6 ms·

Guilty of violating the USC Drug Kingping Act amongst others. Guilty of running an $80 million narcotics ring. Guilty of murder for hire. Guilty under the law a

by s_q_b 12y ago

Guilty of violating the USC Drug Kingping Act amongst others. Guilty of running an $80 million narcotics ring. Guilty of murder for hire. Guilty under the law as written. You may believe him innocent by appeal to natural law, or un-prosecutable due to the Fourth Amendment, and on the latter you may be right. But from a moral standpoint, "guilty" is definitely the right word.

brainburn 12y ago
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law
- s_q_b 12y ago
  So was Charles Manson before his trial. I'm saying he's guilty, not a court. It's one man's opinion, not a finding of fact or law. The fact pattern isn't really in dispute here. Do you really deny he performed the acts of which he is accused? EDIT due to reply limit: Fine, its your opinion that I'm a child molester, but since you can't enforce it, I have little reason to care. In the instant case, I am perfectly capable of examining an indictment and concluding as to its likely veracity. It doesn't make the person legally guilty, but in my personal unbinding and most modest opinion, morally so.
  - Evolved 12y ago
    Fortunately for us, you're not a judge/prosecutor and fortunately for the accused, "guilty until proven innocent" isn't law but merely a song by Jay-Z.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      The options aren't "innocent until proven guilty" or "guilty until proven innocent" - there's also "what is the evidence that I've seen telling me is most likely so far?" Actions based on this should be heavily checked by recognition of your uncertainty, but if you are wanting to come to the correct answer most often, you'll use something closer to that. The purpose of the justice system is not "to come to the correct answer most often", but to determine action (typically severe action) and so needs that check.
madaxe_again 12y ago
Ah, guilty of murder for hire - even though there are no charges, just an indictment? So you subscribe to guilty until proven innocent? In that case, you, sir, are a child molester, until you prove to me that you are not.
- vidarh 12y ago
  People are well within their right to believe he is guilty without waiting for a trial. People are well within their right to continue to believe he is guilty even if he is found not guilty - the standards of evidence and requirements to find someone guilty in a court of law are on purpose stringent on the basis that it is worse to imprison someone unjustly than let some criminals go free. There's a vast gap from believing someone is guilty without waiting for a trial, to advocating the repeal of the rule of law. As for your statement unless someone has presented evidence and accusations founded in something more than thin air, your example is not in any way equivalent.
  - madaxe_again 12y ago
    But the evidence and accusations are founded on nothing more than thin air until they are proven in a court of law. If we presume guilt until innocence - why even bother with a criminal justice system? Should we just revert to stoning people on the presumption of guilt? While, yes, folks are free to assume guilt of others, it's an abominable thing to do, as all it does is play straight into the hands of those who would control criminal justice through their media mouthpieces. It makes you no better than a lynch mob.
    - s_q_b 12y ago
      No, they're based upon a detailed explanation of the evidence of the state, given to a Grand Jury, who determines whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. That document is available publicly as an indictment. Some indictments are bogus, some are solid. This one is solid. Also, since we're not lynching anybody that makes us at least slightly better than a lynch mob. (P.S. we need a law like Godwin's for lynch mob references.)
ghodith 12y ago
"But from a moral standpoint, "guilty" is definitely the right word." Morals are subjective, I realize that you've claimed to be speaking for yourself only; but with a comment such as that I have a hard time believing it.
- innguest 12y ago
  > Morals are subjective Can you source that? There's a field of study called Ethics that would disagree with you. If you can show some evidence for your claim, that would be an important finding in Ethics; nay, a breakthrough.
  - ghodith 12y ago
    >There's a field of study called Ethics that would disagree with you. And the field called Metaethics with which I am referring to. Before we go any further I would warn you against assuming anything that I am not saying; I admit to (drastically) simplifying my position in the form of a three word statement - in response to a statement of equal simplicity - but the way in which you are issuing a blanket (and hostile) denial of all of the implications not addressed does not imply that you are reading with the sort of charitable mindset required to update your opinion. With that said; If you would actually like a source for my claim I would encourage you to read the metaethics sequence on lesswrong(1); many articles of which summarize the discussion (which I am actively avoiding by linking to it instead) presented by both sides regarding this topic. I believe it would also be worthwhile for you to read the sequence on the difference between belief, and belief in belief (or the map and territory, respectively); for you appear to have an issue understanding that just because you have never heard of this viewpoint that it is novel, when rather it has been covered to a great extent - an extent to which you are clearly ignorant. Also if you are attempting to conjure an argument around the definition of subjectivity please leave it at the door, it adds nothing to the discussion that couldn't be addressed with simple charitable reading. 1) http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Metaethics_sequence http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Metaethics_sequence 2) http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Map_and_territory_(sequence) http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Map_and_territory_(sequence)
canvia 12y ago
Are you equally outraged at the banks that have laundered hundreds of millions of dollars in drug money? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-approves-1-9b-drug-money-laundering-accord.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-approves...
- s_q_b 12y ago
  Far more outraged actually.
- xxs 12y ago
  hundreds of millions of dollars in drug money? Billions. And the punishment was a joke.
Evolved 12y ago
Accused of violating the USC Drug Kingping Act amongst others. Accused of running an $80 million narcotics ring. Accused of murder for hire. Accused under the law as written. You may believe him innocent by appeal to actual law/logic (merely accusations at this point), or un-prosecutable due to the Fourth Amendment (see: United States Constitution), and you would be right. But from a moral/legal standpoint, "accused" is definitely the right word. Fixed it for you.

