Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 3581100" data-attributes="member: 22424">See, now I'm curious what a jury is made up of, if not individuals.Advocating that the accused has the absolute right to a fair and impartial trial, as opposed to summary 'justice' is hardly a step towards fascism. I would suggest that the opposite is true.Make all the moral judgements you want. But our society cannot sanction the individual to impose his view of justice on the rest of us. We cannot allow the policeman to gun down the suspect he 'knows' is guilty under anything but extreme circumstances... because all too often what he 'knows' is incomplete or downright wrong.Even with all the checks and balances in place, our courts get things wrong all too often. How then can a policeman, in the heat of a difficult situation and working with incomplete and possibly inaccurate information, hope to do better?And if we cannot sanction our policemen to take this action, then who?I'm not a moral relativist, and I have no problems with discussing this issue. However, there is a "no politics" rule here, and this is heavily political ground. (How so? Well, at present our societies are holding certain individuals indefinately without trial. So, the question of the right of the accused to a trial is most definately political.) So, no, I don't want to discuss it further. If that is devious of me, then so be it.Also: "Every moral individual should utterly reject that line of thought.", "fascism", "moral cowardice", "deviousness"? It's a good thing I don't offend easily.</blockquote>

Verification