Lindsay Sandiford to be executed

[truman]

If he does think that then that is all well and good and pretty much why I asked him this - Are you basing that statement upon the current global legal landscape or upon its own inherent principle, irrespective of where future regimes may drive their legislation? - which he declined to answer.

 

None of us has the power to change the legal landscape of our own country, let alone Indonesia's. That does not preclude, as you have stated, having an opinion related to that legal landscape. Jeffrey's opinion, as stated in his last couple of posts, seems to indicate that he thinks other countries' laws and sentences should not be questioned in any way and simply accepted wholesale, no matter how immoral they may be.

 

Does everyone have the same morals though?

[mikem8634]

Does everyone have the same morals though?

 

No, absolutely not.

 

Which is why I proposed a hypothetical scenario of a potential sentence that (hopefully) everybody would deem immoral in order to illustrate the point that this discussion is not devoid of moral considerations and that legal systems are not absolute and beyond questioning.

[andygardener]

No, absolutely not.

 

Which is why I proposed a hypothetical scenario of a potential sentence that (hopefully) everybody would deem immoral in order to illustrate the point that this discussion is not devoid of moral considerations and that legal systems are not absolute and beyond questioning.

 

But a scenario that everyone would deem immoral doesn't advance us. Muslim countries executing people for "witchcraft" and apostasy is clearly barbaric and backwards to most people here. Our legal protection of mocking Islam here seems to cause similar feelings among many in their countries. Who's to say who's right? Basically law has to reflect the society it regulates and societal morals about certain issues are different the world over. If you impose restrictions on laws against the will of society, especially at the behest of foreign governments then you build up resentment and people take the law into their own hands.

[flamingjimmy]

Because if everyone did that then we'd have anarchy.

 

As an example lets say A thinks weed is fine and he grows it and smokes it and sells it, because he considers the law prohibiting it is immoral

 

B thinks drug dealers should be subject to the death penalty and thus decides to kill A because the law won't punish him in a manner B thinks is moral.

 

If we all just pick and choose what the law should be according to our own views and ignore the law where it differs it could get very messy very quickly.

 

Yes, by my reasoning B should try to kill A if he thinks he can get away with it, or I suppose, if he feels strongly enough about the issue to go to prison for a long time. I really don't think we would descend into anarchy though because pretty much everyone in the world feels pretty strongly that murder is wrong and have done for pretty much the entire history of civilisation, and the police take it very seriously.

 

I don't think B would try to kill A, except in the most extreme circumstances, however there are already thousands of A-alikes across the country already, maybe 10s of thousands, I have no idea how to estimate that and have not slept for a very long time.

 

And I know this is an extreme example but it is still true:

 

By your argument Rosa Parks should have sat at the back of the bus.

 

Do you really think that Rosa Parks should have sat at the back of the Bus?

 

I suspect that you do not.

 

If not then you will have to create a new argument against me breaking laws I disagree with.

[andygardener]

Yes, by my reasoning B should try to kill A if he thinks he can get away with it, or I suppose, if he feels strongly enough about the issue to go to prison for a long time. I really don't think we would descend into anarchy though because pretty much everyone in the world feels pretty strongly that murder is wrong and have done for pretty much the entire history of civilisation, and the police take it very seriously.

 

I don't think B would try to kill A, except in the most extreme circumstances, however there are already thousands of A-alikes across the country already, maybe 10s of thousands, I have no idea how to estimate that and have not slept for a very long time.

 

And I know this is an extreme example but it is still true:

 

By your argument Rosa Parks should have sat at the back of the bus.

 

Do you really think that Rosa Parks should have sat at the back of the Bus?

 

I suspect that you do not.

 

If not then you will have to create a new argument against me breaking laws I disagree with.

 

We have had in this country alone a number of cases of dealers being killed by otherwise law abiding citizens for selling drugs to their kids, and that within a broadly lawful populace. That would only increase if everyone took your approach.

 

What you are talking about, and I quote "I don't obey laws I don't agree with if I can get away with it (which I can in some cases)" bears no resemblance whatsoever to Rosa Parks actions. Had she "whited up" and got away with sitting at the front of the bus while sniggering down her sleave that she was getting away with it it would have no political impact whatsoever. Breaking a particular law that a person feels to be immoral and doing so publicly and accepting the consequences as an act of protest against the law is a world away from surreptitiously speeding/drink driving/growing weed/whatever and hoping you don't get caught. One is wanting to change the law and breaking it to bring about that change, the other is just ignoring the law which as I suggested above if everyone did would land us in a right mess in no time.

[flamingjimmy]

We have had in this country alone a number of cases of dealers being killed by otherwise law abiding citizens for selling drugs to their kids, and that within a broadly lawful populace. That would only increase if everyone took your approach.

That's what I meant by extreme circumstances. I really don't think it would increase very much if at all. I'll have another think in the morning though.

 

What you are talking about, and I quote "I don't obey laws I don't agree with if I can get away with it (which I can in some cases)" bears no resemblance whatsoever to Rosa Parks actions. Had she "whited up" and got away with sitting at the front of the bus while sniggering down her sleave that she was getting away with it it would have no political impact whatsoever. Breaking a particular law that a person feels to be immoral and doing so publicly and accepting the consequences as an act of protest against the law is a world away from surreptitiously speeding/drink driving/growing weed/whatever and hoping you don't get caught. One is wanting to change the law and breaking it to bring about that change, the other is just ignoring the law which as I suggested above if everyone did would land us in a right mess in no time.

 

Yeah fair point I guess, I should really get some sleep.

 

So presumably you think it's ok to break laws that you think are immoral but only if it's a public act of protest?

[andygardener]

Yeah fair point I guess, I should really get some sleep.

 

So presumably you think it's ok to break laws that you think are immoral but only if it's a public act of protest?

 

Personally I can see circumstances in which people would be driven to do such a thing where laws are manifestly unjust. Rosa Parks, pass laws in RSA being good examples. I personally think our drug laws are a total mess and support radical reform, not because I'm pro drugs but because they are costly, ineffective and drive huge sums of money into the hands of criminals with resultant increases in violence that go with it. I would not however support someone selling crack as a form of protest. So no, I don't as a general principle think it's OK, just in very specific circumstances.

[mikem8634]

But a scenario that everyone would deem immoral doesn't advance us. Muslim countries executing people for "witchcraft" and apostasy is clearly barbaric and backwards to most people here. Our legal protection of mocking Islam here seems to cause similar feelings among many in their countries. Who's to say who's right? Basically law has to reflect the society it regulates and societal morals about certain issues are different the world over. If you impose restrictions on laws against the will of society, especially at the behest of foreign governments then you build up resentment and people take the law into their own hands.

 

I haven't suggested imposing any restrictions on laws in any country.

 

I have simply challenged the following statement -

But peddling death by drugs supply/smuggling merits the full rigour of the law, no matter which country's.

which implies that Jeffrey believes that no matter what punishment a society puts in place (including the ludicrous hypothetical one I offered) is fine by him.

 

So, to clarify his position, I asked him if that statement was based upon laws/sentences that are already in place (which is defensible) or whether it is based on the inherent principle that there is no legal remedy he would deem to be a moral step too far (which is indefensible).

 

We'll see where he stands.

 

I have made no grand statements about changing the legal position of another country whether I agree with it or not.

[andygardener]

I haven't suggested imposing any restrictions on laws in any country.

 

I have simply challenged the following statement -

 

which implies that Jeffrey believes that no matter what punishment a society puts in place (including the ludicrous hypothetical one I offered) is fine by him.

 

So, to clarify his position, I asked him if that statement was based upon laws/sentences that are already in place (which is defensible) or whether it is based on the inherent principle that there is no legal remedy he would deem to be a moral step too far (which is indefensible).

 

We'll see where he stands.

 

I have made no grand statements about changing the legal position of another country whether I agree with it or not.

 

Your ludicrous hypothetical one was exactly that. In a discussion of the morality of degrees of lawful punishment of an individual for an offence committed random lotteries of innocents have no place. It's a strawman. On the planet such barbarity only exists by law in North Korea and it is utterly horendous and that regime does need removing without regard for sovereignty but for the rest of the world it's not relevant.

[Penistone999]

Does that mean I'm allowed to give you a solid beating with a cricket bat because you drive a 4 x 4?

 

What on earth has a 4x4 got to do with hardcore drugs