tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,159
|
Post by tallguy on May 31, 2015 12:32:33 GMT -5
I'm not sure I would agree with that. I certainly do not agree with the suicide tangent he took, but the premise of crime consenting to possible punishment is not far-fetched. It would require that the criminal be imbued with the ability to look ahead logically in order for that to be articulated, but I think it can be implied. The choice to not commit a crime for fear of consequence certainly exists. Isn't this just the converse of that? there is no consent in crime. it is inherently non-consensual at all levels. the victim does not consent to the crime, and the perpetrator does not consent to punishment. if either were the case, there would be no need for a legal system. it is actually quite a simple concept, imo. Certainly the victim does not consent to the crime. That is actually what makes it crime in most cases. But the perpetrator has a choice whether to commit the act. There will also be consequences of that act. A range of possible punishments is included in that set of possible consequences. It would seem to follow necessarily that acceptance of that range of consequences is required to make the choice to commit the act. Now, it is not a conscious choice, in that very few actually think the matter through. I will grant that. And if you change your statement:
to instead say [possible] punishment, does it still hold? The legal system exists because they wish to avoid punishment, not because they don't think it is "deserved" or at least an acceptable risk.
Another example of consenting to punishment: You're a parent, as am I. Were you ever faced with:
1. "If you don't do your homework, you don't get to play." 2. "If you don't keep your grades up, you can't be on the team." 3. "If you don't pass your test, you can't use the car."
You cannot effectively force your child to do any of those things. It is ultimately their choice, but that choice will have consequences. By not making the proper (in your mind) choice (given of course the expectation that you as the parent WILL follow through), are they not consenting to the punishment? They may not desire the punishment but they are in effect consenting to it. No?
And viewed that way, I can almost even see Richard's contention that they are "requesting" the punishment, at least in the sense that they are positively affirming one choice (to not comply) over the other (to do what you ask.) Crime is only that on a much larger scale, although in that case, and what the criminal is counting on, is that there is no certainty of punishment.
(Or is this all merely a semantic difference over the word, "crime?")
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,159
|
Post by tallguy on May 31, 2015 12:48:24 GMT -5
Weeee're sorrrry....
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,476
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on May 31, 2015 12:58:39 GMT -5
... Another example of consenting to punishment: You're a parent, as am I. Were you ever faced with:
1. "If you don't do your homework, you don't get to play." 2. "If you don't keep your grades up, you can't be on the team." 3. "If you don't pass your test, you can't use the car."
You cannot effectively force your child to do any of those things. It is ultimately their choice, but that choice will have consequences. By not making the proper (in your mind) choice (given of course the expectation that you as the parent WILL follow through), are they not consenting to the punishment? They may not desire the punishment but they are in effect consenting to it. No?
And viewed that way, I can almost even see Richard's contention that they are "requesting" the punishment, ... It is only punishment if it is not desired. What if your child does not wish to play, be on the team, nor drive? They can get what they want by not doing homework, keeping grades up, nor passing the test. You reward them for not doing what you want them to do. In Richard's situation, you have a person "requesting" that society kill him or her. The way to achieve their goal is to commit a heinous crime, a behavior that society would prefer they not engage in.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,159
|
Post by tallguy on May 31, 2015 13:02:44 GMT -5
... Another example of consenting to punishment: You're a parent, as am I. Were you ever faced with:
1. "If you don't do your homework, you don't get to play." 2. "If you don't keep your grades up, you can't be on the team." 3. "If you don't pass your test, you can't use the car."
You cannot effectively force your child to do any of those things. It is ultimately their choice, but that choice will have consequences. By not making the proper (in your mind) choice (given of course the expectation that you as the parent WILL follow through), are they not consenting to the punishment? They may not desire the punishment but they are in effect consenting to it. No?
And viewed that way, I can almost even see Richard's contention that they are "requesting" the punishment, ... It is only punishment if it is not desired. What if your child does not wish to play, be on the team, nor drive? They can get what they want by not doing homework, keeping grades up, nor passing the test. You reward them for not doing what you want them to do.
