New gov't proposition here for the critiquing.

[Nocapszy]

This one isn't a joke

hypothetical situation:

A man spends his entire life up until age 48 donating money to charity, giving blood at least once a month, goes to jury duty, and doesn't lie to get out of it, active member of his community and many positive things come out of his involvement.

But... one day, he walks by a homeless man, and trips and spills the man's coffee in the middle of winter. The homeless man was actually crazy, and he stalks the generous man for weeks. Weeks turn into months and eventually into years. It finally gets to the generous man and he kills the homeless man. He buries him in a field and is eventually caught.

The judge and jury won't get to hear about his positive influence on the world -- only that he DID in fact kill a person.

Doesn't seem fair that he gets the same, or maybe worse, sentence than an 18 year old who killed 3 of his classmates and never helped another person in their life.



Proposition:
New laws. Rather than the old type, all of which only tell you what you can't do, they are changed to what you shouldn't do, and the new set that says things you should do. Both sets go on file. You get points (varying degrees of acts in both directions) and if your score goes below 0 then you go to prison for as many years as points you've got under 0.

Before you condemn this by saying " Well that will encourage crime! People will do good things to balance their scores, and then go and commit more crimes" I ask that you consider that statement.

Crimes will be committed. That's a fact. That's why we have police. Because we know it's going to happen. But at least this way, even the criminals help out, and if they don't, we bag 'em up, just like before.

Obviously I don't know everything, so suggestions or addons are encouraged.

 

[Athenian200]

Well, wouldn't the fact that the homeless man was stalking him be taken into consideration? It could be considered something like self-defense or the fear of a threat in that case, it's not as if he did it in cold blood.

But personally, I think if you hadn't included the thing about the stalking, he did all of those good things and suddenly killed a homeless man for no reason, then he should still go to jail. Does that make sense?

I would be uncomfortable with people getting more leeway because of having done good things.

 

[INTJMom]

Just to clarify... this is a real proposed law?

 

[Nocapszy]

Well, wouldn't the fact that the homeless man was stalking him be taken into consideration? It could be considered something like self-defense or the fear of a threat in that case, it's not as if he did it in cold blood.

It could, and probably would be taken into consideration. It might not matter though.

But personally, I think if you hadn't included the thing about the stalking, he did all of those good things and suddenly killed a homeless man for no reason, then he should still go to jail. Does that make sense?

Crimes are going to happen. You're always at risk. 100% of the time. This way, at least some of the criminals will engage in positive acts -- the ones that wouldn't otherwise that is.

I would be uncomfortable with people getting more leeway because of having done good things.

Why? How is that fair? It's not taking everything into account.

By the way, this doesn't only apply to killings and such. Thieves and muggers and rapists would all have points taken away. Killing would be worth a lot of points. Pick-pocketing would be probably 1/10 of killing or maybe even less.

You can call it leeway, or you can call it incentive.

 

[Nocapszy]

Just to clarify... this is a real proposed law?

No it's not real. I just made it up when I got out of the shower this morning... I was thinking about the ranking system here, and sort of implanted it to the US legal system, with of course, a few tweaks.

 

[Athenian200]

Why? How is that fair? It's not taking everything into account.

By the way, this doesn't only apply to killings and such. Thieves and muggers and rapists would all have points taken away. Killing would be worth a lot of points. Pick-pocketing would be probably 1/10 of killing or maybe even less.

You can call it leeway, or you can call it incentive.

That's quite logical, but emotionally I doubt people would appreciate such a system. I'll grant you that seems like it would technically work well, though.

The problems with it don't exist logically, so I don't think I can explain them to you. It's got to do with interesting/unusual human quirks and sensibilities, in other words emotions.

But we need NT's and their numerous ideas/systems, so don't stop thinking.

 

[INTJMom]

Ah. You said it wasn't a joke, which in my mind means it's real, so I was confused.

I understand how you could come up with such a concept, and it seems to make sense on the surface, but I think the practical application would be impossible.

Here's just one aspect that would make it too difficult to implement: who would be around to document all the good deeds I do? I was taught that my good deeds should be done in private, not showboated so everyone can see. How big do my good deeds have to be? And who's to judge if they're big enough to get on the list? And would some good deeds be more valuable than others? Would they have a point system? Who would decide how much value my good deeds had? Would it be based on money? A what about saving someone's life? And what about doctors - they would have an unfair advantage. And there's 300 million people in the US.



