What one would not expect to find is that one beat one’s children to death more than once but was only convicted of manslaughter the second time around. Your ridiculous, convoluted scenario really doesn’t withstand any scrutiny whatsoever.
You'll note that I have not used any of the legal jargon terms, because I have little to no knowledge of what they mean. I have never suggested, as you say, that "one beat one’s children to death more than once but was only convicted of manslaughter". You have put words into my mouth, labelled them ridiculous, then dismissed my argument.
Classic lawyer move, and an example of why lawyers rate with politicians in public esteem.
You mean when it was all those defined as citizens that were allowed to vote and who gladly resorted to poison and assassination if the vote went against their personal wishes all the while happily using the non-citizens as slaves.
That is pretty much what I was alluding to. Or the more recent enthusiasm for women and children being treated as property while the franchise was extended to more adult men. I believe that for a while Maori women landowners were allowed to vote while white women were not so privileged. That was quickly corrected, possibly before any of them actually got to vote. But also without the nastiness around aboriginal men being granted the vote in Australia around the time of federation.
I'm not sure my depth of cynicism about "rah rah democracy" came through in the previous post.
You are awfully confused about preventative detention, it seems. It's not a sentencing option for murder ... And one could be facing preventative detention before the age of 20, assuming a conviction for some form of culpable homicide before the age of 17.
Forgive me for chopping out much of your post, but that doesn't make sense to me. Is there some legal subtlety that makes murder so distinct from "culpable homicide" that it's impossible to commit the latter just by beating children to death?
Moz, this aspect of your argument I just don't get. How many child abusers kill their children
It only has to happen once for my argument to be valid. I think it only has to be possible for my argument to be valid.
It would also seem to me that all people, so long as they are still alive, are capable of rehabilitation.
If we had a system for rehabilititating people that would be an excellent thing to think about. But we have a legal system that removes people from society for a period and treats them extremely poorly, and a political system set up to make it much easier to ratchet up the punishment than to move towards rehabilitation. I think the possibility of rehabilitation has to be balanced against the possibility of further harm to other people (who also have rights).
It's nice that you (and others) like to view abusers as people, but keep in mind that many of them don't view you as people, and definitely don't view their victims as people. One of my parents is incapable of that despite being almost 70, so I think the change of rehabilitation is effectively zero. But while that person is alive, it will continue abusing anyone it can persuade to stay within range.
The cost of surgery? If it's not with my consent, it's assault.... You don't hear me saying prison, it's not so bad,
No, but you repeatedly say that other things are so much worse than prison that it's not even worth mentioning the imprisonment. In case you're not aware, accused criminals are repeatedly assaulted, battered, threatened and imprisoned before even getting to trial. The process of imprisonment necessarily involves daily infliction of all of those except battery, but battery is a constant risk. They're often not crimes, of course, since they're committed by the state, but even the ones that are are very rarely prosecuted.
So, is the assault and bodily harm of surgery better or worse than imprisonment?
With the "right to access their parents", you seem to be unaware that it's difficult for children to access imprisoned parents. Note that the child has not committed an offence but it having it's rights violated by the state regardless. Again, you appear to regard imprisonment as such a minor inconvenience that it's barely worth mentioning.
Or why forced sterilisation is different to chopping off hands. Because at this stage it sounds like the argument of someone who thinks that forced sterilisation can be achieved by a waving of hands rather than inpatient surgery under anaesthetic.
My response is “is it better than being beaten to death? Yes? What problem?”. Because that’s exactly what we’re talking about here – the “human right” of a parent to continue killing their children, being contrasted with what I think is a right children have, the right to life.
For someone who is willing to countenance the huge expense and ethical dubiousness of imprisoning someone you are being quite precious about the cost of surgery. Modern keyhole surgery is somewhere between a tattoo and a hangnail. General anesthetic is optional, and the discomfort is apparently minor in most cases. Yes, some people choose a general for it, as they do for may medical procedures. I’ve met one woman who was almost disappointed that the procedure was so quick and painless – her mental preparation was quite out of proportion to the actual event. For me, the most painful part of the vasectomy was the injected local anesthetic.
By contrast, it’s perfectly legal to circumcise a child without anesthetic, and without any medical or ethical justification. So again, society already accepts this level of trauma and risk. If you want to argue that we shouldn’t I’m happy to hear it, but as with killing people, you haven’t attempted to make that argument. Simply saying “people have a right to freedom of movement” doesn’t mean we have to open the prisons, and saying “people have a right to bodily autonomy” doesn’t mean we can’t chop them up. Rights are a contest, famously “your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins”.
Someones’ right to continue producing and killing children is one that should be curtailed, I think we agree on that?
Now that I’ve had another go at answering your question, back to my question above: I’d love to hear a defense of the state forcibly denying a child their right to access their parents (article 9.1) put in human rights terms.
I’m not sure what point there is having a representative government if nothing they do is democratic unless it would pass a plebiscite.
On a completely separate note, I'd be up for a discussion of the many and various meanings given to "democratic" and which of them can usefully be applied to NZ. I mean, you have the "Democratic Republic of Congo" currently under military rule (or being invaded/occupied, depending on your viewpoint) at one end and consensus systems described as "minority veto democracy" at the other. I'm not sure which application is less accurate.
But strictly, unless something is voted on it's not democratic. Whether a law voted on by a whipped majority of a minority government composed of elected representatives is "democratic" is arguable. The way we use "democratic" today bears sod all resemblance to its historical use, and the term has been hotly contested ever since it was coined. I mean right now we have a military-corporate state claiming to be a democracy, contrasting itself with a self-appointed committee that also claims to be a democracy. And that's just the two major world powers... Realpolitic suggests we not get hung up on the labels, and focus on making the system we have work better.
"But faced with a flat “it is never ok to sterilise someone” argument"
Possibly a different B Jones said:
I’d hope that in this day and age, only a very small minority of people would think compulsory sterilisation is an acceptable solution to anything.
Was my paraphrasing of that quote incorrect? Could you restate it to make my error clear?
. IIRC there is an upper speed limit for powered bikes as well as power limitations
Nope, 300W electric and that's it: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicle/your/low-powered.html If you've got more than 300W or an infernal combustion engine, but are limited to 50kph you mjight have a moped rather than a motorbike, but either way you need rego and a license.
Moz, your conditions for compulsory sterilisation are confusing to me.
I actually said that I'm not convinced of the one but supportive of the other, and I see it as a "where do we draw the line" exercise. But faced with a flat "it is never ok to sterilise someone" argument I thought it easier to establish that there are conditions under which sterilisation is a good idea. I brought up the cases where we indefinitely imprison people to make the point that in those cases the question is not whether we grossly violate someone's human rights, but how we choose to do so.
My thought last night was that it's relevant that I decided a long time ago that I'm unlikely to be a fit parent, so I didn't. I've met a complete comprehension gap on that issue from some people, so it's probably necessary to say that not everyone would die rather than be sterilised. My point that there's no shortage of people being killed in horrible ways is also worth emphasising.
I'm pretty utilitarian, so the question I would like an answer to is: what works? Followed closely by: of the things that work, which ones can we do?
The first question is science, the second politics. Obviously rehabilitation is out of the question regardless of effectiveness because it's politically unacceptable, while lynching doesn't work regardless of its popularity. The question is which forms of punishment best balance human rights (of the offenders, victims and bystanders) against political viability.
If any of the human rights unconditionalists are willing, I'd love to hear a defense of the state forcibly denying a child their right to access their parents (article 9.1) put in human rights terms. It's a violation our government does not even acknowledge, let along try to compensate for.