In Richard's situation, you have a person "requesting" that society kill him or her. The way to achieve their goal is to commit a heinous crime, a behavior that society would prefer they not engage in. The statements assume that the consequence is a denial of something they desire. Obviously, if those particular conditions do not apply in a case you choose other ones that do. Take away their phone or video games, whatever. The principle applies.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 31, 2015 13:15:03 GMT -5
there is no consent in crime. it is inherently non-consensual at all levels. the victim does not consent to the crime, and the perpetrator does not consent to punishment. if either were the case, there would be no need for a legal system. it is actually quite a simple concept, imo. Certainly the victim does not consent to the crime. That is actually what makes it crime in most cases. But the perpetrator has a choice whether to commit the act.
that actually has to be shown. it has to be shown that he is even AWARE of the act. it has to be shown that the act actually constitutes a crime. it has to be shown that the law is relevant, that there are no exigent circumstances that would allow it to not be seen as a "crime", etc. so, no. you guys are trying to make this cut and dry, but it really isn't.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 31, 2015 13:17:03 GMT -5
to instead say [possible] punishment, does it still hold? no, not really. because once again, you can't extrapolate that principle. you can't consent to stuff that is uncertain. that is what contracts are for. to make sure that NOTHING is uncertain. if i kill my wife or rob my neighbor, i am not consenting to anything. i will do my best to not get caught, and if i do get caught, i will do my best to avoid punishment. to say that i am EXPECTING punishment is, i think, absurd. this is particularly true of "crimes of passion", "accidental homicides", etc. you are not consenting to anything- you are not even THINKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU ARE ENGAGING IN A CRIMINAL ACT. are there specific cases where this is NOT true? sure. i just don't think the general case holds. in fact, i think in the general case, it doesn't hold at all.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,476
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on May 31, 2015 13:19:08 GMT -5
It is only punishment if it is not desired. What if your child does not wish to play, be on the team, nor drive? They can get what they want by not doing homework, keeping grades up, nor passing the test. You reward them for not doing what you want them to do.
In Richard's situation, you have a person "requesting" that society kill him or her. The way to achieve their goal is to commit a heinous crime, a behavior that society would prefer they not engage in. The statements assume that the consequence is a denial of something they desire. Obviously, if those particular conditions do not apply in a case you choose other ones that do. Take away their phone or video games, whatever. The principle applies. so if death is desired, it shouldn't be given as a consequence.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,159
|
Post by tallguy on May 31, 2015 13:56:27 GMT -5
to instead say [possible] punishment, does it still hold? no, not really. because once again, you can't extrapolate that principle. you can't consent to stuff that is uncertain. that is what contracts are for. to make sure that NOTHING is uncertain. if i kill my wife or rob my neighbor, i am not consenting to anything. i will do my best to not get caught, and if i do get caught, i will do my best to avoid punishment. to say that i am EXPECTING punishment is, i think, absurd. this is particularly true of "crimes of passion", "accidental homicides", etc. you are not consenting to anything- you are not even THINKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU ARE ENGAGING IN A CRIMINAL ACT. are there specific cases where this is NOT true? sure. i just don't think the general case holds. in fact, i think in the general case, it doesn't hold at all. Of course you can, in the larger sense. If you kill your wife or rob your neighbor, you know that there are a number of possibilities resulting from doing so. You will obviously hope for, "Don't get caught." The second is, as you say, "Beat the charge." After those two comes a range of possible punishments. And nowhere have I said anything about EXPECTING punishment. You are, however, accepting it as a possibility, though hopefully an unlikely one. Your choice to go ahead means that you valued performing that act more than any possible punishment. Or at least, to put it in more probability-related or mathematical terms, more than the expected value of any such punishment. And again, it does not have to be a conscious choice. It most likely won't be. But if the performance of that act is what you in fact do, it can reasonably be implied that that was what you valued most highly.
