Remarks on Passing through Gethsemene

[sleepy_shadow]

Re: Sleepy Hollow - on Passing through Gethsemene

This argument relies on basing a conclusion on a secondary issue

Causing irreversible harm where non-irreversible options remain open... is not a secondary issue in my eyes. Feel free to disagree.

If we followed your reasoning we should have no trials, because imperfection pervades the legal system.

You are misreading my statement. Trials and judgements can be reversed, errors can be corrected. Executions however... cannot be reversed. Likewise, in the fictional world of B5, mindwipes cannot be reversed.

Even if the old personality is gone the offender gets a new conscience-free personality.

I could not disagree more. The offender is the personality. The offender dies. His/her body gets a new personality... and the body carries no guilt. Does the gun carry guilt, if it was used to shoot a person?

You see, from my viewpoint... admittedly not shared by everyone... the body is merely an operating environment for any personality which forms within it. Like a computer for a program. A human body is simply a computer poorly adapted to transfering its programs.

There is no evidence from the series that a mindwiped offender won’t ever commit any kind of crime again.

In establishing the fictionary basis of mindwipe in Babylon 5, the following details are mentioned:

A) After mindwipe, a personality is installed which has little ambition, yet great readyness to serve society.

B) Mindwiped people are usually monitored after that, to verify if the wipe/reprogramming succeeded.

A simple conclusion opposite to your suggestion follows. People mindwiped as punishment for crimes against life... are unlikely to re-enter a criminal path.

Doctor Franklin would not have intentionally made the experience painful as indicated in the episode “Quality of Mercy.”

I too think he would not -- but whether information stored in biological brain can be rewritten painlessly and easily... is likely to have the answer "no".

Even if pain is avoided, sufficient terror is caused to qualify as punishment -- and if the person has no fear of death, no punishment can punish. It simply becomes a forceful removal of threat (sometimes excessively forceful removal of an already defeated threat, with the risk of removing an innocent person).

C) By anecdotal evidence on B5 the original personality appears to still be there in regular mindwiping.

One for... one against, multiple impossible to evaluate. Sure, Brother Edwards is capable of remembering something -- but nobody ascertains how much of that derives from his original person.

His new personality has imagination (and access to information). While the Centauri telepath *could* have established a bridge to his old memories... he could have just as easily planted fake memories.

Contrarily to Edwards remembering something, victims of the Na'ka'leen feeder lose all their memories, even crucial autonomous functions -- essentially slammed back to late foetal stage.

Unfortunately, while other anecdotal evidence floats around... it remains unacceptable for proper speculation and fruitful debate. As admitted by Bester, Garibaldi was not mindwiped... merely tinkered with.

Talia Winters, Abel Horn and Anna Sheridan... were all required to impersonate their original selves. For that reason nobody with a grain of sense would destroy them -- merely reconstruct.

Those cases are more comparable to the construction of limited-independence artificial personalities of Franklin, Garibaldi, Delenn and Sheridan for propaganda purposes (even if one instance of reconstruction is direct and immediate, while another indirect and delayed by centuries).

However, I believe there is a source for perfect standard of justice, but mankind simply does not like it.

We better not even enter that debate. I doubt it would lead us anywhere, becoming a waste of valuable time.

And, there is another established basis for justice considerably older than Black.

Countless of them... but age itself does not guarantee suitability.

 

[Nukemall]

Re: Sleepy Hollow - on Passing through Gethsemene

I hope you don't mind if I don't take that seriously. There is no established basis of justice -- and no definitive dictionary.

ANS. Well, now that is a non sequitur if I ever read one. Black’s Law Dictionary is considered quite definitive in our judicial system and among lawyers. And, there is another established basis for justice considerably older than Black.

I'm not a lawyer, so you'll have to excuse my ignorance in these matters, but surely not all judicial systems are the same. And the definition is quite vague - I mean what exactly is meant by 'rendering to every man his due'? Surely what a man deserves is entirely subjective?

And surely God is, ergo he has no age.

 

[sleepy_shadow]

Re: Sleepy Hollow - on Passing through Gethsemene

I would say that "to everyone their due"... makes a relatively suitable expression to describe the goal of measuring justice. Namely achieving justice.

Once it comes to deciding what is [due / just / right/ reasonable / efficient] in a particular situation, multitudes of different principles can be applied.

They differ... sometimes agree and sometimes contradict... and conclusions differ. Not only because of principles, but the number of options available, and the range of consequences covered in analysis.

While in narrow perspective, one solution may seem efficient... in wider perspective, another may dominate. After even wider consideration... a previously definitive answer may again change its face. Not necessarily because of principles changing. Prediction extending further can accomplish the same.

My points being... that recursive definitions are of limited use... secondary effects can make a difference between acceptable and unacceptable... and references to anything as the *definitive* dictionary of something... can make me smile even in generally gloomy topics.

