Maybe stop slippery-sloping the issue and take it on its own merits. It's a pretty unique case.
Tearing down statues
- Thread starter siezar
- Start date
Except I was responding to hurf when he said we have a duty to break unjust laws. He didn't clarify how the law on criminal damage was unjust, and indeed went on to say that it wasn't unjust, but breaking it was just. Something I find highly contradictory.
But since the argument has (whether you like it or not) now strayed into the realms of law vs morality (as it has over the last couple pages) with arguments being presented both for adherence to the law as a general principle, and those who believe the law must be applied selectively depending on the virtue of the offender.
So it's not any more "slippery-slopism" than the preceding arguments.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Do you think the crime of murder is unjust?
How about murdering a terrorist?
.
That's literally the point of the trial by jury/magistrate system.
I don't know if some people are being purposely ignorant or they genuine don't understand that breaking a law principle just because they don't like something is wrong and sets a bad precedent.
If I go and pull down the Nelson Mandela statue I hope those same people wouldn't object. They should support me.
If I go and pull down the Nelson Mandela statue I hope those same people wouldn't object. They should support me.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Public opinion doesn't support that.
We don't live in a draconian society where black and white rules dictate our lives, ya know. Most of law is simply precedent, i.e. formed on the basis that a past decision was made by a set of individuals with X opinion. Opinions change over time.
Since you call it murder I am going to assume you mean extra-judicial killing. I.e. by an angry mob or by a victim/relative.
Firstly, revenge is generally not something we advocate for, and the legal system is not there to provide revenge for victims. It is there to protect the public and provide justice.
Extra-judicial killing of a terrorist before or after he commits a crime is not just.
For one, extra-judicial killings would not meet the strict requirements for proving guilt. In other words, an angry mob might well kill somebody innocent, even if they 100% believe he is guilty.
Extra-judicial killing of the terrorist/molester/etc after they have committed their crime, well by definition it is not just. No act of vigilantism is just. It implies that people can take the law into their own hands and act as judge, jury and executioner. It denies all parties the benefit of due process, the right to a fair trial, etc. The right to a fair trial is a human right, btw.
And lastly, we do not have capital punishment in this country, so murdering anyone cannot be just.
How about you? Do you think murder can ever be just?
if the jury doesn't understand their responsibilities under the law that's a problem -
if they are bent by “It will be reverberate around the world. I urge you all to be on the right side of history.” system is not working.
to wit the financial cases where it has been decided jury cannot understand them so they use magistrates.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Yes, if I, as a passer-by in no immediate harm, could use my vehicle to run down someone clearly violently attacking innocent people, I absolutely would.
Trust me, there is enough qualified people in that room who should be able to explain their responsibilities under law.
Jurors must act in a way that implements the legal system in a way beneficial to the benefit of the public. In the instance of removing statues of slave owners, who often paid for their own statue to put there in the first place, as some kind of small p-p energy move; I see no benefit in the public prosecution of intelligent young kids who will grow up one day and reflect on what they did. Grouping them with drug dealers, rapists, murderers etc - gives zero benefit. Removing their freedom gives zero benefit. From a pure cost equation point of view, best keep them on the outside.
they didn't need too, could have simply been community service like the usa cases, say; can jury can make sentencing recommendations ?
There you are confusing "slippery slopism" with setting a precedent. This case very much sets a precedent.
In any case, you aren't responding to any of the points I am making, you're just trying to dismiss them because you don't like them. It's much less interesting when people do that, instead of actually trying to think of a decent reply.
Nobody really cares if you can reel off a list of "common fallacies" that you think invalidate all the other posters. For one, they won't agree that their posts are fallacies. Second, it appears that you can't engage, and would rather instead appeal to some argument about fallacy, in order not to have to think of a response.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Can you summarise what you think the precedent that has been set is?
Public opinion didn't support the pulling down of the Edward Colston statue either.
There is a phrase that says "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it". If you advocate for the removal of symbols of people from the past you consider bad then you have encouraged those historical attitudes to come back.
It doesn't take that many generations before something becomes forgotten. There is a reason we have lessons and days dedicated to the holocaust. So it remains on peoples minds to give a chance of avoiding a similar situation in the future.
If every symbol of slavery is removed then in a couple of generations people will start asking "what was wrong with slavery?".
Anything in this world worth having or learning comes from a struggle. The Colston statue should make people feel uncomfortable. If it doesn't then there is somethong wrong. A plaque should have been put on the statue. It should have been a moment for education, not wiping history away.
That's not murder, then, as I understand it.
If you would be found not-guilty of murder with the correct application of the law (as you would in self-defence, etc) then you haven't committed the crime of murder.
The only way you can be guilty of murder is something like vigilantism or other non-lawful killing.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Listen man, I'd love to reply, but the idea that our best history lessons are derived from statutes has just made me laugh too much to cope. Thank god we have all of those Hitler statues...................
Who had even heard of Colston before his statue was thrown in the river? (I had, but I lived in Bristol for a few years)
The toppling of the statue made us all look and learn: loads of people heard details of this country's history of slavery and how much of some of our cities was built off the back of it, that they had no idea about before.
It was even in my kids' weekly newspaper, and struck up an interesting dinner table discussion there.
And now the statue is in a museum, with another wrinkle in its own history to report.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
So you are saying you'd find me not guilty, even though I broke the headline definition of murder?
Oh snap. That's a pickle for this particular case then isn't it. You've applied your moral compass to understand the motivations behind the killing, and now sought to identify a lesser charge in another law.
Guess how that law you've just discovered would have came about? Or do I just lose out because the "killing an active terrorist when you aren't in any danger yourself" law hadn't been written?
It makes it easier for future juries to acquit if there is criminal damage to another statue or monument, perhaps other property too.
Along with other recent cases, it makes it plain that the jury does not have to reach a verdict which satisfies the law. They can rule however they like, and if the defendant is popular enough with certain vocal elements, they can be acquitted despite their obvious guilt.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
That is because juries represent the collective sense of justice of the community.
If the jurors only job was to implement the law, why would they even be there? You are aware magistrates are also volunteers, right? There to represent the justice the community would ask for?
There is a lawful defence against murder on the grounds of self-defence. A lawful defence.
In the case of the statue (and other cases such as the extinction rebellion case) there was no lawful defence. The jury acquitted despite this, not because of this.
You can't say they are the same because they aren't.
You're completely wrong. I haven't applied any moral judgement of my own.