by s_q_b 12y ago

brainburn 12y ago

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law

s_q_b 12y ago
So was Charles Manson before his trial. I'm saying he's guilty, not a court. It's one man's opinion, not a finding of fact or law. The fact pattern isn't really in dispute here. Do you really deny he performed the acts of which he is accused? EDIT due to reply limit: Fine, its your opinion that I'm a child molester, but since you can't enforce it, I have little reason to care. In the instant case, I am perfectly capable of examining an indictment and concluding as to its likely veracity. It doesn't make the person legally guilty, but in my personal unbinding and most modest opinion, morally so.
- Evolved 12y ago
  Fortunately for us, you're not a judge/prosecutor and fortunately for the accused, "guilty until proven innocent" isn't law but merely a song by Jay-Z.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    The options aren't "innocent until proven guilty" or "guilty until proven innocent" - there's also "what is the evidence that I've seen telling me is most likely so far?" Actions based on this should be heavily checked by recognition of your uncertainty, but if you are wanting to come to the correct answer most often, you'll use something closer to that. The purpose of the justice system is not "to come to the correct answer most often", but to determine action (typically severe action) and so needs that check.

madaxe_again 12y ago

Ah, guilty of murder for hire - even though there are no charges, just an indictment? So you subscribe to guilty until proven innocent? In that case, you, sir, are a child molester, until you prove to me that you are not.

vidarh 12y ago
People are well within their right to believe he is guilty without waiting for a trial. People are well within their right to continue to believe he is guilty even if he is found not guilty - the standards of evidence and requirements to find someone guilty in a court of law are on purpose stringent on the basis that it is worse to imprison someone unjustly than let some criminals go free. There's a vast gap from believing someone is guilty without waiting for a trial, to advocating the repeal of the rule of law. As for your statement unless someone has presented evidence and accusations founded in something more than thin air, your example is not in any way equivalent.
- madaxe_again 12y ago
  But the evidence and accusations are founded on nothing more than thin air until they are proven in a court of law. If we presume guilt until innocence - why even bother with a criminal justice system? Should we just revert to stoning people on the presumption of guilt? While, yes, folks are free to assume guilt of others, it's an abominable thing to do, as all it does is play straight into the hands of those who would control criminal justice through their media mouthpieces. It makes you no better than a lynch mob.
  - s_q_b 12y ago
    No, they're based upon a detailed explanation of the evidence of the state, given to a Grand Jury, who determines whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. That document is available publicly as an indictment. Some indictments are bogus, some are solid. This one is solid. Also, since we're not lynching anybody that makes us at least slightly better than a lynch mob. (P.S. we need a law like Godwin's for lynch mob references.)

ghodith 12y ago

"But from a moral standpoint, "guilty" is definitely the right word." Morals are subjective, I realize that you've claimed to be speaking for yourself only; but with a comment such as that I have a hard time believing it.

innguest 12y ago
> Morals are subjective Can you source that? There's a field of study called Ethics that would disagree with you. If you can show some evidence for your claim, that would be an important finding in Ethics; nay, a breakthrough.
- ghodith 12y ago
  >There's a field of study called Ethics that would disagree with you. And the field called Metaethics with which I am referring to. Before we go any further I would warn you against assuming anything that I am not saying; I admit to (drastically) simplifying my position in the form of a three word statement - in response to a statement of equal simplicity - but the way in which you are issuing a blanket (and hostile) denial of all of the implications not addressed does not imply that you are reading with the sort of charitable mindset required to update your opinion. With that said; If you would actually like a source for my claim I would encourage you to read the metaethics sequence on lesswrong(1); many articles of which summarize the discussion (which I am actively avoiding by linking to it instead) presented by both sides regarding this topic. I believe it would also be worthwhile for you to read the sequence on the difference between belief, and belief in belief (or the map and territory, respectively); for you appear to have an issue understanding that just because you have never heard of this viewpoint that it is novel, when rather it has been covered to a great extent - an extent to which you are clearly ignorant. Also if you are attempting to conjure an argument around the definition of subjectivity please leave it at the door, it adds nothing to the discussion that couldn't be addressed with simple charitable reading. 1) http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Metaethics_sequence http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Metaethics_sequence 2) http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Map_and_territory_(sequence) http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Map_and_territory_(sequence)

canvia 12y ago

Are you equally outraged at the banks that have laundered hundreds of millions of dollars in drug money? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-approves-1-9b-drug-money-laundering-accord.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-approves...

s_q_b 12y ago
Far more outraged actually.
xxs 12y ago
hundreds of millions of dollars in drug money? Billions. And the punishment was a joke.

Evolved 12y ago

Accused of violating the USC Drug Kingping Act amongst others. Accused of running an $80 million narcotics ring. Accused of murder for hire. Accused under the law as written. You may believe him innocent by appeal to actual law/logic (merely accusations at this point), or un-prosecutable due to the Fourth Amendment (see: United States Constitution), and you would be right. But from a moral/legal standpoint, "accused" is definitely the right word. Fixed it for you.