User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 24

  1. #11
    perdu fleur par bologne Martoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    That requires meticulous cost-benefit analysis. You're going to have crunch all kinds of details to figure out if it less destructive overall for the person to be constantly drunk than it would be for the person to be sober. This also requires you to determine whether or not there are less destructive alternatives to being drunk that are just as effective at removing the person's damaging behavior.
    Oh, I agree, absolutely. I was being silly (but I'm sure you knew that).


    Not to derail your thread (he says as he derails it), but since you're Mr. Rigorous Logic Dude, what are your thoughts on punishments being determined more by outcomes than by behavior and intent? e.g.: Guy gets a little drunk and runs a stop sign. A cop witnesses it. So the guy loses his license for a couple months, or whatever. But if a school bus happens to be going through the intersection when he runs the stop sign, and several children are killed, he's put away for a long time. The only difference being that he got lucky in the first example, and unlucky in the second (but his intentions and behavior were identical). Is it appropriate to radically alter the severity of a punishment based on factors outside the control of the violator?
    I'm not a procrastinator. I'm a long-term planner.

  2. #12
    Resident Snot-Nose GZA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    infp
    Posts
    1,771

    Default

    In every day conversation/life, the whole "I was drunk" thing with your friends is more like a "I'm sorry, I was being fucking stupid, but you understand what it's like" and move on type thing. Depending on what it is you do, you may need more apology... the end goal is that you and the other guy understand eachother, that he would never want to do it but that it seemed smart at the time or whatever, blah blah blah. Still acountable, but give him a break.


    But law... like with everything in law, it depends. I believe they are accountable, but I realize that it does not always reflect on character, depending on the substance. For example, alcohol has different effects than PCP. Someone could do something on PCP that they wouldn't even realize they were doing, wake up, and not even remember doing it. I suppose thats true with Alcohol, too, but it's still quite different.

    Here's a circumstance here; what if a man kills someone while sleepwalking? There is some thing here (forget what the term is) that bassically says that if you are involuntarily unconcious of your actions (i.e. you start sleepwalking) and commit a crime you are not criminal guilty because you had no intent and no knowledge.

    I personally think that if you choose to drink or do drugs or whatever, you are 100% guilty on anything you do. If you rape a woman when you are drunk, sucks for you cause you chose to get drunk. Even if you would normally never, ever commit that act, you chose to do soemthing that would be the catalyst for doing that act so you are guilty. It's different from temporary insanity because it is chosen.


    Here's a sticky question; if a woman gets really, really drunk and then taken advantage of, is she not therefor somewhat accountable for inhibiting herself from not getting raped?

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Martoon View Post
    Not to derail your thread (he says as he derails it), but since you're Mr. Rigorous Logic Dude, what are your thoughts on punishments being determined more by outcomes than by behavior and intent? e.g.: Guy gets a little drunk and runs a stop sign. A cop witnesses it. So the guy loses his license for a couple months, or whatever. But if a school bus happens to be going through the intersection when he runs the stop sign, and several children are killed, he's put away for a long time. The only difference being that he got lucky in the first example, and unlucky in the second (but his intentions and behavior were identical). Is it appropriate to radically alter the severity of a punishment based on factors outside the control of the violator?
    I think about this all the time. What about a guy who shoots somebody in the face and they live, against a guy who shoots somebody in the leg, hits an artery and they bleed to death? I understand this is problematic because intent can never be fully ascertained and because the public would likely riot over intent-based sentences. But it still bothers me a little. It's kind of related to both the concept of hate crimes and the practice of charging someone with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman. Both make me angry.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  4. #14
    Resident Snot-Nose GZA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    infp
    Posts
    1,771

    Default

    In terms of intent here, I think it doesn't matter so much what the intent was, but knowing what the risks involved are. You may have intended to shoot them in the leg so they couldn't walk, but the action you intended to do had a seperate risk attatched to it and is therefor part of the intent. It's more important that you had intent to shoot the leg, or even just the gun/cause harm, then that you intended to do that particular injury and you got unlucky. If you intended to drive through the stop sign, the risk of a crash is attatched to that intent because your action carries risks with it. If you punch a guy in the face in a fight and he dies, you had intent to commit harm, the harm just exceeded your expectations.

    In an actual trial it all depends on all kind sof shit (personal history, the judge, blah blah blah), so who knows how you could reduce it...

  5. #15
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    No, a person should know themselves enough to know how they react when drunk and if they cannot control their actions while drunk they shouldn't be getting drunk, especially away from their homes.

