Quote:
Originally Posted by merakses
What Vallen said is that 'criminal law exists only to punish harmful actions'. However, this is simply not true There are certain actions (like illegal owning and sale of firearms, for example), which, although not directly harmful, lead to a high chance of future damages occurring. Thus, that same criminal system has decided that it will punish these actions, even though they are not directly harmful. Thus, a person doing these actions is basically presumed to have criminal intent - in a way, he is presumed to be guilty by definition. Thus, functionally, these kinds of laws are no different that a law giving you the right to punish a person based on the predictions of his actions from a device.
|
I would take issue with a statement that criminal law exists or should exist
only to punish harmful actions, because there are a lot of other things which can factor into it (rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation, etcetera) but neither can I agree with you that a law which leads to the conviction of a person for a "not directly harmful" crime such as distributing illegal weaponry is the same thing as punishing a person based on a prediction of their actions from a device. They are not the same at all, and it's quite odd that you seem to think they are no different. Crimes in general require both an action and a mental state, although there are some with strict liability which only require actions. They do not equate at all to a mere prediction that a person could commit such a crime.
Surely there are better and more relevant ways for you to argue your point, if you want to look at non-Sybil justice systems? For example, you could try to base an argument on preventative detention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_detention