3 ms·

> so it must continue to exist with the implication that it is good The purpose and reason why these concepts are absolutely good would be specifically becaus

by stale2002 1y ago

> so it must continue to exist with the implication that it is good The purpose and reason why these concepts are absolutely good would be specifically because people like you, with your attitude exist. The purpose of the law isn't to play this game of bad faith find the loophole. Instead, the purpose is to make people follow both the letter and the intent of it. And The reason why vague concepts like this are good, is because people who try to get around the law should be punished as harshly as possible, through whatever teh most effective means necessary are, specifically so as to discourage this behavior of trying to get around the law. It is much better for society if people and companies are trying to act in good faith to follow the law, instead of going around trying to find clever ways to break it. Thats why the bad actors should be punished as much as possible, if they are trying clever tricks.

hajile 1y ago
Then we should just eliminate all the laws and instead pass one law that says "don't be evil" and just let the judges/juries make it up as they go. The truth is that you don't believe your own argument. You want LOTS of laws specifying all kinds of unacceptable behaviors in great detail. You only differ from me in where that line should be drawn.
- int_19h 1y ago
  If we ditched "reasonableness" as a legal concept, even the most basic laws like e.g. the ones about murder would be significantly affected. So what you're proposing is a drastic redesign, and the onus is on you to demonstrate that it is even workable. How do you envision the legal system dealing with issues such as intent and negligence without the notion of a "reasonable person"?
  - hajile 1y ago
    > If we ditched "reasonableness" as a legal concept, even the most basic laws like e.g. the ones about murder would be significantly affected. So what you're proposing is a drastic redesign, and the onus is on you to demonstrate that it is even workable. Reasonableness is a quick approximation for world view or "the majority values and lived experiences of a specific culture at a specific time and place". For example, dueling is considered murder, but was once considered absolutely reasonable and NOT requesting a duel in some circumstances would be considered a "reasonable" sign of guilt. Would you convict someone of murder over manslaughter because your gut told you they were guilty? The Southern US has countless cases of innocent black men hanged because they had "reasonableness", but no hard evidence. Reasonableness is fickle. For example, in self defense cases with video (probably the most important cases concerning reasonableness), the prosecution pushes to review the video frame by frame while the defense pushes to play the video in realtime. Why? because when you see the video in realtime and make snap decisions, the defense seems more reasonable. When you pick it apart frame by frame, you have tons of time to think about all the things you might have done and can convince yourself that maybe lethal defense wasn't needed. If reasonableness changes so much just by HOW you watch the same video, how can it really be considered reasonable? What is does reasonable actually mean in practice? It's also worth noting that not all evidence is admitted in trials and the judge has significant ability to shape the outcome of the trial based on what evidence they "reasonably" believe should be included. > How do you envision the legal system dealing with issues such as intent and negligence without the notion of a "reasonable person"? I'm not proposing something radically different. I'm proposing we use reasonable doubt instead of reasonable intuition as the primary metric. You can never completely remove reasonableness, but its effect should be mitigated and controlled. If you can't prove something, you shouldn't convict based on the unprovable ideas your world view fabricates that may or may not be accurate.
- stale2002 1y ago
  No, we don't have to do that. The current system works well as it is. > You want LOTS of laws specifying all kinds of unacceptable behaviors in great detail. I don't have a problem with detail. Instead, I am rejecting the idea that mass amounts of details is always necessary, or that the law somehow completely collapses when it doesn't have detail. No, the law is perfectly able to handle vague situations all the time, and you are the one trying to claim that it all falls apart for some reason. It doesn't. It works out quite well, and it worked out quite well in this case. > You only differ from me No, you are demanding that a completely pervasive and common concept of "reasonableness", which exists in all parts of the law be changed. No, we don't need to do that. The law deals with that concept all the time and isn't falling apart.
  - hajile 1y ago
    Wrongful conviction rates range from 4% to nearly 16% depending on the study. That means between 1 in 25 and 1 in 6 people convicted of crimes are actually innocent. Is that what you consider a system that works well? Would you get on a plane that crashed 1 out of 25 times? Would you consider that plane to be working well? A huge percentage of those wrongful convictions happen because there wasn't any evidence, but the police and prosecutors were "reasonable". The judge was "reasonable" and the juries were "reasonable" too. Despite the complete absence of facts to support their "reasonable" feeling, they managed to convict an astonishing number of innocent people. If one jury is full of suspicious people who always see the worst in others and another jury is full of people who always assume the best, the idea of reasonableness says that both should reach the exact same conclusion. You of course recognize that both will convict when there is clear evidence of guilt, but only one will convict when "reasonableness" becomes an issue. That is the point. Reasonableness only exists when there's ambiguity or missing facts and only exists to CREATE a crime where you can't PROVE a crime (if you could prove that the act was criminal, reasonableness would be unnecessary) all while saying without evidence (and with plenty evidence to the contrary) that every other person on the planet would jump to the same conclusion as you did. Or as a paradox, reasonableness exists to create unreasonable situations. I'm not demanding that the law be changed wholesale. The only required change is that the law only charge for crimes it can prove. For almost every greater charge, there is a lesser charge with wider scope. If you cannot prove the greater charge, then only prosecute the lesser charge (and don't prosecute the greater charge and the lesser charge while hoping "reasonableness", jury cynicism against the defendant, and randomness of the jury pool gets you a conviction). Most good prosecutors already follow this principle and remove reasonableness as much as possible. When they do not is where many/most those wrongful convictions come into play (that and the unjust practice of plea bargaining). There seems to be very little to lose except bad prosecutions and bad convictions.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

hajile 1y ago

Then we should just eliminate all the laws and instead pass one law that says "don't be evil" and just let the judges/juries make it up as they go. The truth is that you don't believe your own argument. You want LOTS of laws specifying all kinds of unacceptable behaviors in great detail. You only differ from me in where that line should be drawn.

