| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Please, for the sake of the country, keep Obama safe | General | |||
| To Our Children's Children's Children, On the Threshold of aNightmare | General | |||
| Go Vote for the sake of pinks everywhere | General | |||
| SAILING for @%^&^&**&^ sake | ASA | |||
| Agreement in Maine Will Remove Dams for Salmon's Sake | General | |||
Threaded Mode
