For the children's sake...
On Dec 12, 11:39*pm, wrote:
As little time as I have, I'll try to articulate my perspective on
this issue as best as I'm able. *Firstly, I don't have a background in
law, and I make no pretense to have a firm grasp of the fine points of
law. *When I encounter points of law that I find of interest, I
consult my sister who is a lawyer and is schooled in those areas for
the most part. *In an attempt to clarify my political philosophy I try
to broach the subject with philosophical language for the most part.
If in doing so, I impinge upon the hallowed lexicon of the lawyer,
it's not for any purpose other to express my point of view. *In
submitting the phrase "preventive sanctions," I'm speaking more in a
general and philosophical sense. *I'm not looking to further bifurcate
the subject into penal or civil sanctions. * I may have articulated
poorly when I stated that retributive justice does not presuppose that
the individual must necessarily be constrained. *It may be better
stated that retributive justice seeks to find redress for a wrong.
It's overarching design is not too constrain the individual by
regulating the individual's every action by the enactment of a
plethora of laws that anticipate the individual's potential to err.
The latter is what I subsume under "preventive sanctions." *Where
retributive justice takes the individual to task for having failed a
moral responsibility not to harm or injure, preventive sanctions, in
the sense that I use the language, presume the necessity to remove
from the individual the personal autonomy and mobility that may lead
to injury. *I find the latter to be deplorable and unnecessary. *If
the world were comprised of only two individuals, there is one
handcuffing the other so that the first can feel safe, under a
doctrine of preventive sanctions (again as I define the phrase). *As
simple as this analogy is, it essentially encapsulates the doctrine
that drives much of the legislation that oppresses the individual in
our society. *I have to say that I humbly disagree with your
assessment of 18th century jurisprudence, and I do so from what little
I have read of Blackstone, ecclesiastical law, common law, the times
of Cromwell, etc. *It isn't a stretch to contend that the "social
engineering of a new legal construct" by our founding fathers was a
construct that was modeled, in some measure, on the best aspects of
Greek and Roman government, among other things. *(It was also
influenced by the philosophical thought of Rosseau, Locke, and
others.) *But that will have to be a discussion for another day. *This
note is a bit too long as it is, Tom.
--
Good thoughts JPJ.
|