3 ms·

Doesn't the separation of powers allow the courts to consider root causes without fixing them? What if courts were lenient where the root cause is outside the

Doesn't the separation of powers allow the courts to consider root causes without fixing them? What if courts were lenient where the root cause is outside the defendant's control?

RamblingCTO 3y ago
Well, IANAL, but that would create precedence and injustice, wouldn't it? One big foundation in law is that you are responsible for your own actions. And you still make decisions that lead up to crime. That's on you. Law comes with the belief that you still have agency, even if you are from a bad background. And this, in my limited experience, is always factored in. (The US justice system could use a reform though with the whole private prison thing)
- danaris 3y ago
  > One big foundation in law is that you are responsible for your own actions. I think that's pretty much the GP's point...? You're responsible for your own actions, not the actions of the employer that put you in an impossible situation. Start from the premise that most people in an employment situation should be considered as "acting under duress" (because if they get fired, they are at risk of homelessness, destitution, and ultimately starvation). Then consider an employer who demands more of the employee than they can safely give—what choices does the employee have? Violate the law in order to keep getting the money they need to survive, or choose not to violate the law and put themselves at very high risk of firing (and thus the above consequences).
  - RamblingCTO 3y ago
    > Then consider an employer who demands more of the employee than they can safely give—what choices does the employee have? I don't agree much with that. BUT! I am not American, nor do I live there. So YMMV. > Violate the law in order to keep getting the money they need to survive, or choose not to violate the law and put themselves at very high risk of firing (and thus the above consequences). I think that's the biggest issue. I was talking more from a "how it should be" kind of view, or how I perceive it from my central European background. You're reality might be wildly different, and I lack the experience to understand that I think. My overarching point is: if you start to consider that the system is bad, how do you stop everyone else from doing the exact same thing, breaking laws to live? Where do you draw the line?
    - mcny 3y ago
      Edit: for the US We start sending CEOs and members of the board to prison (preferably for life) for acts of a company's employees, contractors, and agents in service of the company. Rinse and repeat until companies get the message.
    - danaris 3y ago
      It's (fortunately) not quite that bad for everyone in America, but that's more because most employers still feel themselves to be bound by the law, at least to some extent, than it is because most employees have meaningful recourse if they're told to break it. The situation is changing with the new wave of unionization here, but the 40 years since Reagan shattered the union movement have not been good ones for us. > My overarching point is: if you start to consider that the system is bad, how do you stop everyone else from doing the exact same thing, breaking laws to live? Where do you draw the line? I think that there is a meaningful distinction between "I choose to break the law to survive" and "I choose not to refuse an order to break the law, because to do so risks losing the ability to survive." That said, I think that there's an argument to be made that a society where the laws are used to punish the poor for trying to do the bare minimum to survive is a society that throws all law into contempt.
      - RamblingCTO 3y ago
        I do agree with your points! And fingers crossed the situation improves for your country, it's overdue.
  - avianlyric 3y ago
    > Then consider an employer who demands more of the employee than they can safely give—what choices does the employee have? Get a better union? This is why unions are similar employee protections are so important. If employees can be forced into a corner and forced to act illegally or immorally by their employer, then you create a situation where employers that abuse their employees the most can out compete competitors that treat their employees well. Ultimately you just end up with a country of abusive employers, and disempowered abused employees. > Start from the premise that most people in an employment situation should be considered as "acting under duress" If that’s your starting point, then it does suggest a rather catastrophic failure of government.
    - danaris 3y ago
      > If employees can be forced into a corner and forced to act illegally or immorally by their employer, then you create a situation where employers that abuse their employees the most can out compete competitors that treat their employees well. Ultimately you just end up with a country of abusive employers, and disempowered abused employees. That's not an "if." You just described much of today's America.
xg15 3y ago
Not sure how things are in the US, but I know from german court proceedings that judges absolutely do take context into account and acknowledge mitigating circumstances. This may not result in an acquittal, but it may lead to a (sometimes drastically) lower sentence. The point is that the law must give judges the options to do so, i.e. by defining a range of different punishments instead of insisting of some fixed minimum punishment.
thaumasiotes 3y ago
> What if courts were lenient where the root cause is outside the defendant's control? It wouldn't really matter for sleep-deprived truck drivers falling asleep at the wheel and crashing.

