When should we expect the book on The Problem of the Political "Justice" System: An Examination of the Right to Coerce, Kidnap, Cage, and/or Murder non-violent, peaceful people? 🤞😎
There might be another argument: because of sovereign immunity (which incidentally I object to), there is no direct disincentive for police or prosecutors to specifically violate suspects rights w.r.t. illegal evidence collection or other such. However, if the fact of their misconduct means that guilty people go free provides a corrective influence, even though in spite of sovereign immunity. So one has to consider weighing the harms of a society in which guilty people are always convicted, but, the government routinely violates people's rights, including innocent people's rights, vs. another in which government agents are disinclined to violate people's rights, even though it means that a few guilty people go free. It is not obvious that the latter case is necessarily worse than the former, and, indeed, governments can be very much worse mass murderers than mass murderers ever are. So, it could be morally correct for lawyers to advocate e.g. for the tossing of true, but, improperly obtained, evidence, that clearly establishes the guilt of the defendant, so as to keep the government from becoming abusive.
Perhaps metaethics is too big a topic for a third year philosophy student, but the whole problem only arises if one assumes the truth of intuitionism. Merely rejecting this unstated premise rescues lawyers from this conundrum.
Great work…one of these days I’ll tell u what happened in Massachusetts
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere MLK
When should we expect the book on The Problem of the Political "Justice" System: An Examination of the Right to Coerce, Kidnap, Cage, and/or Murder non-violent, peaceful people? 🤞😎
There might be another argument: because of sovereign immunity (which incidentally I object to), there is no direct disincentive for police or prosecutors to specifically violate suspects rights w.r.t. illegal evidence collection or other such. However, if the fact of their misconduct means that guilty people go free provides a corrective influence, even though in spite of sovereign immunity. So one has to consider weighing the harms of a society in which guilty people are always convicted, but, the government routinely violates people's rights, including innocent people's rights, vs. another in which government agents are disinclined to violate people's rights, even though it means that a few guilty people go free. It is not obvious that the latter case is necessarily worse than the former, and, indeed, governments can be very much worse mass murderers than mass murderers ever are. So, it could be morally correct for lawyers to advocate e.g. for the tossing of true, but, improperly obtained, evidence, that clearly establishes the guilt of the defendant, so as to keep the government from becoming abusive.
Dat special pleading tho
Perhaps metaethics is too big a topic for a third year philosophy student, but the whole problem only arises if one assumes the truth of intuitionism. Merely rejecting this unstated premise rescues lawyers from this conundrum.
So what, exactly?