3 ms·

I realize that phrasing is getting me down voted. If I'd phrased it as "Why is it so terrible to be rewarded for not exercising your right", I probably wouldn'

by shasta 11y ago

I realize that phrasing is getting me down voted. If I'd phrased it as "Why is it so terrible to be rewarded for not exercising your right", I probably wouldn't be getting down voted. But really, what's the difference?

mikeash 11y ago
Indeed, what is the difference? It's just phrasing. So if you can see why it's bad to be punished for exercising your rights, surely you can see why it's bad to be rewarded not to.
- shasta 11y ago
  I think I've been fairly clear that I find both acceptable. Thinking in terms of "rights" instead of costs and outcomes just increases the chances of a bad decision.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Would it be accurate then to say that you don't believe people should have the right to a fair trial?
    - shasta 11y ago
      You couldn't possibly have thought this was going to be a helpful comment to anyone when you posted it.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        How so? From what you've said, not only does that seem to be what you think, but you seem to have no trouble with the idea. Am I wrong?
        shasta 11y ago
        See my sister post. My apologize if you honestly thought that was a useful post. I would certainly not characterize my position as not being in favor of fair trials. But phrasing it terms of rights I do find unhelpful. Doesn't an innocent person have a right not to be jailed? But what's the point of even phrasing it that way?
        mikeash 11y ago
        The point of phrasing things in terms of rights is to set goals for ourselves. We believe that innocent people have the right not to be jailed. Sometimes they are anyway. But not jailing innocent people is one of our goals. Similarly, people don't always get a fair trial, but when we say that we believe people have the right to a fair trial, that means that our goal is for every accused person to have one if they want it. So, here is my reasoning: you say that you think it's a good idea to punish people for getting a fair trial. If you punish people for something, then it's inherently not a right, because if it's a right then the goal is for everyone to have one if they want it. Thus, you think that people should not have the right to a fair trial. Note that I asked for clarification rather than just stating that this was your position, because I wasn't sure. So your upset response does not make sense to me. Further, I don't understand why you find that phrasing to be distasteful, since you seem to be against the notion of phrasing things in terms of "rights" anyway. If you think "rights" are not a useful concept here, why is it wrong to say that you don't believe people should have the right to a fair trial?
        shasta 11y ago
        I don't think that "rights" is the best framework for evaluating alternative systems. I still understand what you mean when you use the word, though, and obviously I do think the accused should receive fair trials.
        mikeash 11y ago
        The accused don't receive fair trials when they take a plea deal, though. You seem to think that plea deals are a good thing, so did you perhaps mean to say that you think the accused should receive fair trials if they want them? And even then, what if they want them, but they don't want them badly enough to risk the additional punishment you think they ought to receive for getting one?
      - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        You seem quite to have, across multiple posts, pushed for the notion that rights get in the way and that our rules should be based on outcomes. Thus it seems natural to suspect that those views also include (be they your own views or be they a set of views for which you are playing devil's advocate) that there isn't a right to fair trial or that even if there is such a right, it should be ignored in favor of better outcomes. (We haven't gotten to the point of deciding what actually counts as outcomes, but it appears that up to now one outcome is low costs, and having unfair trials is a great way to get really low costs).
        shasta 11y ago
        All decisions should be based on comparing outcomes. Cost is important, but obviously that's only one small part of the outcome. Letting the guilty free is an undesirable outcome (assuming a just law), and jailing the innocent is a terrible outcome. I find the framework of "rights" unhelpful for balancing pros and cons, but the phrasing of the previous post was a very poor paraphrase of that position.
        Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        Cost cannot be important. Else those who are costlier to go after are weighted as less important to pursue unless drastic measures are taken to balance out the cost. Someone rich enough to hire a team of lawyers who slow down the process in every legal way possible should not be let off just because they have the money to spend to do such. And as to the 'framework of rights', this isn't merely a framework by which one operates a legal system but the very foundation of one. If we drop the notion of rights (and the less mentioned but just as important duties) we end up with no system at all. If we do not have rights (nor duties) then what point is there to a system to is there to ensure my rights are respected (by both the system and by others) and that I perform the duties required of me? We have to start over to ask why we even need a legal system to begin with. It quickly ends up being 'because the guys with guns say so' and any distinction between government and organized crime quickly dissolves. Consider a simple case of theft. I take your money. Why is this wrong? Because you have a right to do with your money? But we have tossed out rights. Now if instead you don't mean to toss out all rights, but to eliminate a few that you consider unproductive to our legal system functioning, it is thus quite a fair question to ask which rights are you in favor of tossing. Such as the right to a fair trial. If you want the prosecutor to be able to cheaply lock up guilty people, you can toss the right to a fair trial and then define guilty based off of being declared such. Ergo everyone convicted is guilty and convictions are quite cheap. Even cheaper if we toss the right to counsel. No innocent people locked up and you can put someone in prison in under an hour. Just go up to the jury and say 'we have proof did X, Y, Z', offer up some fabricated evidence, and then offer the jury a forged signed statement from the defendant saying they did it. No cross examination, no actual defense, no need for honesty because the rights to all that has been tossed. And no innocent people are locked up because they are by definition not innocent. Without the framework of rights, there are cons to balance.

