AnonTalk BBS — Discuss anything anonymously without registration.

Topic: What would happen if our justice system was based purely on common sense

Anonymous baf6e7b2e36edf7be8c80190e4945c36 started this discussion 2 months (2008-10-10 00:20:42 UTC) ago:

How would we define what is right and wrong? How would we get to the truth and what should be the founding principles?

Anonymous b3c171a3a1ab59ac710efa21dbcb0b2e replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 00:32:35 UTC) ago, 12 minutes later (#68,102):

For starters, maybe it should be, oh I don't know, illegal for sollicitors to pursue the way of mistrial or procedural errors in cases where they KNOW their client is guilty.

Anonymous 121ab6aec304aa1a73c6c57d56f2838d replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 00:44:24 UTC) ago, 12 minutes later (#68,106):

Excellent question.
I'll set this up in a proofs sort of argument because I couldn't do it any other way.

1. All humans have free will.
2. Since we have free will we have the right to sustain said free will and freedoms.
3. Unfortunately, this does not mean we should do what we very will please because if humans fundamentally are free we do NOT have the freedom to restrict other humans' freedom.

EX: If i had a desire to murder someone (which i don't), under this theory I would not be able to commit murder upon someone because that would be restricting their freedom, their right to life and prosperity. There for it would be against this theory for me to murder someone, to enslave someone, and vice versa.

Unfortunately, I do not believe this is applicable in our society. Because as humans with fundamental choice we have the choice to make good or bad decisions. And people inherently want what is best for them because of the idea of survival of the fittest. As humans we have not fully evolved beyond darwanism. Only when we can, will we reach enlightenment or something.

I'm not sure if that made sense, a rebuttal might be necessary.

Anonymous 98a7168b51d85ead3fe075e029d06180 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 00:52:56 UTC) ago, 9 minutes later (#68,108):

"Evolve beyond Darwinism"? What a nonsensical thing to say.

Also, your proofs aren't proofs at all. Instead they are baseless assumptions. in re: Human Nature. Even if you're correct, you're not proving anything.

Anonymous 7c0646caef31fc8b543ab0a42402ba95 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 01:17:05 UTC) ago, 24 minutes later (#68,111):

@68,106

I agree with you, but would we survive as a species if we are born with 'mind before instinct'?

We would still have to be born with basic survival intuitions (suck on the nipple).

But as we mature, would we even desire to work for food?

Anonymous 6aa3152d058fd62495539abae6cbb1da replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 01:33:24 UTC) ago, 16 minutes later (#68,116):

Common sense is whatever foolishness is accepted by the masses.

Anonymous 45f676ad10fda0893e66b8ce476cee81 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 01:37:02 UTC) ago, 4 minutes later (#68,118):

In a perfect world.

First off, common sense is missing. I am not sure how abundant it ever was at what point, but it has to be at an all-time low right now.

If you look at more simple civilizations (say, the Middle East, South America, etc.), the committing of crime is often met with street justice, and said criminals all know the penalties if caught. The cutting off of a hand or even public death in the town square does not dissuade crime completely. I am not even sure if it dissuades it to any less degree than in the US. To me though, street justice IS common sense, and I prefer seeing that the bull**** court cases.

If the 'our' in the OP's question means 'The U.S.', I would say it is a moot question as we could never go there. There are too many special interest groups and an 'evolved society' here to ever think common sense now could rule the courts.

Anonymous c52f860dae2c1628115b26413aac974b replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 02:01:31 UTC) ago, 24 minutes later (#68,130):

What exactly is common sense? Common sense is an idiotic term used by unintelligent people to make their close-minded, simplistic solutions and thoughts about life, justice, law, politics, and other abstract matters seem more enlightened than thousands of years of developed philosophy on those subjects. Furthermore, there is no consensus about what common sense is.

Don't get me wrong; I'm entirely for democracy. But only where the scope of that democratic government is strictly defined, limited by unalienable human rights, and the people are protected from their worst enemy: themselves.

"Common sense" put the Japanese in prison camps during World War 2.
"Common sense" would kill everybody who admitted anything remotely related to minor-attraction.
"Common sense" would limit free speech.
"Common sense" wouldn't allow a site like AT to exist.

