| Author | Message | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 562 Registered: 05-2006 |
A Matter of Ethics A teenage football player brutally tackles a wide receiver in a high school game, dislocating his shoulder. It is a premeditated and vicious act. He fully intends to "take him out" for the rest of the game. Because of the severity of the injury, an ambulance is called. When the paramedics arrive, they find the victim has severe numbness in his arm. Either blood circulation has been cut off or the boy has nerve damage. There is no time to lose. Sirens blaring, they rush him to the ER. Unfortunately, they make errors in judgment along a narrow stretch of highway and the ambulance runs off the road, killing one of the paramedics and the young football player. Should the boy who did the tackling be charged with two counts of murder? * * * * * A hacker creates a devastating computer virus. Inside half a day, more than 100,000 pc's are infected. Two super-intelligent computer whizzes employed by Norton are camping in Yosemite when this happens. Responding to an urgent page, they speed back to their hotel, and – as with the ambulance, above – they spin out of control and both of them die. The hacker is eventually caught. Should she be charged with two counts of murder? * * * * * A man is beating his dog. Another man sees this and runs over to intervene. On the way, he trips on a crack in the sidewalk and falls, killing himself. Should the dog-beater be charged with one count of murder? * * * * * In bringing up these examples, I want you to note the following. In every case, the perpetrator is up to no good: assault & battery on the football field; a deliberate attack on vast numbers of computer users; beating a dog. Many people would have no difficulty with charging these individuals with felonies. But also note that in every case, the perpetrator, when he or she committed the "evil deed," had specific victims in mind and specific suffering that these victims would undergo. The wide receiver would be hurt; maybe his removal from the team would throw the game – but he wouldn’t die. Thousands of computer users would experience severe inconvenience, and possible economic loss in the "under a thousand" category – that is all. The dog would experience extreme pain; but would be left standing for another beating tomorrow. Contrast these acts to shooting the wide receiver with a Glock 19mm semi-automatic, placing a bomb inside a demo computer on the floor at a local Circuit City, or slashing the dog's throat. Now, let's imagine that a twisted individual starts a fire. He pours a gallon of gasoline on a suitable patch of tinder in the back country. He strikes a match, ignites the wood. Within hours, the fire consumes hundreds of acres. By the next day, thousands. Maybe he's committing a symbolic act of revenge against a cruel father, now dead. Maybe he's a powerless little twit, and watching the flames rage gives him his only feeling of strength and authority. Maybe he revels in the destruction of farms, rural ranches, dead livestock – his mind alive with visions of displaced families. But he's not thinking: I want to kill fire-fighters – just like the football player is not thinking: I want to kill the receiver and the paramedic. * * * * * On October 26, four fire-fighters died fighting the Esperanza fire here in Southern California. Several days ago, a fifth man from their crew also died. It was not like the World Trade Towers, where mass murder was intended by Atta and his henchmen, and where many New York firemen knew as they entered the buildings that they might lose their lives. I don't believe that Raymond Lee Oyler – who has been identified as the perpetrator – intended to kill the fire-fighters. He started the fire in the San Jacinto Mountains, not in a row of wood-frame apartments in South-Central LA. He is a known arsonist. So far as we know, he was not intending to burn down a specific ranch, not targeting a specific resident of the back-country. I don't believe that the fire-fighters expected to die. They had training and experience. They had the proper equipment for clearing brush, for setting back fires if necessary. Oyler is being charged with five counts of murder. I have no difficulty with charging him with major felonies -- but not murder. * * * * * It is my personal opinion that the recent practice of charging people who commit a crime – an unintended and not inevitable consequence of which is that somebody dies – is itself ethically suspect. It opens up a slippery slope, where the fate of the rescuers determines the magnitude of the crime. Two men get into a bar-room fight. An older gentlemen comes over, tries to stop them. The excitement is too much for him. He has a weak heart. He collapses and dies. Do we charge the brawlers with murder? Clearly, the older man would not have died at that moment had the other men not been fighting. But, equally as clearly, neither – in raising his fists against his opponent – has the old man's death in mind. | ||
| Vienna
Senior Member Username: vienna Post Number: 491 Registered: 11-1998 |