Anyway, what you're suggesting has already been put in place by God. He sees all and knows all and everyone will be recompensed accordingly in the end.

 

[Nocapszy]

That's quite logical, but emotionally I doubt people would appreciate such a system. I'll grant you that seems like it would technically work well, though.

The problems with it don't exist logically, so I don't think I can explain them to you. It's got to do with interesting/unusual human quirks and sensibilities, in other words emotions.

But we need NT's and their numerous ideas/systems, so don't stop thinking.

Oh believe me, I understand. Everyone's attached to their stuff/friends. Even I (the forum grinch/asshole) have things I'm attached to. Not many, but a few.

See, I don't forsee this causing any more crimes. If it were to be implemented in the society we have right now, it would only be like earned amnesty, rather than what we have now, with the arbitrary pardons that presidents and mayors give.

 

[Nocapszy]

Ah. You said it wasn't a joke, which in my mind means it's real, so I was confused.

Well I meant, it wasn't a joke of mine, but I did make it up. Whatever.

I understand how you could come up with such a concept, and it seems to make sense on the surface, but I think the practical application would be impossible.

That's why I didn't go running to congress with it -- I came to the forum first.

Here's just one aspect that would make it too difficult to implement: who would be around to document all the good deeds I do? I was taught that my good deeds should be done in private, not showboated so everyone can see.

Yes, Fi is encouraged in modern America. Ignoring the easy 'just because it's been taught that way, doesn't make it right' snipe I'll point out that it doesn't change the fact that people DO showboat, and they may as well, because hidden or not, the good deed is still done.

How big do my good deeds have to be?

You probably won't get points for the stuff the boyscouts do anyway, but anything larger might get you a few tallies

And who's to judge if they're big enough to get on the list?

Congress. If they can decide (or not) what's wrong, can't they decide what's right?

And would some good deeds be more valuable than others?

Yes. Donating a million dollars to a charity should get you more points than saving a cat from a tree.

Would they have a point system? Who would decide how much value my good deeds had?

Again, congress would choose that. Or the courts.

Would it be based on money?

See, I came to you guys so you'd all figure out the details. Not me.

A what about saving someone's life? And what about doctors - they would have an unfair advantage. And there's 300 million people in the US.

Is it unfair? They spent the first 24 - 30 years of their lives getting that unfair advantage. Seems at least a fair price to me.

Anyway, what you're suggesting has already been put in place by God. He sees all and knows all and everyone will be recompensed accordingly in the end.

Ah, but the separation of church and state says that we can't depend on God to do our governing here on earth. It all has to be decided by us. Besides, wouldn't it be nice to have a government that resembled God? It wouldn't exactly be heaven, but it would be a little closer to it.

 

[RDF]

This one isn't a joke

hypothetical situation: [...]

It appears to me that you consider the present legal system as mechanistic and unfair, so you're trying to come up with a new system that would be more responsive to real-life nuances, contradictions, and tensions.

But IMO the exact opposite is pretty much the case. The status quo is responsive to real-life nuances, contradictions, and tensions, whereas your system is automated and mechanistic.

Look at how the modern system arose.

Once upon a time there were no codified laws. If I committed an injustice against you or your family, then your clan would retaliate by committing an injustice against me. Then my clan would retaliate, and in no time we would have a long-running feud that tore apart the community.

Typically, early societies dealt with this by bringing conflicts to a public arena where the contestants fought. The contestants fought according to rules; a referee of some sort made sure the rules were followed; and the community served as the audience so they could see for themselves that justice was served. If the contestants were of unequal fighting ability, they were allowed to choose a champion to fight in their stead. In time, all fights were fought by hired champions.

Eventually, that system morphed into the modern-day legal system. The referee had turned into the judge, the hired champions turned into the lawyers, and the community is represented by the jury. (There are also background elements like social workers and appeals courts to add another layer of fairness.)

The modern system includes all these various elements to keep the system flexible and responsive to the needs of the various parties (contestants, community, and the needs of the legal system itself). Lawyers speak on behalf of the contestants and tell their stories, including any extenuating circumstances or aspects that might exonerate their clients. Juries hear both sides of the conflict, inspect the contestants personally, and pronounce guilt or innocence; they even have leeway to declare a guilty man innocent if they side with him strongly enough. Judges keep the contest fair by imposing rules on what can be presented, and they have discretion to impose a light sentence or a harsh sentence on the guilty party depending on the circumstances of the case.