Anonymous 45f676ad10fda0893e66b8ce476cee81 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 02:12:47 UTC) ago, 11 minutes later (#68,136):

@68,130

I believe your definition of common sense is quite a bit off. Your first example of the US encamping the Japanese during WWII may have been labeled 'common sense', but that was propoganda to settle the masses.

To me, common sense can best be defined as 'doing to others as you would have them do to you'. Every culture in the world finds murder to be barbaric and punishable. Is that coincidence? No…it is common sense. Pretty much the same can be said for theft, rape, and many other things. We all have common sense. Some people though choose to ignore it, or, bury it.

Anonymous c52f860dae2c1628115b26413aac974b replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 02:22:41 UTC) ago, 10 minutes later (#68,144):

@68,136

Your common sense is not common sense, it's the golden rule. We tried that, it was called the Code of Hammurabi.

"If a builder builds a house, and his construction is not sturdy, and it kills the son of the master of the house; kill the son of the builder."

Not so appealing, is it?

You can't twist definitions to fit your idealistic ideas.

Common = Majority
Sense = Opinion

Common sense means "majority opinion". As we all know, the majority opinion is very often wrong, and very often led by propaganda. Because they feel so shameful about their perpetual incorrectness, the majority invents an arrogant term like "common sense" to try to elevate themselves above those who are usually right.

Anonymous 45f676ad10fda0893e66b8ce476cee81 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 02:36:49 UTC) ago, 14 minutes later (#68,152):

@68,144

> Your common sense is not common sense, it's the golden rule. We tried that, it was called the Code of Hammurabi.

With all due respect, WE did not try it.

> "If a builder builds a house, and his construction is not sturdy, and it kills the son of the master of the house; kill the son of the builder."

> Not so appealing, is it?

First off, common sense would dictate the builder be liable, not his son. The death of his son would be a more equatible punishment, but not one that holds the person of responsibility as liable.

> You can't twist definitions to fit your idealistic ideas.

> Common = Majority
> Sense = Opinion

And you likewise can not define two words and plug them together to equate the intent of the phrase. Here is an example:

Hot dog

Hot = More than warm
Dog = A canine

So, a hot dog is an overly warm canine?

> Common sense means "majority opinion". As we all know, the majority opinion is very often wrong, and very often led by propaganda. Because they feel so shameful about their perpetual incorrectness, the majority invents an arrogant term like "common sense" to try to elevate themselves above those who are usually right.

Common sense MAY at one time have meant majority opinion, when this country had a better moral compass (and even if so, it still was not perfect). The term today no longer holds much water, it is idllyic at best. SOME things may be common sense, such as not sticking one's hand into a running garbage disposal…but basic character has often been replaced with selfishness.

So yes, the Golden Rule is not the exact equal of common sense…but the original concept of common sense is presently so far gone that the Golden Rule is a more adequate replacement of the original concept 'common sense' than present 'majority opinion'.

Anonymous c52f860dae2c1628115b26413aac974b replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 02:54:35 UTC) ago, 18 minutes later (#68,162):

@68,152

> With all due respect, WE did not try it.

Yes, yes we did.

> First off, common sense would dictate the builder be liable, not his son. The death of his son would be a more equatible punishment, but not one that holds the person of responsibility as liable.

Common sense would, but a strict adherence to the golden rule would not. Which side are you taking?

> And you likewise can not define two words and plug them together to equate the intent of the phrase. Here is an example:

> Hot dog

> Hot = More than warm
> Dog = A canine

> So, a hot dog is an overly warm canine?

There is a complete difference between idiomatic language and language that is literally intended. Common sense is literally intended, there's no obscurity or hidden meaning behind it. Quit being semantical.

> Common sense MAY at one time have meant majority opinion, when this country had a better moral compass (and even if so, it still was not perfect). The term today no longer holds much water, it is idllyic at best. SOME things may be common sense, such as not sticking one's hand into a running garbage disposal…but basic character has often been replaced with selfishness.

No, common sense has always and still means majority opinion. It means this out of the inherent definition of the words composing the term, because it is literal language. Your problem is that you take common sense to mean: "Whatever I find morally right and I think that a lot of people would generally agree with." That's not common sense, that's your sense. It's always the same thing with people like you. You can't see past yourselves and consider that your morality is not objective or absolute, and that others do not and should not consider it to be such.

