On Apr 16, 10:12=A0pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 13, Al ****ba <williamhubb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.rense.com/general81/sud.htm
>
> > Hatecrime laws seek to regulate thought. they are bull****e!
> > If someone brains someone with a ball peren hammer, does
> > screaming "I love you!" really mitigate the crime?
>
=2E..states or governments are to be evaluated according to the degree
to which they satisfy two fundamental criteria. First, they should
protect and, where appropriate, implement the natural or human rights
of their citizens. Second, they must institute just procedures for the
adjudication of conflicting claims of right. We maintain that, at
least in countries whose population exists significantly above the
subsistence level, democracy is the principal procedure for such
adjudication.
The Individual & the Poliical Order
An Introduction to Social & Political Philosophy
-Norman E. Bowie & Robert L. Simon
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0847687805/
Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or
incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of
people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
Defamation laws may come into tension with freedom of speech, leading
to censor****p or chilling effects where publishers fear lawsuits, or
loss of reputation where individuals have no effective protection
against reckless or unfounded allegations. Article 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights permits restrictions on freedom of speech
which are necessary for the protection of the reputation or the rights
of others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
[unrelated but interesting scenarios]
2.1 The fat man
2.2 The track that loops back
2.3 Transplant
2.4 The man in the yard
2.5 The guilty man and the president
2.6 The ultimate sacrifice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
> i) =A0A motorist runs through a stop sign by
> accident, causing you injury.
>
> ii) =A0A motorist deliberately hits you with
> his vehicle, causing the same injury.
>
> Should he be face the same penalty in
> both cases?
>
Intention is defined in R. v Mohan as "the decision to bring about a
prohibited consequence".
A range of words is used to represent shades of intention in the
various criminal laws around the world. The most serious crime of
murder, for example, traditionally expressed the mens rea element as
malice aforethought, and the interpretations of malice, "maliciously"
and "wilfully" vary between pure intention and recklessness depending
on the state and the seriousness of the offence.
A person intends a consequence when he or she foresees that it will
happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue and desires
it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the
most serious levels of punishment, will be achieved when both these
components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective"
test). A person who plans and executes a crime is considered, rightly
or wrongly, a more serious danger to the public than one who acts
spontaneously, whether out of the sudden op****tunity to steal, or out
of anger to injure another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_%28criminal%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpable_homicide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
> --
> Rich
|
