" is, to the extent that it is meaningful, completely inapplicable to the concept of criminal punishment. > It's a question of whether to judge an imperfect tool based on its mechanism or whether to judge it based on how well it achieves the tasks we use it for. No, even agreeing that government should be viewed as an imperfect tool for achieving justice, its a question of what "justice" means, and whether it can ever be consistent with violating the agreement by which persons are, under the guise of acting in the name of government, granted power over others. Some would view such violations as, themselves, inherently and fundamentally unjust.
    - fluidcruft 11y ago
      In the situation where knowledge of guilt has been found by unjust means, how does ignoring that knowledge promote justice. > Some would view such violations as, themselves, inherently and fundamentally unjust Exactly. Which is why the government should be held accountable to the victims of that abuse, not accountable to itself.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > Which is why the government should be held accountable to the victims of that abuse The exclusionary rule holds the government accountable to victims of abuse, by removing the value that the government sought to gain by the abuse and the expense of the victim (it is imperfect, of course, in that it fails where the abuse was targeted at some use other than criminal prosecution.) Any mechanism that fails to prevent the government from getting what it seeks by the abuse fails to hold the government accountable to the victim of the abuse.
        fluidcruft 11y ago
        That argument rests on the asserted non-existence of alternate mechanisms to hold the government accountable when they abuse the general public. Believe it or not letting criminals walk free is actually not the only available mechanism for addressing government abuse. It's just the mechanism our government has chosen for itself.
facetube 11y ago
The best way for police to bring justice to victims of crime reliably is for them to obey the law during investigations, arrests, and trials.
BurningFrog 11y ago
If victimless crimes weren't so dominant in current US law, I would agree with that.

While I don't normally think in terms of slippery slope arguments, this would easily fall into such territory. After all how hard would it be to prosecute a cop whose illegal evidence goes a serial killer off the street? Give it a generation or two and we would end up with cops who only get convicted of the worst breaches, and effectively zero constitutional protection.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Sometimes it's not only about the government. Sometimes victims of crime deserve justice, too. When the power of the executive branch of government is being used as the means seek something, its always about the Constitutional limits on government. No matter what you feel you deserve, the Constitution is the deal by which the outer bounds of the scope of your privilege to have the coercive power of government deployed to get you what you deserve is limited. Government shouldn't get to escape the Constitutional limits on its application of power against those subject to it because "think of the victims of crime", or "think of the children", or "think of..." whatever else. Otherwise, we're tossing out the concept of limited government in favor of arbitrary power.

fluidcruft 11y ago
You can view government as an imperfect tool that attempts to achieve the impossible goal of justice, or your can view government as the definition of justice. It's a question of whether to judge an imperfect tool based on details of how its mechanism works or whether to judge it based on how well it performs the tasks we ask of it. I'm just saying that within this focus on microtransactions above all else the overall goals are lost and the balance of penalties is wrong. When the government goofs, we let the criminal go and deny the victims justice. The purpose of the justice system is justice. The focus on these microtransactions elevates government as the definition of justice which seems much more expansive than the alternative, IMHO.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > You can view government as an imperfect tool that attempts to achieve the goal of justice, or your can view government as the definition of justice. You could also view "justice" in such a way that the claim that a victim of crime "deserves justices" is, to the extent that it is meaningful, completely inapplicable to the concept of criminal punishment. > It's a question of whether to judge an imperfect tool based on its mechanism or whether to judge it based on how well it achieves the tasks we use it for. No, even agreeing that government should be viewed as an imperfect tool for achieving justice, its a question of what "justice" means, and whether it can ever be consistent with violating the agreement by which persons are, under the guise of acting in the name of government, granted power over others. Some would view such violations as, themselves, inherently and fundamentally unjust.
  - fluidcruft 11y ago
    In the situation where knowledge of guilt has been found by unjust means, how does ignoring that knowledge promote justice. > Some would view such violations as, themselves, inherently and fundamentally unjust Exactly. Which is why the government should be held accountable to the victims of that abuse, not accountable to itself.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Which is why the government should be held accountable to the victims of that abuse The exclusionary rule holds the government accountable to victims of abuse, by removing the value that the government sought to gain by the abuse and the expense of the victim (it is imperfect, of course, in that it fails where the abuse was targeted at some use other than criminal prosecution.) Any mechanism that fails to prevent the government from getting what it seeks by the abuse fails to hold the government accountable to the victim of the abuse.
      - fluidcruft 11y ago
        That argument rests on the asserted non-existence of alternate mechanisms to hold the government accountable when they abuse the general public. Believe it or not letting criminals walk free is actually not the only available mechanism for addressing government abuse. It's just the mechanism our government has chosen for itself.

facetube 11y ago

The best way for police to bring justice to victims of crime reliably is for them to obey the law during investigations, arrests, and trials.

BurningFrog 11y ago

If victimless crimes weren't so dominant in current US law, I would agree with that.