> So yes, the Golden Rule is not the exact equal of common sense…but the original concept of common sense is presently so far gone that the Golden Rule is a more adequate replacement of the original concept 'common sense' than present 'majority opinion'.

Then just say "the golden rule", as I've said, and quit trying to twist terms to your opinion of what they should mean.

Anonymous 6c4a3d2265727f978bf26963845bdeba replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 03:20:59 UTC) ago, 26 minutes later (#68,180):

Common sense is actually quite subjective. Say I'm a racist judge. The suspect is black, so obviously, he must be guilty. Say I'm a chauvinist. All women are sluts, so she must have been asking to get raped. Even if we all came together to rewrite our laws, there would be disagreements as to what constitutes "common sense."

Anonymous 45f676ad10fda0893e66b8ce476cee81 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 06:21:42 UTC) ago, 3 hours later (#68,227):

@68,162

> Yes, yes we did.

When…and who is the 'we' you are referring to?

> Common sense would, but a strict adherence to the golden rule would not. Which side are you taking?

The Golden Rule is thought of (and often used) in the Bible in conjunction with an 'eye for an eye'. Suggesting that you kill the builder's son as equality would not work, even if you do think it most appropriate. Why? What if the builder had no son? No, the thought is that if you take a life, you forfeit your life.

> There is a complete difference between idiomatic language and language that is literally intended. Common sense is literally intended, there's no obscurity or hidden meaning behind it. Quit being semantical.

Says you. Who are you to interpret whether 'common sense' is literal versus it being suggestive?

> No, common sense has always and still means majority opinion. It means this out of the inherent definition of the words composing the term, because it is literal language. Your problem is that you take common sense to mean: "Whatever I find morally right and I think that a lot of people would generally agree with." That's not common sense, that's your sense. It's always the same thing with people like you. You can't see past yourselves and consider that your morality is not objective or absolute, and that others do not and should not consider it to be such.

Common sense would suggest that in an insane asylum, flinging feces is perfectly acceptable. I mean, that would be the 'common' feeling among the majority. But no, it is not allowed, as the minority of caretakers say it is not acceptable.

Ease up on the 'people like me' speech. Can I discount your beliefs by saying you are one of THOSE people? The bottom line is that 'common sense' is slippery. You can not quantify it. How could you ever poll the entire population to get the majority feeling on an issue…and would you exclude anyone with a certain level of incompetence/too young to know any better (and, who makes THAT decision)?

> Then just say "the golden rule", as I've said, and quit trying to twist terms to your opinion of what they should mean.

I will still contend that the original definition of common sense is based on a moral system, one to which society today is far removed. This is why the phrase 'Common sense is far from "common" any more' can be heard from time to time. Common sense can not be defined, the envirnoment and people handling it cause it to constantly change. Hence, a justice system can not be ran by it, nor can it ever honestly be used to solve anything.

Anonymous b504fbe0bb0bc058f4a8dcdfe2359ecd replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 06:54:17 UTC) ago, 33 minutes later (#68,230):

I suppose the end result of this whole topic was that the justice system is corrupted by common sense because it is subjective.

We could wish that society lived by "the golden rule" and it would be utopian but ultimately we do operate in a common sense justice system and therefore we should challenge the norm. We should work on destroying subjective law and focus on transitioning it to a more objective idea of unconditional truth and justice.

Anonymous 69c3756b5a687d551ccc5516d5606d40 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 07:14:19 UTC) ago, 20 minutes later (#68,235):

@68,130

This poster is probably a lawyer, or else has had occasion to think seriously about what the law means. This poster's responses in this thread have been very well-put.

The discussion is faltering, however, because both sides are quibbling over generalities, thus making it difficult to make points. To get things moving again, would the "common sense" proponents care to put up an example of (1) an accepted legal doctrine that should be replaced with a "common sense" principle, and (2) what the "common sense" principle should be?

You may interpret "legal doctrine" and "common sense principle" liberally in selecting your example, but please try to be fair by picking something serious.

© AnonTalk.com 2008