------

Garibaldi may have been correct... to state that some individuals deserve spacing. Delenn may have been equally correct to note... that regardless of some deserving it, society could not afford to practise such ways. And surely other people... had even more valid viewpoints.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

That it is as wrong for the State to kill as it is for an individual to kill, or simply put, killing ANYONE is wrong, is hardly convoluted reasoning, it is simplicity itself. To say "Thou shall not kill," and then kill those who disobey, THAT takes convoluted reasoning. When the State kills, it is saying "Killing can be justified, even when someone is subdued, and presents no threat." That sets a terrible example for the citizenry. Abolition of capital punishment sets the example that killing is NOT justified.

Interesting that you should quote the Bible when everything you have advocated contradicts the Bible. The same God who gave the commandment “Thou shall not kill” said, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He created man” (Genesis 9:6). In law the only one who can make an exception to a law is the authority that gave it. And, in the same Law in which these two commandments are given, God authorizes killing of animals for food, killing the enemy in war and killing by authorities of capital offenders. So, you are apparently accusing God of convoluted reasoning, though you are not the first to do so.

As an atheist, I don't accuse God, or any other mythological beings, of any sort of reasoning, convoluted, or otherwise. As someone who was raised a Christian, attended Catholic school, Baptist and Methodist churches, and was confirmed a Presbyterian, I know that the Christian Church has mastered convoluted reasoning. But when even that fails, there is always "God moves in mysterious ways, his miracles to perform." I used "Thou shalt not kill" because it is a common phrase, and on its face, absolute. Your quotes from scripture do an excellent job of exposing the hypocrisy of it, as used by many Christians. Of course, not all Christians would agree with you, like the Quakers, for example. At any rate, having a hard and fast rule that NO ONE, individual, or State, can kill a human, except when it is the only way to save the life of another human threatened by that human, isn't in the least bit convoluted, whether it is the best policy, or not.

As the old saying goes, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and pretty soon, everyone is blind and toothless." I can't imagine that you would really want such a literal tit-for-tat law. If someone pokes your eye out, you or the State poke out his, and then he's free to go? He burns down your house, you burn down his? If he steals your car, you get his? That is all just batty! Perhaps you would prefer it Muslim style, chopping of hands, and stoning to death?

Delenn’s exaggerated response, taken literally, as she essentially mocks Garibaldi, is likewise a non sequitur. She and you are treating it as a principle of revenge, when it was intended as guidance for judges. (How often does it happen anyway?) The Muslim punishment of chopping off hands (or did you mean the law of Hammurabi?) is not an adequate interpretation. Hammurabi imposed maiming for simple theft, hardly “hand for hand.” The issue in Lex Talionis is that the VICTIM is to be receive recompense for the harm. You would ignore the victim, transfer the harm to the State, then deny the State the right to do justice for the victim, but create a penal system that destroys people and their families. Under our system the judge does not have the option of determining tit for tat. How does it help the victim if the assaulter, arsonist or thief goes to prison? For non-capital crimes it would be better if the offender was publicly flogged and required to pay restitution to the victim. Then the punishment would be over.

I'd heard "Delenn's" blind and toothless comment many times over the years, long before B5 existed. You're right, she did seem to be talking about revenge, as Garibaldi seems to want revenge, disguised as justice. That seems to be what you want, IMO, your denials to the contrary. You seemed to be asking for such a literal tit-for-tat.

I think that the main reason for imposing punishment, of any kind, is to prevent the criminal from doing more criminal acts, not to benefit the victims. It seems that in the B5 ep in question, the 'benefit' desired by the victims WAS revenge. I do agree that it would be a good idea to try and find a way for criminals to make restitution, which they are sometimes ordered to make. Prison industry, where their earnings go to the victims is an obvious answer, but a problem, because prison businesses compete with normal businesses, which can put law abiding citizens out of work. But I don't see how an execution can benefit the victims, except as a form of revenge.

 

[crazybillyo]

I used "Thou shalt not kill" because it is a common phrase, and on its face, absolute.

Not quite. The commandment from Deuteronomy and Exodus is "You shall not murder." From the Hebrew translation, it refers to a deliberate and premeditated act. Also, in the laws enumerated by Moses, there are many instances of death sentences given by God.

But when even that fails, there is always "God moves in mysterious ways, his miracles to perform."

That's the whole point of faith. Relying on one's own powers and understanding is always imperfect. In this context, though, it looks like a justification for pre-conceived notions. While this is not always the case, it is indeed true of the Christian Church. That is not to say it is bad, but rather doesn't fully or perfectly reflect the way things should be according to the Bible. And here, again, this is good and intentional, for then we rely on God to provide, if we submit.

So, while it may not seem to be with Christ's teachings, as well as a naive understanding of the Bible, precedent exists for the death sentence. This, however, is often abused and maligned by others claiming that the church is convoluted. Convolution is always the case, but its basis is perfect.