This one is easy for me to work out  Taking all the examples hypothetically, only one of the aforementioned should be charged with murder, and that is the arsonist. The other cases show that clearly, there was no attempt to kill, the knock on effects were tragic accidents related to, but not as a direct result of the attackers' violence or ill intent towards his victim(s) Simply because, if you set a malicious fire in such a situation, you just know the odds are that at least someone, or something, will die as a direct result of your actions. But back to your facts, if this guy was a known arsonist it only serves to make his actions more despicable. Take him down! (preferably for life). V 'All of us get lost in the darkness Dreamers learn to steer by the stars' Neil Peart My poetry books at Lulu http://people.lulu.com/users/index.php?fHomepage=101596 | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 563 Registered: 05-2006 |
Vienna, I have no problem with getting him off the streets permanently so that he can NEVER set another fire, except perhaps a cigarette in a jail cell. A menace to society is a menace to society. I do not believe that, by definition, an arsonist knows that someone may die. Long experience suggests to me that most people generally do not consider the various consequences of their behavior -- and the comparative probabilities associated with each -- especially if those consequences and probabilities lack physical immediacy. Put differently, if a fatal disease showed up right away rather than twenty or thirty years down the line, there would be far fewer smokers. * * * * * Arguing from an opposite point of view, this particular fire was set in a very remote area. One might say then that the "rational arsonist" wishing to minimize possible loss of human life would tend to set fires in remote, unpopulated areas -- which, unfortunately, in this case spread to more populated areas. * * * * * On a different tack, it is now being argued that gun manufacturers should bear co-responsiblity for violent acts committed with their products. This idea has politial popularity, but seems ethically much more complex. If a gun were not available, a person who wanted to "do in" another person could just as easily grab a big knife. Deadly knives are extremely plentiful in kitchens throughout the world? Should we hold knife-makers co-responsible? * * * * * On a still different tack, high-speed automobile chases have recently been prohibited in my area (Southern California.) The reason is that the benefit of catching the perpetrator in the chase (especially when the crime was that the car was stolen) was often insignificant compared to the damages caused by horrible high-speed chase accidents. In the Esperanza fire, the fire-fighters died trying to save a house. Many people in law-enforcement would argue that lives of fire-fighters (or police) should not be risked saving property -- only other human life. They might further say: let the houses burn and focus on the fire's perimeter AND on evacuation. Fred | ||
| Vienna
Senior Member Username: vienna Post Number: 493 Registered: 11-1998 |
Hi Fred I guess my take on arsonists is the same as paedophiles, you can never guarantee a cure, too dangerous set of odds to let these people roam free. Gun manufacturers??? hell, may as well scoop car manufacturers in there as well! that is just going over the top. High speed car chases here (well in my policed area) are much frowned on now, and I agree. Stingers are usually the modus operandi now. However, in other counties (states) the police are at will to do as they see fit. Having being given access to more of the facts surrounding the Esperanza fire, I agree, a house is just so much stuff, life is more important. Still, with that case, the perpetrator must have known that a wildfire is not the easiest thing in the world to control, if he was influenced at all by what he has seen previously on the news in that area especially, he would have known the devastation they cause. So I reckon, whether charged with murder or just taken into secure psychiatric accom for the remainder of his days, he would fare equally as well, as he is either sadly and irretreveably ill or just plain evil. V 'All of us get lost in the darkness Dreamers learn to steer by the stars' Neil Peart My poetry books at Lulu http://people.lulu.com/users/index.php?fHomepage=101596 | ||
| Kathy Paupore
Senior Member Username: kathy Post Number: 3842 Registered: 12-2003 |
Fred, interesting ethics dilemna. The football player and the hacker shouldn't be charged with murder, but in our society someone will most assuredly bring them to court under some other charge. The dog beater should be charged with animal cruelty, which I think might be a felony. The twisted firestarter would be charged with arson, a felony, and probably be charged with involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary Manslaughter, sometimes called crimanally negligent homicide, occurs where there is no intention to kill or cause serious injury but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence. http://enwikipedia.org/wiki/involuntary_manslaughter K (Message edited by kathy on November 07, 2006) You're invited to: Wild Flowers "Poetry is a shuffling of boxes of illusions buckled with a strap of facts." Carl Sandburg | ||