Doesn't the separation of powers allow the courts to consider root causes without fixing them? What if courts were lenient where the root cause is outside the defendant's control?

RamblingCTO 3y ago

Well, IANAL, but that would create precedence and injustice, wouldn't it? One big foundation in law is that you are responsible for your own actions. And you still make decisions that lead up to crime. That's on you. Law comes with the belief that you still have agency, even if you are from a bad background. And this, in my limited experience, is always factored in. (The US justice system could use a reform though with the whole private prison thing)

danaris 3y ago
> One big foundation in law is that you are responsible for your own actions. I think that's pretty much the GP's point...? You're responsible for your own actions, not the actions of the employer that put you in an impossible situation. Start from the premise that most people in an employment situation should be considered as "acting under duress" (because if they get fired, they are at risk of homelessness, destitution, and ultimately starvation). Then consider an employer who demands more of the employee than they can safely give—what choices does the employee have? Violate the law in order to keep getting the money they need to survive, or choose not to violate the law and put themselves at very high risk of firing (and thus the above consequences).
- RamblingCTO 3y ago
  > Then consider an employer who demands more of the employee than they can safely give—what choices does the employee have? I don't agree much with that. BUT! I am not American, nor do I live there. So YMMV. > Violate the law in order to keep getting the money they need to survive, or choose not to violate the law and put themselves at very high risk of firing (and thus the above consequences). I think that's the biggest issue. I was talking more from a "how it should be" kind of view, or how I perceive it from my central European background. You're reality might be wildly different, and I lack the experience to understand that I think. My overarching point is: if you start to consider that the system is bad, how do you stop everyone else from doing the exact same thing, breaking laws to live? Where do you draw the line?
  - mcny 3y ago
    Edit: for the US We start sending CEOs and members of the board to prison (preferably for life) for acts of a company's employees, contractors, and agents in service of the company. Rinse and repeat until companies get the message.
  - danaris 3y ago
    It's (fortunately) not quite that bad for everyone in America, but that's more because most employers still feel themselves to be bound by the law, at least to some extent, than it is because most employees have meaningful recourse if they're told to break it. The situation is changing with the new wave of unionization here, but the 40 years since Reagan shattered the union movement have not been good ones for us. > My overarching point is: if you start to consider that the system is bad, how do you stop everyone else from doing the exact same thing, breaking laws to live? Where do you draw the line? I think that there is a meaningful distinction between "I choose to break the law to survive" and "I choose not to refuse an order to break the law, because to do so risks losing the ability to survive." That said, I think that there's an argument to be made that a society where the laws are used to punish the poor for trying to do the bare minimum to survive is a society that throws all law into contempt.
    - RamblingCTO 3y ago
      I do agree with your points! And fingers crossed the situation improves for your country, it's overdue.
- avianlyric 3y ago
  > Then consider an employer who demands more of the employee than they can safely give—what choices does the employee have? Get a better union? This is why unions are similar employee protections are so important. If employees can be forced into a corner and forced to act illegally or immorally by their employer, then you create a situation where employers that abuse their employees the most can out compete competitors that treat their employees well. Ultimately you just end up with a country of abusive employers, and disempowered abused employees. > Start from the premise that most people in an employment situation should be considered as "acting under duress" If that’s your starting point, then it does suggest a rather catastrophic failure of government.
  - danaris 3y ago
    > If employees can be forced into a corner and forced to act illegally or immorally by their employer, then you create a situation where employers that abuse their employees the most can out compete competitors that treat their employees well. Ultimately you just end up with a country of abusive employers, and disempowered abused employees. That's not an "if." You just described much of today's America.

xg15 3y ago

Not sure how things are in the US, but I know from german court proceedings that judges absolutely do take context into account and acknowledge mitigating circumstances. This may not result in an acquittal, but it may lead to a (sometimes drastically) lower sentence. The point is that the law must give judges the options to do so, i.e. by defining a range of different punishments instead of insisting of some fixed minimum punishment.

thaumasiotes 3y ago

> What if courts were lenient where the root cause is outside the defendant's control? It wouldn't really matter for sleep-deprived truck drivers falling asleep at the wheel and crashing.