As far as the crimes of passion, or for that matter the conditions in the previous post, I don't see them as particularly relevant to the theory. If there are sufficient mitigating circumstances they would be taken into account during either the decision to prosecute, trial, or sentencing. They do not negate the theory.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 22:18:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2015 18:36:57 GMT -5
If a woman is having vigorous (on her part) sex with you (you are just laying there, she's doing all the "work") but has never said or written "I consent to having sex with you"... has she consented... or not? perfect example. if a woman does not CONSENT to that sex, it can be construed as rape. I agree it's a perfect example... now... would you answer the question?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 22:18:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2015 18:40:27 GMT -5
No. In this type of case, we are dealing with the consent of the "actor" only. Whether HE is willing or not is irrelevant to whether on not SHE is. He says "consent is either verbal or written". I contend that actions can be considered consent. i contend that that attitude could land you in jail. You can "contend that" all you like... wouldn't make you right though.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 22:18:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2015 18:43:14 GMT -5
Richard: if you are not going to budge, neither am i, and this is going to devolve into playground "you're wrong" echoing. so, are we done? The difference between this and "playground "you're wrong" is... Where usually both kids on the playground are usually wrong... in this case one of us isn't wrong (here's a hint: it's me). But... That said. I can be "done" if you want to be "done" as well (remembering my last couple of posts before this one were made before I got to this request).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 22:18:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2015 18:43:44 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 31, 2015 19:45:34 GMT -5
perfect example. if a woman does not CONSENT to that sex, it can be construed as rape. I agree it's a perfect example... now... would you answer the question? not. the consent has to happen BEFORE the sex, or it is non consensual sex.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 31, 2015 19:47:24 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 31, 2015 19:50:08 GMT -5
no, not really. because once again, you can't extrapolate that principle. you can't consent to stuff that is uncertain. that is what contracts are for. to make sure that NOTHING is uncertain. if i kill my wife or rob my neighbor, i am not consenting to anything. i will do my best to not get caught, and if i do get caught, i will do my best to avoid punishment. to say that i am EXPECTING punishment is, i think, absurd. this is particularly true of "crimes of passion", "accidental homicides", etc. you are not consenting to anything- you are not even THINKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU ARE ENGAGING IN A CRIMINAL ACT. are there specific cases where this is NOT true? sure. i just don't think the general case holds. in fact, i think in the general case, it doesn't hold at all. Of course you can, in the larger sense. If you kill your wife or rob your neighbor, you know that there are a number of possibilities resulting from doing so.
sure. you might thing that it would ensure your survival, for example.
You will obviously hope for, "Don't get caught." The second is, as you say, "Beat the charge." After those two comes a range of possible punishments. And nowhere have I said anything about EXPECTING punishment. You are, however, accepting it as a possibility, though hopefully an unlikely one. Your choice to go ahead means that you valued performing that act more than any possible punishment. Or at least, to put it in more probability-related or mathematical terms, more than the expected value of any such punishment. And again, it does not have to be a conscious choice. It most likely won't be. But if the performance of that act is what you in fact do, it can reasonably be implied that that was what you valued most highly.
As far as the crimes of passion, or for that matter the conditions in the previous post, I don't see them as particularly relevant to the theory. If there are sufficient mitigating circumstances they would be taken into account during either the decision to prosecute, trial, or sentencing. They do not negate the theory.
the problem is that you are being rational. criminals are not as rational as you.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 22:18:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2015 20:22:57 GMT -5
I agree it's a perfect example... now... would you answer the question? not. the consent has to happen BEFORE the sex, or it is non consensual sex. Her "mounting" him IS the consent (for her). Please Google the following: Consent "active and willing participation". If you do, you'll note that many (15,300 Google results to that exact phrase + word) universities, colleges, and other institutions don't use your "must be written or verbal" as their criteria. Just sayin'. But I thought we were "done"?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 22:18:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2015 20:23:48 GMT -5
Only confused about your illogic, sir. Not "in a general sense".
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,159
|
Post by tallguy on May 31, 2015 20:44:55 GMT -5
Of course you can, in the larger sense. If you kill your wife or rob your neighbor, you know that there are a number of possibilities resulting from doing so.
sure. you might thing that it would ensure your survival, for example.
You will obviously hope for, "Don't get caught." The second is, as you say, "Beat the charge." After those two comes a range of possible punishments. And nowhere have I said anything about EXPECTING punishment. You are, however, accepting it as a possibility, though hopefully an unlikely one. Your choice to go ahead means that you valued performing that act more than any possible punishment. Or at least, to put it in more probability-related or mathematical terms, more than the expected value of any such punishment. And again, it does not have to be a conscious choice. It most likely won't be. But if the performance of that act is what you in fact do, it can reasonably be implied that that was what you valued most highly.
As far as the crimes of passion, or for that matter the conditions in the previous post, I don't see them as particularly relevant to the theory. If there are sufficient mitigating circumstances they would be taken into account during either the decision to prosecute, trial, or sentencing. They do not negate the theory.
the problem is that you are being rational. criminals are not as rational as you. Yeah, I'm kinda stuck that way. And, unlike criminals, I really DON'T have a choice.
I would still contend that the rationality of criminals is not really required here. Unless committing a criminal act is basically an autonomic response, there is still a choice being made to commit it. And there must still be a basis for that decision. I have already stated that I do not think it is a conscious examination of possibilities, but it doesn't need to be. it can be as simple as what is most important to him in the moment. But in that moment, committing the act outweighs any thought of or concern about punishment. And in that sense, they can rightfully be said to be willing to risk punishment in order to commit the act. Or in other words, that they consent to the possibility of suffering punishment in order to commit that act.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 1, 2015 2:20:33 GMT -5
the problem is that you are being rational. criminals are not as rational as you. Yeah, I'm kinda stuck that way. And, unlike criminals, I really DON'T have a choice.
