The Chauvin Trial

[Epic Beard Man]

America's justice system, sure - but outside America, many Western justice departments operate under the at least theoretical assumption that some criminals can be rehabilitated into productive members of society.

I don't even think the U.S. prison system operates with the understanding that some criminals can be rehabilitated. Prison is a money-making business unfortunately which is why there are high rates of recidivism. My comment was more theoretical at best about the U.S. system.

 

[Valjean]

I....want....the....same...as...the....Floyd....family...which...is..the..max. This isn't vengeance it is justice. He is not going to serve the entire 22 years which is why some in the media state anger because he might only do 15 years which means he has a chance of getting out although at an older age. Floyd lost his life. He is dead and not coming back. With that being said he ought to serve 40 years, not because of vengeance, but because it is justice and I echo the same sentiment as the family.

Of course you think it's justice. You, equate vengeance and justice. This is a child's concept of justice, a child's level of moral development. It's not abstract.
OK, you want the same as the Floyd family; understood. But nobody asked about that. Nobody asked what sentence you and the family would consider just.
I asked "why?" I asked about purpose and function. I asked about a philosophical abstract.

You keep reïterating irrelevant -- and already understood -- details, that have nothing to do with my initial question. I asked about moral theory, not the facts of any specific case.

"He ought to serve forty years.... because it is justice."
Why? You keep repeating your opinion, but not explaining it; you keep giving irrelevant details of a specific case: "he lost his life, he's dead and not coming back."

Once again: What is the purpose of this punishment? What is it supposed to accomplish?
Are these difficult questions?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

You, equate vengeance and justice. This is a child's concept of justice, a child's level of moral development. It's not abstract.

I see why I stayed away from this place. The ad hominem attacks are quite old. This conversation is becoming redundant and boring. This isn't a philosophical discussion you are nitpicking stupid things and making an argument out of it.

OK, you want the same as the Floyd family; understood. But nobody asked about that. Nobody asked what sentence you and the family would consider just.
I asked "why?" I asked about purpose and function. I asked about a philosophical abstract.

If you want a philosophical discussion put your concerns in the appropriate section...This is General Discussion. Why do I want him to serve the max? Because he is an officer that violated his duty to the service of the community. Because the police always get away with murdering black men and women. Because the police are never held accountable for their actions especially when they transgress departmental policies. Now ask me another stupid question I'll just ignore it.

 

[Revoltingest]

To give some context to the 22.5 year sentence, there was a
similar Minneapolis wrongful death case in which the cop was
given a sentence shorter by exactly 10 years.
Killing of Justine Damond - Wikipedia

Risking knuckle hair growth, I'm quoting my own post.

Sentences are handed out based upon law & guidelines.
Does Chauvin deserve a sentence lighter or heavier than Noor's?
Why?

 

[Valjean]

I see why I stayed away from this place. The ad hominem attacks are quite old. This conversation is becoming redundant and boring. This isn't a philosophical discussion you are nitpicking stupid things and making an argument out of it.

My apologies for being interested in ideas. No offense was meant.

I made three true statements, as far as I can see. Why do you feel personally attacked by them?

This is a philosophical discussion. I'm asking about ideas and principles. Ideas and principles aren't "stupid things." You refuse to address the ideas or principles which underlie your opinion on Floyd's sentence.

In posts #22 and 26 I asked a simple question, you either ignored it or didn't understand it, and went off on a tangent, reïterating your opinion on appropriate punishment and details of the crime, which didn't address my question.

If you want a philosophical discussion put your concerns in the appropriate section...This is General Discussion.

Ideas and principles underlie everything.
A discussion, general or specific, that doesn't address ideas is superficial and often insipid.
Even a discussion of one's favorite color rests on a foundation of æsthetics -- a school of philosophy.

Why do I want him to serve the max? Because he is an officer that violated his duty to the service of the community. Because the police always get away with murdering black men and women. Because the police are never held accountable for their actions especially when they transgress departmental policies.

This answers why you and the community are so angry and vindictive. I understand this. Your anger is appropriate. But it doesn't address the question of why a longer sentence would be appropriate, which was the original question. It doesn't address the goal or function of a longer sentence.

Now ask me another stupid question I'll just ignore it.

Understood. Apparently you consider non-superficial questions stupid. I'm not sure you even understand what I asked.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

My apologies for being interested in ideas. No offense was meant.

I made three true statements, as far as I can see. Why do you feel personally attacked by them?

This is a philosophical discussion. I'm asking about ideas and principles. Ideas and principles aren't "stupid things." You refuse to address the ideas or principles which underlie your opinion on Floyd's sentence.

In posts #22 and 26 I asked a simple question, you either ignored it or didn't understand it, and went off on a tangent, reïterating your opinion on appropriate punishment and details of the crime, which didn't address my question.
Ideas and principles underlie everything.
A discussion, general or specific, that doesn't address ideas is superficial and often insipid.
Even a discussion of one's favorite color rests on a foundation of æsthetics -- a school of philosophy.

This answers why you and the community are so angry and vindictive. I understand this. Your anger is appropriate. But it doesn't address the question of why a longer sentence would be appropriate, which was the original question. It doesn't address the goal or function of a longer sentence.

Now ask me another stupid question I'll just ignore it.[/QUOTE]Understood. Apparently you consider non-superficial questions stupid. I'm not sure you even understand what I asked.[/QUOTE]

You're making this a discussion of analytics and in reality, this subject does not require that much thought. You asked why I said my opinion. Even then that is not good enough for you. The insistent questioning just reminds me of this

Replace mommy with "why" this is how it is coming across to me after I give my opinion