int_19h 1y ago
If we ditched "reasonableness" as a legal concept, even the most basic laws like e.g. the ones about murder would be significantly affected. So what you're proposing is a drastic redesign, and the onus is on you to demonstrate that it is even workable. How do you envision the legal system dealing with issues such as intent and negligence without the notion of a "reasonable person"?
- hajile 1y ago
  > If we ditched "reasonableness" as a legal concept, even the most basic laws like e.g. the ones about murder would be significantly affected. So what you're proposing is a drastic redesign, and the onus is on you to demonstrate that it is even workable. Reasonableness is a quick approximation for world view or "the majority values and lived experiences of a specific culture at a specific time and place". For example, dueling is considered murder, but was once considered absolutely reasonable and NOT requesting a duel in some circumstances would be considered a "reasonable" sign of guilt. Would you convict someone of murder over manslaughter because your gut told you they were guilty? The Southern US has countless cases of innocent black men hanged because they had "reasonableness", but no hard evidence. Reasonableness is fickle. For example, in self defense cases with video (probably the most important cases concerning reasonableness), the prosecution pushes to review the video frame by frame while the defense pushes to play the video in realtime. Why? because when you see the video in realtime and make snap decisions, the defense seems more reasonable. When you pick it apart frame by frame, you have tons of time to think about all the things you might have done and can convince yourself that maybe lethal defense wasn't needed. If reasonableness changes so much just by HOW you watch the same video, how can it really be considered reasonable? What is does reasonable actually mean in practice? It's also worth noting that not all evidence is admitted in trials and the judge has significant ability to shape the outcome of the trial based on what evidence they "reasonably" believe should be included. > How do you envision the legal system dealing with issues such as intent and negligence without the notion of a "reasonable person"? I'm not proposing something radically different. I'm proposing we use reasonable doubt instead of reasonable intuition as the primary metric. You can never completely remove reasonableness, but its effect should be mitigated and controlled. If you can't prove something, you shouldn't convict based on the unprovable ideas your world view fabricates that may or may not be accurate.
stale2002 1y ago
No, we don't have to do that. The current system works well as it is. > You want LOTS of laws specifying all kinds of unacceptable behaviors in great detail. I don't have a problem with detail. Instead, I am rejecting the idea that mass amounts of details is always necessary, or that the law somehow completely collapses when it doesn't have detail. No, the law is perfectly able to handle vague situations all the time, and you are the one trying to claim that it all falls apart for some reason. It doesn't. It works out quite well, and it worked out quite well in this case. > You only differ from me No, you are demanding that a completely pervasive and common concept of "reasonableness", which exists in all parts of the law be changed. No, we don't need to do that. The law deals with that concept all the time and isn't falling apart.
- hajile 1y ago
  Wrongful conviction rates range from 4% to nearly 16% depending on the study. That means between 1 in 25 and 1 in 6 people convicted of crimes are actually innocent. Is that what you consider a system that works well? Would you get on a plane that crashed 1 out of 25 times? Would you consider that plane to be working well? A huge percentage of those wrongful convictions happen because there wasn't any evidence, but the police and prosecutors were "reasonable". The judge was "reasonable" and the juries were "reasonable" too. Despite the complete absence of facts to support their "reasonable" feeling, they managed to convict an astonishing number of innocent people. If one jury is full of suspicious people who always see the worst in others and another jury is full of people who always assume the best, the idea of reasonableness says that both should reach the exact same conclusion. You of course recognize that both will convict when there is clear evidence of guilt, but only one will convict when "reasonableness" becomes an issue. That is the point. Reasonableness only exists when there's ambiguity or missing facts and only exists to CREATE a crime where you can't PROVE a crime (if you could prove that the act was criminal, reasonableness would be unnecessary) all while saying without evidence (and with plenty evidence to the contrary) that every other person on the planet would jump to the same conclusion as you did. Or as a paradox, reasonableness exists to create unreasonable situations. I'm not demanding that the law be changed wholesale. The only required change is that the law only charge for crimes it can prove. For almost every greater charge, there is a lesser charge with wider scope. If you cannot prove the greater charge, then only prosecute the lesser charge (and don't prosecute the greater charge and the lesser charge while hoping "reasonableness", jury cynicism against the defendant, and randomness of the jury pool gets you a conviction). Most good prosecutors already follow this principle and remove reasonableness as much as possible. When they do not is where many/most those wrongful convictions come into play (that and the unjust practice of plea bargaining). There seems to be very little to lose except bad prosecutions and bad convictions.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]