"I agree that it's emotionally horrendous to contemplate murder or assault based on involuntary group membership."
I don't think you can (or should) separate the concept of justice from emotion though. The reason we care about a mass shooting or a rape more than tax fraud or insider trading is largely emotional. I don't believe that shoul…
"I agree that it's emotionally horrendous to contemplate murder or assault based on involuntary group membership."
I don't think you can (or should) separate the concept of justice from emotion though. The reason we care about a mass shooting or a rape more than tax fraud or insider trading is largely emotional. I don't believe that should change.
If a man beats up a child or a disabled person, for example, I don't want him simply to be tried for assault. The vulnerability of his victim and the danger somebody with his mindset poses to other similar victims should be taken into account.
Similarly, if somebody attacks somebody because of their membership of a particular group, I think the danger they pose to other members of that group should be taken into account. I don't see how we're worse off for doing this. I'm all for live and let live. I'm not talking about being gross out by somebody else's decision to eat a dog. I'm talking about somebody who poses a danger to a specific group of people.
Also, I think one of the legal system's most important functions is to be an expression of the society we aspire to be. We aspire to be a society where there's no murder, so murder is outlawed. But we recognise that there are different degrees of wrongness for murder, so we nuance self-defence and pre-meditation and crimes of passion and crimes against children. We don't just say they're all murder and so should be treated equally. We don't second guess our sense that the circumstances and motivations of the crime matter. What would be the benefit of doing so?
> "I'm talking about somebody who poses a danger to a specific group of people"
This is the kind of rational concern that I consider vital, so we are strongly agreed. I never said that emotion can play no part, I'm just saying that emotion alone is a poor guide.
My point was that we should rationally explore such dangers and choose strategies which have traction on reducing them, rather than rely in immediate emotional reactions, which can produce both counterproductive policies which undermine our goals, and collateral injustices.
Note my screen name begins with "passion", but does not end there. I'm not trying to extinguish all emotion, just balance it out wisely.
I suspect we are essentially in agreement in this regard. Cheers.
"I never said that emotion can play no part, I'm just saying that emotion alone is a poor guide."
Oh yeah absolutely agreed. I'd never advocate blind emotionality. I'm often accused of not being emotional enough😅 I just meant that I don't think we can understand why it matters whether there's a racial element to a crime without allowing emotion to play its part.
"I agree that it's emotionally horrendous to contemplate murder or assault based on involuntary group membership."
I don't think you can (or should) separate the concept of justice from emotion though. The reason we care about a mass shooting or a rape more than tax fraud or insider trading is largely emotional. I don't believe that should change.
If a man beats up a child or a disabled person, for example, I don't want him simply to be tried for assault. The vulnerability of his victim and the danger somebody with his mindset poses to other similar victims should be taken into account.
Similarly, if somebody attacks somebody because of their membership of a particular group, I think the danger they pose to other members of that group should be taken into account. I don't see how we're worse off for doing this. I'm all for live and let live. I'm not talking about being gross out by somebody else's decision to eat a dog. I'm talking about somebody who poses a danger to a specific group of people.
Also, I think one of the legal system's most important functions is to be an expression of the society we aspire to be. We aspire to be a society where there's no murder, so murder is outlawed. But we recognise that there are different degrees of wrongness for murder, so we nuance self-defence and pre-meditation and crimes of passion and crimes against children. We don't just say they're all murder and so should be treated equally. We don't second guess our sense that the circumstances and motivations of the crime matter. What would be the benefit of doing so?
> "I'm talking about somebody who poses a danger to a specific group of people"
This is the kind of rational concern that I consider vital, so we are strongly agreed. I never said that emotion can play no part, I'm just saying that emotion alone is a poor guide.
My point was that we should rationally explore such dangers and choose strategies which have traction on reducing them, rather than rely in immediate emotional reactions, which can produce both counterproductive policies which undermine our goals, and collateral injustices.
Note my screen name begins with "passion", but does not end there. I'm not trying to extinguish all emotion, just balance it out wisely.
I suspect we are essentially in agreement in this regard. Cheers.
"I never said that emotion can play no part, I'm just saying that emotion alone is a poor guide."
Oh yeah absolutely agreed. I'd never advocate blind emotionality. I'm often accused of not being emotional enough😅 I just meant that I don't think we can understand why it matters whether there's a racial element to a crime without allowing emotion to play its part.