  6. #16
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Martoon View Post
    Oh, I agree, absolutely. I was being silly (but I'm sure you knew that).
    I know you were being silly, but an intereseting aspect of philosophy is that you have to address silly questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martoon View Post
    Not to derail your thread (he says as he derails it), but since you're Mr. Rigorous Logic Dude, what are your thoughts on punishments being determined more by outcomes than by behavior and intent? e.g.: Guy gets a little drunk and runs a stop sign. A cop witnesses it. So the guy loses his license for a couple months, or whatever. But if a school bus happens to be going through the intersection when he runs the stop sign, and several children are killed, he's put away for a long time. The only difference being that he got lucky in the first example, and unlucky in the second (but his intentions and behavior were identical). Is it appropriate to radically alter the severity of a punishment based on factors outside the control of the violator?
    Oh, man. This is a really tough call. At heart, I belief in ethics of consequence, and so that might give reason for me to support changing the sentence based on consequence regardless of cause or intent. However, this could lead to taking up prison space and essentially squandering perfectly good people, which would be an unnecessary loss.

    I guess finding the best answer for the question would first require one to determine what the point of the justice system is. If it is to deter, then it should probably give people sentences based on consequences, while if it is more aimed at reform, then it should obviously based it's sentences at least in large part on the character of the person being sentenced.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  7. #17
    perdu fleur par bologne Martoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GZA View Post
    sucks for you cause you chose to get drunk.
    Heh. I think that pretty much sums up the whole topic rather nicely.

    Here's a sticky question; if a woman gets really, really drunk and then taken advantage of, is she not therefor somewhat accountable for inhibiting herself from not getting raped?
    Well, how did it alter her behavior, exactly? If she actually consented to the act because she was drunk, I'd say it definitely makes her accountable. But if she was objecting to what the guy was doing, but her being drunk made her easier to overpower or something, then I'd say the guy is every bit as guilty as if she were sober.
    I'm not a procrastinator. I'm a long-term planner.

  8. #18
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GZA View Post
    Here's a sticky question; if a woman gets really, really drunk and then taken advantage of, is she not therefor somewhat accountable for inhibiting herself from not getting raped?
    It's a sticky question only for those who are afraid of looking politically incorrect. The answer is clearly yes, though circumstances alter it, of course. If, say, a college girl got drunk in a frat house and decided to lay down for a little while upstairs, she is definitely accountable to some extent for what happens to her (not that it makes those who take advantage of her any less wrong).

    EDIT: To address Martoon's question: if she at any point clearly expresses resistance, then she certainly has very little accountable in the matter, but she may still have a little. It all comes back around to knowledge of consequences and making choices from it. If there were many other different things a woman could do, all of them easy and safer, and yet she chose to put herself in the vulnerable situation with full knowledge of the risks, then she is partly accountable, even she expresses resistence.

    Imagine someone deciding to go down the worst alley in town, at night, while carrying jangling bags of expensive jewelry. I do hold at least some right to tell that person that they were being idiotic.

    Oh, and lastly, no matter how accountable the victim is for being victimized, the perpetrator is always 100% accountable for his/her own acts. You couldn't say "but the guy was carrying bags of jewelry right into the alley, how could I resist mugging him?!".
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  9. #19
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Martoon View Post
    Well, how did it alter her behavior, exactly? If she actually consented to the act because she was drunk, I'd say it definitely makes her accountable. But if she was objecting to what the guy was doing, but her being drunk made her easier to overpower or something, then I'd say the guy is every bit as guilty as if she were sober.
    Agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by magic
    If, say, a college girl got drunk in a frat house and decided to lay down for a little while upstairs, she is definitely accountable to some extent for what happens to her (not that it makes those who take advantage of her any less wrong).
    If she's passed and cannot give consent, it's rape. If she gave consent, it isn't.

  10. #20
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    If she's passed and cannot give consent, it's rape.
    It would be rape, but that it is rape does not mean the woman is suddenly devoid of accountability. In the scenario I depicted, she is at least being highly irresponsible, if nothing else.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

Similar Threads

  1. [INFJ] Does anybody know how an INFJ might deal with death?
    By Idiosyncrazy in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-30-2014, 02:11 AM
  2. [ENTP] What does it mean when an ENTP says....
    By thegirlcandance in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 02-01-2011, 10:04 PM
  3. [INFJ] To Other Types: How does it feel when an INFJ gives you the (super) cold shoulder?
    By fill in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 10-03-2009, 06:23 AM
  4. [ISTJ] How does one successfully seduce an ISTJ male?
    By ReadingRainbows in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 05-21-2009, 09:32 PM
  5. Does passion grant unaccountability? (a brief ethical theory)
    By Giggly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-06-2008, 11:16 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO