Nov 12, 2023·edited Nov 12, 2023Liked by Denis Rancourt
Hi Denis,
Your idea is interesting but I found a couple of problems when I try to apply it in my mind.
1) If you only consider the physical action at hand and disassociate the mind behind it with regards to a legal case... Humans will be considered nothing more than objects that move within a dynamical system in a more or less efficient manner. Efficiency that will be measured, not according to their value as individual minds and sources of creativity, but rather according to the measurable physical actions they produce. That would lead us to a technocratic dystopia, I think.
2) If you apply this logic to a simple case, it doesn't seem to work well. Example:
CASE1: A 19-year-old girl plays on the balcony of a city apartment and accidentaly moves in a way that an object of her property falls down to the street, hits her boyfriend and as a result he dies.
CASE2: Same situation as before, however in this case the 19 year old girl only appears to move "accidentaly" when she is not. She knew her boyfriend was there and she wanted revenge for some reason. Maybe he cheated on her or something.
This two cases are extremely different, however the physical action, from an observer's point of view, is exactly the same. If motives are not considered, there would be no further investigation and the true crime would not be solved. Are we to judge with the same verdict an accident and a murder?
IMO, your point-1 is invalid. The opposite is true. My scheme provides more freedom of thought and expression, and creativity, and learning..., not less. It refers only to the state's management of crime.
In your point-2, you cling to the old paradigm. Yes, in my scheme, causing death is causing death. Period, irrespective of inferred intent. Killing by dropping heavy objects from tall buildings is judged the same as killing by drunk driving, irrespective of inferred intent to kill, and both are causing death as would be shooting a person accidently or not.
----> I might only add something for repeat crimes of the same type, in the same way that an insurance company would increase the premium, without reference to intent or mind reading.
Well point-1 is not easy to foresee, of course you are more familiar with your own system. I guess it depends considerably on the subtle details on how to apply such a system.
With regards to point-2, what you say here clarifies my objection. I truly find it very difficult to judge "irrespective of inferred intent". I may need to do some more thought experiments on that one.
Well, I appreciate the time. I'll give it a try and apply your logic to some hypothetical situations and see what happens.
It would not be easy to determine in such cases, but generally the motives could be revealed during an investigation. People are not very good at hiding their intent, although some psychopaths have that "skill".
Well Denis, even in 2016 the word "illusion" was defining in the conclusion of your article. I'm certain that if you wrote it today, the sentiments would be quite different.
I increasingly doubt the concept of Democracy. The incidence of conflicting "Rights" in a hugely complicated and divided World, are increasing by the day. Solomon could not define justice in this world. We have so many laws that nobody can know them all, and many of those are carve-outs pandering to a host of vested interests.
You might gather that I'm no fan of institutionalized 'Social Hierarchy'. I give respect only where I wish, and only to those who earn that respect. It is quite consistent to respect figures who one does not like, or disagrees with. The issue arises with Legislated Respect, where "Merit" does not play a role?
Initial premises of this analysis include the assertion that precivilational societies were less free than our modern hierarchies. Would have liked to speak to a few 5000 year old men to get their point of view. Thanks for your all illuminating research.
OK sorry if I misunderstood. Thanks for the powerful and crucial research on excess / all cause mortality. It strengthens my conviction that "covid" response killed far more than "covid".
Excellent. I still question that yelling fire in a theatre is likely to result in serious harm. Yes, there is a possibility of harm but far from certain. What is the evidence that this will likely cause harm? If the evidence is lacking a case can be made for harm in an infinite number of scenarios. But I am no legal scholar.
Sadly Henry, there are many documented cases, where Yelling "Fire" or other "irresponsible" actions have caused harm and often death. Obviously the action was intended to cause fear and reaction.
"many documented cases" is not the same as "actual likelihood it will result in given circumstances", or even "probability it will result in a given society". Just saying.
One of the key themes of the article was to dispense with the idea of "intended" consequences which requires you get inside someone's head and judge the incident based on actual outcome. At least that is my understanding of the strategy to clarify human rights from law.
Law is not my strong suit. However, can you really separate "Reckless Endangerment" from Accountability for actions? They seem to be two sides of the same coin. If judged only on the basis of "Actual outcome" then the Courts and the government of Canada should(?) have had no case against the Freedom Convoy. Many of us don't believe they did.
Henry; Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember any charges laid, which were not "Mischief" related.... I don't think there was any Physical or Property harm involved. The Truckers made certain to leave room for emergency vehicles, reducing any possible stress. The government and the police (and related people) were upset by the questioning of their Authority? In any Real Democracy, the Government Authority should be questioned constantly!
Question Prof. "the defendant has the onus to prove truth" Is the onus or burden of proof being shifted? I understood that onus or burden of proof was that of the accuser or the one making the claim?
Hi Denis,
Your idea is interesting but I found a couple of problems when I try to apply it in my mind.
1) If you only consider the physical action at hand and disassociate the mind behind it with regards to a legal case... Humans will be considered nothing more than objects that move within a dynamical system in a more or less efficient manner. Efficiency that will be measured, not according to their value as individual minds and sources of creativity, but rather according to the measurable physical actions they produce. That would lead us to a technocratic dystopia, I think.
2) If you apply this logic to a simple case, it doesn't seem to work well. Example:
CASE1: A 19-year-old girl plays on the balcony of a city apartment and accidentaly moves in a way that an object of her property falls down to the street, hits her boyfriend and as a result he dies.
CASE2: Same situation as before, however in this case the 19 year old girl only appears to move "accidentaly" when she is not. She knew her boyfriend was there and she wanted revenge for some reason. Maybe he cheated on her or something.
This two cases are extremely different, however the physical action, from an observer's point of view, is exactly the same. If motives are not considered, there would be no further investigation and the true crime would not be solved. Are we to judge with the same verdict an accident and a murder?
IMO, your point-1 is invalid. The opposite is true. My scheme provides more freedom of thought and expression, and creativity, and learning..., not less. It refers only to the state's management of crime.
In your point-2, you cling to the old paradigm. Yes, in my scheme, causing death is causing death. Period, irrespective of inferred intent. Killing by dropping heavy objects from tall buildings is judged the same as killing by drunk driving, irrespective of inferred intent to kill, and both are causing death as would be shooting a person accidently or not.
----> I might only add something for repeat crimes of the same type, in the same way that an insurance company would increase the premium, without reference to intent or mind reading.
Well point-1 is not easy to foresee, of course you are more familiar with your own system. I guess it depends considerably on the subtle details on how to apply such a system.
With regards to point-2, what you say here clarifies my objection. I truly find it very difficult to judge "irrespective of inferred intent". I may need to do some more thought experiments on that one.
Well, I appreciate the time. I'll give it a try and apply your logic to some hypothetical situations and see what happens.
How do you determine motive without video evidence of the act?
Let's say they have been fighting a lot, but the object falling was indeed an accident.
Or
They are peaceful together, but she didn't drop it as an accident.
Both cases are half truths where perceived motive would be incorrect.
It would not be easy to determine in such cases, but generally the motives could be revealed during an investigation. People are not very good at hiding their intent, although some psychopaths have that "skill".
Well Denis, even in 2016 the word "illusion" was defining in the conclusion of your article. I'm certain that if you wrote it today, the sentiments would be quite different.
I increasingly doubt the concept of Democracy. The incidence of conflicting "Rights" in a hugely complicated and divided World, are increasing by the day. Solomon could not define justice in this world. We have so many laws that nobody can know them all, and many of those are carve-outs pandering to a host of vested interests.
You might gather that I'm no fan of institutionalized 'Social Hierarchy'. I give respect only where I wish, and only to those who earn that respect. It is quite consistent to respect figures who one does not like, or disagrees with. The issue arises with Legislated Respect, where "Merit" does not play a role?
I hope I didn't miss your point completely?
Initial premises of this analysis include the assertion that precivilational societies were less free than our modern hierarchies. Would have liked to speak to a few 5000 year old men to get their point of view. Thanks for your all illuminating research.
No, that is absolutely not an initial premise of the analysis. Nope.
OK sorry if I misunderstood. Thanks for the powerful and crucial research on excess / all cause mortality. It strengthens my conviction that "covid" response killed far more than "covid".
Excellent. I still question that yelling fire in a theatre is likely to result in serious harm. Yes, there is a possibility of harm but far from certain. What is the evidence that this will likely cause harm? If the evidence is lacking a case can be made for harm in an infinite number of scenarios. But I am no legal scholar.
Sadly Henry, there are many documented cases, where Yelling "Fire" or other "irresponsible" actions have caused harm and often death. Obviously the action was intended to cause fear and reaction.
"many documented cases" is not the same as "actual likelihood it will result in given circumstances", or even "probability it will result in a given society". Just saying.
One of the key themes of the article was to dispense with the idea of "intended" consequences which requires you get inside someone's head and judge the incident based on actual outcome. At least that is my understanding of the strategy to clarify human rights from law.
Law is not my strong suit. However, can you really separate "Reckless Endangerment" from Accountability for actions? They seem to be two sides of the same coin. If judged only on the basis of "Actual outcome" then the Courts and the government of Canada should(?) have had no case against the Freedom Convoy. Many of us don't believe they did.
Hard to say without a specific case to consider. A perfect example for the rationale for seperation, that would have been the correct outcome.
Henry; Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember any charges laid, which were not "Mischief" related.... I don't think there was any Physical or Property harm involved. The Truckers made certain to leave room for emergency vehicles, reducing any possible stress. The government and the police (and related people) were upset by the questioning of their Authority? In any Real Democracy, the Government Authority should be questioned constantly!
I stray far from Mr. Rancourt's article...
Until we recognize and accept rights are bestowed upon us by God's authority, we will continue to abuse or even ignore them.
"Conclusion
There are no rights..."
Conclusion... modern moron slaves have only privileges (all of them temporary) issued by the SRF & Billionaires. Do enjoy them while They allow them!
We the people are losing our rights with “ at will contracts “ and check this poor soul out , maddening. https://ijr.com/tucker-interviews-man-convicted-posting-clinton-meme-mackey-responds-hillary-criticism/
Question Prof. "the defendant has the onus to prove truth" Is the onus or burden of proof being shifted? I understood that onus or burden of proof was that of the accuser or the one making the claim?
That statement refers to defamation law, which has an inverted onus, which one fundamental problem with defamation law!