I think there could be a lot of improvements to our legal system if it was more focused on reciprocity (actual harm) than this thought policing. Here's where the guy in the convenience store benefits, say 5k of crack drops out of his jacket in front of a cop. What happens now in the thought police system? He becomes a felon and does time. I wouldn't make him a felon and put him away. Has he hurt us? Has he taken our property or harmed it? No, no, and no.

I think we'd be much better off dealing with real actual harms than punishing people on pretense.

So I guess if he dropped a sawed off shotgun and detailed plans of a murder spree, then no harm (yet) no foul?
based on what you just stated, no problem.

Tom,
it wouldn't be a charge of murder, as nobody has died. Perhaps you support the theory behind that Tom Cruise film "Minority Report"?

Well, it could be possible that he could be charged with attempted murder. It would depend on whether he had taken a sufficient enough step in the furtherence of the crime of murder.

bbauska wrote:I don't care if you believed you were threatened. It is the actuality that matters. If an insane person kills Grandma, thinking she is an evil tooth fairy, then it would bring a trial for murder. If the defendant can actually prove Grandma IS an evil tooth fairy, that required self defense, I would acquit.

I don't care what the person was thinking. I care what the actuality is. If a battered wife waits until the husband is sleeping and then shoots him point blank in the head, is that murder? Was she insane due to the "battered-wife syndrome"? The actuality is that she shot the husband while not being threatened. She could have left. That would be murder.

Good thing to know that the world is a simple place for you. I actually envy you.

It is not a simple place, far from it. The values and standards that should be ruling the way society deals with difficult problems should be however.

Archduke Russell John wrote:Well, it could be possible that he could be charged with attempted murder. It would depend on whether he had taken a sufficient enough step in the furtherence of the crime of murder.

Attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder are different crimes, and not in the scope of this discussion.

bbauska wrote:Attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder are different crimes, and not in the scope of this discussion.

WHy not? You are all about the acts the person took. In the attempted murder charge, he has taken an action to commit murder. In your action based world, he should be tried.

Archduke,
You are right. To commit the crime, but fail is the commission just the same.

bbauska wrote:It is not a simple place, far from it. The values and standards that should be ruling the way society deals with difficult problems should be however.

How's that supposed to work ? The defining property of complex issues is that they defy simple solutions or answers.

Exactly, Faxmonkey. One definition of ideological fundamentalism is the desire to see the same simple solutions for every problem. It will always be the exceptions that test the rule (and 'test' is the meaning of the word 'prove' in the original statement).

Please note that I did not say it was simple solutions. Simple values and standards, yes. Solutions? Hardly.

What values are represented in your response to the Giffords shooting and its aftermath? (including the issue of the assaillaints ability to stand trial.)
Do you value retribution over due process?
Do you value the presumption of innocence over the need to act? Or vice versa?
Do you value acting to prevent crimes or acting to punish criminals?
Just wondering...

Answering your questions in order...
Retribution over Due Process? No.
Presumption over need to act? No.
Acting to prevent crimes? This is not the government's responsibility to prevent crime. In Loughner's case, the family and friends should have acted. Once the crime is committed it is the responsibility of the government to punish.

bbauska wrote:Please note that I did not say it was simple solutions. Simple values and standards, yes. Solutions? Hardly.

The idea of simple values and standards is around probably since long before the ten commandments and look how well that turned out.
The commandment thou shalt not kill is really simple and straightforward and still there are numerous accepted exceptions and always have been. It was even considered a good thing to kill the right people (whoever that happened to be at any given time).
Today we think nothing of killing a few innocent civilians, if we can also get some towelheaded Taliban leader in the deal.
When you say the crazy person should be dealt in the same way as someone who killed for greed or out of hate i'm really at loss what to say. That would make about as much sense as treating a drunk driver who killed someone the same way as someone who had a seizure or heart attack while driving and killed someone in an accident. The vicitim is dead either way, but the situation is completely different and can't be resolved by a simple principle in a way I would consider fair or just.
I get the appeal of simple and straightforward in an ever more complex world, but i really don't see how that's going to work.