In short, the "human element" is well-represented in the modern legal system.

Your proposition of a "point" system, on the other hand, would tend to take discretion out of the hands of the judges, lawyer, and juries. Traditionally, judges and lawyers tend to dislike any kind of legal changes that "automate" the imposition of sentences. For example, things like the "three strikes" rule in California tend to automate sentences and create unfairness by imposing automatic harsh sentences for petty crimes simply because they are the magic "third strike." Also, as you yourself pointed out, under your rules criminals could "game the system" by watching their point count and playing around with their scores.

Under your system, the criminals would gain all the discretion to influence the system, and the lawyers, judges, and juries would have no discretion for modifying the results to take into account special circumstances.

In summary: I agree that the current system creates some injustices. But the "human element" still plays a huge role under the current system and allows for a good dose of discretion and fairness. That presumably makes the current system more just and more responsive to special circumstances than any alternative system that would automate the legal system and impose penalties based on a rigid formula.

By the way, I'm not trying to dog you by shooting down your ideas here and in another thread. I'm just trying to point out that sometimes the status quo has good reason for being the status quo: Despite its shortcomings, it has stood the test of time and proven itself the best available (or most realistic) match for the needs of the community.

 

[sassafrassquatch]

I don't care if he cured AIDS and cancer. The killing is all that matters. You kill, we kill you back. That's the way things should be.

 

[The Ü™]

Would you really go to prison for very long for killing a homeless man? I mean, a person's social status matters a lot when the courts do sentencing. Killing the president, for example, is a capital, even shoot-on-sight offense, but killing a lesser person results in lesser punishment. Killing a crazy penniless homeless person, who is practically a bug in society's eyes, would probably not be that severe (and you might not even get caught).

I say that Mr. Nice Guy was defending himself and had every right to kill the homeless person. Rule number 1: Never trust a crazy person. And since the homeless person was crazy, killing him would put him out of his misery.

 

[Wandering]

Donating a million dollars to a charity should get you more points than saving a cat from a tree.

Mhm... So let's say you're a 20yo girl from a poor family, who works hard in college, holds two jobs to help feed her family, and spends all her week-ends helping out in the community (helping poor kids with their homework, rescuing cats from trees, cleaning out public areas, and so on...) IOW: you're a really "good" person. Then here comes this 50yo guy, born in a rich family, who's been pretty much living off his inheritance, not doing ANY "good" work, but cleverly giving huge sums of money to charity every year, not because he cares about charities but just for the points. He sees you, finds you hot, rapes you, kills you. Rape and murder carry a high number of negative points, but Mr Rich Guy has accumulated more than that number in positive points in his life, through his giving to charities. So he doesn't suffer *any* consequence for his raping and killing you, except for the loss of those rape and murder points.

How is that any better than the current system?

Is it unfair? They spent the first 24 - 30 years of their lives getting that unfair advantage.

It's unfair because they get *massive* amounts of free points for doing what they *like* doing. It's also unfair because not everybody can become a doctor, even if they want to. And finally it's unfair because it equals to a *double* salary: they get paid both in money and in points for the same job.

Interesting idea you had, but on the level of Communism if you ask me: great in theory, disastrous in practice.

 

[ygolo]

I don't care if he cured AIDS and cancer. The killing is all that matters. You kill, we kill you back. That's the way things should be.

Then why don't we then kill the killer of the killer (and so on)? If killing is wrong in principle, why is it OK for the state to do it?

It's an interesting idea. Perhaps part of what is behind the idea of reforming criminals.

There is also this idea.

I have never belived that punative measures are very effective. I consider them cop-outs, and often are institutionalized forms of exacting revenge.

Yes, we can't be suckers to be taken advanage of, but incarcerations and executions seem like an incredible waste of human potential. The most justification we can give is the protection of other members of society, but I firmly belive there are better ways.

EDIT: As a further comment, I consider these "Your Ideal is not Realistic" major cop-outs in discussions of ideals. It presupposes, that there will be some insta-trasformation to the ideals being discussed without time to become nuanced and account for realistic "migration paths", etc. You can use that argument against any future ideal or vision, and I consider it a tautology, and nearly useless to mention.

 

[Kiddo]

Proposition:
New laws. Rather than the old type, all of which only tell you what you can't do, they are changed to what you shouldn't do, and the new set that says things you should do. Both sets go on file. You get points (varying degrees of acts in both directions) and if your score goes below 0 then you go to prison for as many years as points you've got under 0.

Before you condemn this by saying " Well that will encourage crime! People will do good things to balance their scores, and then go and commit more crimes" I ask that you consider that statement.

Crimes will be committed. That's a fact. That's why we have police. Because we know it's going to happen. But at least this way, even the criminals help out, and if they don't, we bag 'em up, just like before.

Obviously I don't know everything, so suggestions or addons are encouraged.

It's been done before. Look up the abuse of indulgences in the Reformation.

In Roman Catholic theology, an "indulgence" is the remission of temporal punishment for a sin that has already been forgiven; the indulgence is granted by the church when the sinner confesses and receives absolution. When an indulgence is given, the church is extending merit to a sinner from its Treasure House of Merit, an accumulation of merits it has collected based on the good deeds of the saints. These merits could be bought and sold.

Indulgences were abused in the 16th century and the result was a system pretty much like you described. It was so bad, you could pay for your pardon from a crime before you even committed it by simply giving money to the church. Wandering pretty much nailed the ultimate downside to your set up. The rich can buy there way out of crimes before they even commit them simply by donating to charities just as the Reformers got out of their crimes by buying indulgences from the church.

Somehow I think Wandering already knew all this but was just too lazy to say it.

 

[Wandering]

It's been done before. Look up the abuse of indulgences in the Reformation.

Indulgences were abused in the 16th century and the result was a system pretty much like you described. It was so bad, you could pay for your pardon from a crime before you even committed it by simply giving money to the church. Wandering pretty much nailed the ultimate downside to your set up. The rich can buy there way out of crimes before they even commit them simply by donating to charities just as the Reformers got out of their crimes by buying indulgences from the church.

Somehow I think Wandering already knew all this but was just too lazy to say it.

Actually, I'd forgotten about indulgences :rolli: But then that's typical of me: I remember the ideas and concepts carried by precise historical facts, though I "forget" about the facts themselves. So now that you mention it, it's obvious that my "forgotten" knowledge of indulgences heavily influenced my hypothetical scenario, but at no time did I actually remember the indulgences themselves

 

[Kiddo]

Actually, I'd forgotten about indulgences :rolli: But then that's typical of me: I remember the ideas and concepts carried by precise historical facts, though I "forget" about the facts themselves. So now that you mention it, it's obvious that my "forgotten" knowledge of indulgences heavily influenced my hypothetical scenario, but at no time did I actually remember the indulgences themselves

I do that all the time too. Perhaps it's an Ni trait.

It's as if all that really matters is the underlying meaning.

 

[Wandering]

I do that all the time too. Perhaps it's an Ni trait.

It's as if all that really matters is the underlying meaning.

Funny, I've actually been thinking along those EXACT same lines

 

[Athenian200]

Indulgences were abused in the 16th century and the result was a system pretty much like you described. It was so bad, you could pay for your pardon from a crime before you even committed it by simply giving money to the church. Wandering pretty much nailed the ultimate downside to your set up. The rich can buy there way out of crimes before they even commit them simply by donating to charities just as the Reformers got out of their crimes by buying indulgences from the church.

Actually, I'm not sure that worked for everything... did being forgiven by the church equate to being pardoned by the governments/law enforcement of the nations where the crimes were committed? So to me, I think such a system might even be worse than indulgences.

 

[Kiddo]

Actually, I'm not sure that worked for everything... did being forgiven by the church equate to being pardoned by the governments/law enforcement of the nations where the crimes were committed? So to me, I think such a system might even be worse than indulgences.

Back in the 16th century, the church was the law. They were usually the ones that handed out punishment. For example, the Spanish Inquisition.

The proposed system is actually fairly religious in and of itself if you think about it. It supposes that good deeds are redemption from bad deeds. But I have to admit, that I don't know exactly how comparable the two would be. And a system that would so clearly favor the rich over the poor without even the guise of serving religious duty could be considerably worse.