3 ms·

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

by 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?

by shasta 11y ago

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?