by shasta 11y ago

mikeash 11y ago

Indeed, what is the difference? It's just phrasing. So if you can see why it's bad to be punished for exercising your rights, surely you can see why it's bad to be rewarded not to.

shasta 11y ago
I think I've been fairly clear that I find both acceptable. Thinking in terms of "rights" instead of costs and outcomes just increases the chances of a bad decision.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Would it be accurate then to say that you don't believe people should have the right to a fair trial?
  - shasta 11y ago
    You couldn't possibly have thought this was going to be a helpful comment to anyone when you posted it.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      How so? From what you've said, not only does that seem to be what you think, but you seem to have no trouble with the idea. Am I wrong?
      - shasta 11y ago
        See my sister post. My apologize if you honestly thought that was a useful post. I would certainly not characterize my position as not being in favor of fair trials. But phrasing it terms of rights I do find unhelpful. Doesn't an innocent person have a right not to be jailed? But what's the point of even phrasing it that way?
        mikeash 11y ago
        The point of phrasing things in terms of rights is to set goals for ourselves. We believe that innocent people have the right not to be jailed. Sometimes they are anyway. But not jailing innocent people is one of our goals. Similarly, people don't always get a fair trial, but when we say that we believe people have the right to a fair trial, that means that our goal is for every accused person to have one if they want it. So, here is my reasoning: you say that you think it's a good idea to punish people for getting a fair trial. If you punish people for something, then it's inherently not a right, because if it's a right then the goal is for everyone to have one if they want it. Thus, you think that people should not have the right to a fair trial. Note that I asked for clarification rather than just stating that this was your position, because I wasn't sure. So your upset response does not make sense to me. Further, I don't understand why you find that phrasing to be distasteful, since you seem to be against the notion of phrasing things in terms of "rights" anyway. If you think "rights" are not a useful concept here, why is it wrong to say that you don't believe people should have the right to a fair trial?
        shasta 11y ago
        I don't think that "rights" is the best framework for evaluating alternative systems. I still understand what you mean when you use the word, though, and obviously I do think the accused should receive fair trials.
        mikeash 11y ago
        The accused don't receive fair trials when they take a plea deal, though. You seem to think that plea deals are a good thing, so did you perhaps mean to say that you think the accused should receive fair trials if they want them? And even then, what if they want them, but they don't want them badly enough to risk the additional punishment you think they ought to receive for getting one?
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      You seem quite to have, across multiple posts, pushed for the notion that rights get in the way and that our rules should be based on outcomes. Thus it seems natural to suspect that those views also include (be they your own views or be they a set of views for which you are playing devil's advocate) that there isn't a right to fair trial or that even if there is such a right, it should be ignored in favor of better outcomes. (We haven't gotten to the point of deciding what actually counts as outcomes, but it appears that up to now one outcome is low costs, and having unfair trials is a great way to get really low costs).
      - shasta 11y ago
        All decisions should be based on comparing outcomes. Cost is important, but obviously that's only one small part of the outcome. Letting the guilty free is an undesirable outcome (assuming a just law), and jailing the innocent is a terrible outcome. I find the framework of "rights" unhelpful for balancing pros and cons, but the phrasing of the previous post was a very poor paraphrase of that position.
        Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        Cost cannot be important. Else those who are costlier to go after are weighted as less important to pursue unless drastic measures are taken to balance out the cost. Someone rich enough to hire a team of lawyers who slow down the process in every legal way possible should not be let off just because they have the money to spend to do such. And as to the 'framework of rights', this isn't merely a framework by which one operates a legal system but the very foundation of one. If we drop the notion of rights (and the less mentioned but just as important duties) we end up with no system at all. If we do not have rights (nor duties) then what point is there to a system to is there to ensure my rights are respected (by both the system and by others) and that I perform the duties required of me? We have to start over to ask why we even need a legal system to begin with. It quickly ends up being 'because the guys with guns say so' and any distinction between government and organized crime quickly dissolves. Consider a simple case of theft. I take your money. Why is this wrong? Because you have a right to do with your money? But we have tossed out rights. Now if instead you don't mean to toss out all rights, but to eliminate a few that you consider unproductive to our legal system functioning, it is thus quite a fair question to ask which rights are you in favor of tossing. Such as the right to a fair trial. If you want the prosecutor to be able to cheaply lock up guilty people, you can toss the right to a fair trial and then define guilty based off of being declared such. Ergo everyone convicted is guilty and convictions are quite cheap. Even cheaper if we toss the right to counsel. No innocent people locked up and you can put someone in prison in under an hour. Just go up to the jury and say 'we have proof did X, Y, Z', offer up some fabricated evidence, and then offer the jury a forged signed statement from the defendant saying they did it. No cross examination, no actual defense, no need for honesty because the rights to all that has been tossed. And no innocent people are locked up because they are by definition not innocent. Without the framework of rights, there are cons to balance.