I would still contend that the rationality of criminals is not really required here. Unless committing a criminal act is basically an autonomic response, there is still a choice being made to commit it. And there must still be a basis for that decision. I have already stated that I do not think it is a conscious examination of possibilities, but it doesn't need to be. it can be as simple as what is most important to him in the moment. But in that moment, committing the act outweighs any thought of or concern about punishment. And in that sense, they can rightfully be said to be willing to risk punishment in order to commit the act. Or in other words, that they consent to the possibility of suffering punishment in order to commit that act.
i pointed out at least a few instances where there is no "choice" in the rational sense. i have pointed out at least one other case where the perp will walk even though they commit murder. in NONE of these cases are people choosing punishment. in fact, they are not even thinking about it- only the actions they are undertaking. i just don't think you can generalize at all. there are too many exceptions. smart, thinking crooks consider the consequences. i am not sure how small the fraction is. on my cynical days, i think it is next to none.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 1, 2015 2:21:20 GMT -5
Only confused about your illogic, sir. Not "in a general sense". that is because you see illogic, where there is none. incidentally, i don't attack you for lack of logic, because i see your logic. if you don't see mine, then illustrate it. but simply saying that i don't have any logic is an ad hominem attack rather than an argument or discussion. please desist.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 1, 2015 2:22:20 GMT -5
not. the consent has to happen BEFORE the sex, or it is non consensual sex. Her "mounting" him IS the consent (for her). please review "yes means yes".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 1, 2015 2:23:56 GMT -5
But I thought we were "done"? sexual consent is a subtopic. i think we are still debating that one. but if you would LIKE to be done, "in general", that's fine, too.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 22:18:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2015 2:55:18 GMT -5
Her "mounting" him IS the consent (for her). please review "yes means yes". Please review "actions speak louder than words".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 22:18:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2015 2:59:13 GMT -5
But I thought we were "done"? sexual consent is a subtopic. i think we are still debating that one. but if you would LIKE to be done, "in general", that's fine, too. Ahhhh... I'm good. Debating is a fine art... as long as it doesn't devolve into name calling and acrimony (which we haven't done, and don't usually do) Lay on, Macduff, And damn'd be him that first cries, 'Hold, enough!'
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 1, 2015 10:18:51 GMT -5
please review "yes means yes". Please review "actions speak louder than words". i have. have you reviewed "yes means yes"?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 22:18:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2015 19:20:08 GMT -5
Please review "actions speak louder than words". i have. have you reviewed "yes means yes"? Yup. California adopts 'yes means yes' law (source: USA Today)note this from the above link: Note how it doesn't say anything about spoken or written word? Just that it must be "an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision". Actively performing the sex act (as in my example that I questioned you on earlier) is "an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision" made manifest AND KNOWN by action, and action alone.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 1, 2015 21:33:32 GMT -5
i have. have you reviewed "yes means yes"? Yup. California adopts 'yes means yes' law (source: USA Today)note this from the above link: Note how it doesn't say anything about spoken or written word? Just that it must be "an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision". Actively performing the sex act (as in my example that I questioned you on earlier) is "an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision" made manifest AND KNOWN by action, and action alone. i am pretty sure that the person you are having sex with has to say yes, Richard. thus the pet name for the legislation.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 22:18:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2015 21:35:22 GMT -5
Yup. California adopts 'yes means yes' law (source: USA Today)note this from the above link: Note how it doesn't say anything about spoken or written word? Just that it must be "an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision". Actively performing the sex act (as in my example that I questioned you on earlier) is "an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision" made manifest AND KNOWN by action, and action alone. i am pretty sure that the person you are having sex with has to say yes, Richard. thus the pet name for the legislation. "yes" can be proven by action. That's the point you seem to be missing.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 1, 2015 21:52:49 GMT -5
i am pretty sure that the person you are having sex with has to say yes, Richard. thus the pet name for the legislation. "yes" can be proven by action. That's the point you seem to be missing. "Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent." a silent partner is not consenting, Richard. and you knew that, because it was the next sentence in the law. so, you are just.... messing with me, now. lucky for you, i consent to it.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 1, 2015 22:07:05 GMT -5
I thought no can mean yes according to the Rush Limbaugh rules of seduction
But I agree with Richard- yes can be easily inferred from actions- can't think of one time in my life I specifically asked for consent- would be awkward- but here you go:
|
|