| Ava South
Intermediate Member Username: avasouth Post Number: 686 Registered: 05-2006 |
I'm pretty much agreeing with Kathy, Fred. When an arsonist sets a fire, I really don't think he can be rational enough to say to himself, "This wiil be a good fire and only burn brush and woods, no homes or certainly not kill anyone." I think he should be tried for manslaughter, just a drunk driver who kills someone is charged with the same crime. We must be held accountable for our actions. The domino effect sometimes catches a human being in it's path, knocking them down and often ending their life. If I take a drug, or a drink, or smoke a controlled substance and then get behind the wheel of a car, I am ripe for becoming a murderer. If I know that when I drink, I become violent, I know there is a chance I might injure or kill someone. The buck has to stop somewhere. Ava | ||
| Michelle Petit-Sumrall
Moderator Username: jaguwar Post Number: 42 Registered: 11-1998 |
The original analogies are a little different from the arsonist, in that the deaths were not the responsibility of the original perpetrators. The football player wasn't driving the ambulance and didn't make the mistake that cost the lives of the EMT and the opposing team member; neither was the hacker responsible for the Norton people's death: he wasn't driving. More to the point, had someone else been sent in to deal with the problem, it's probable no one would have died. As for the dog beater, he wasn't the one walking without watching where he was going! The arsonist, on the other hand, holds a tighter responsibility for the death of the firefighters, but one might argue that every firefighter goes in knowing this could be the day, no matter how unlikely it is their training will fail them. I agree with Kathy, it should be a charge of involuntary manslaughter. The arson is much more severe. He's not a murderer, but he did cause actions that could lead to death. I think the trend towards blaming everyone for every thing is disturbing and getting out of control, myself. To paraphrase, gun manufacturers don't kill people, people do. The thing about guns that is frightening is they make it so easy! I can shoot someone from dozens of feet away and never even get dirty. All other methods require close proximity... and the human body is surprisingly resistant. I'd have to exert a tremendous amount of force. Only poisons compare in their ability to let a murderer stay at a distance. Thanks for the mental exercise! | ||
| "A-Bear"
Senior Member Username: dane Post Number: 1899 Registered: 11-1998 |
Check it out. Two days ago in Reno, a woman set fire to a mattress outside her boyfriend's apartment. She was in a jealous rage believing he had slept with one of her friends. End result: 12 people dead, mostly unrecognizable bodies, 31 injured seriously, hundreds left homeless, and one of Reno's oldest landmarks (The Mizpah) is in complete ruins (not to mention the dozen or so businesses that had to be closed and are now seeking relocation). Word has it the authorities will ask for the death penalty when she comes to trial, however, a good attorney will plead diminished capacity and prove she only intended to smoke her boyfriend out from behind a locked door -the deaths were not premeditated. And so it goes. Tax payers will continue to support this person in prison (or in some obscure asylum) and billions of daily tax dollars will continue to be spent in support of the war in Iraq, regardless if the murders happening there are justifiable or not, and without care if the greater population agrees with our presence there. And how did I get so far off track from the original question? It's closer than you think -globalization, I believe. So is life. Question: What is the truest definition of Globalization? Answer: Princess Diana's death. Question: How come? Answer: An English princess with an Egyptian boyfriend crashes in a French tunnel, driving a German car with a Dutch engine, driven by a Belgian who was drunk on Scottish whisky, (check the bottle before you change the spelling) followed closely by Italian Paparazzi, on Japanese motorcycles; treated by an American doctor, using Brazilian medicines. This was sent to me by an American, using Bill Gates's technology, and you're probably reading this on your computer, that uses Taiwanese chips, and a Korean monitor, assembled by Bangladeshi workers in a Singapore plant, transported by Indian lorry-drivers, hijacked by Indonesians, unloaded by Sicilian longshoremen, and trucked to you by Mexican illegals... That, my fiend, is Globalization. | ||
| Michelle Petit-Sumrall
Moderator Username: jaguwar Post Number: 43 Registered: 11-1998 |
*LOL* A-Bear, that about sums it up! Reminds me a little of a line in "Armageddon", from the Russian cosmonaut: "American components, Russian components, all made in Taiwan!" *LOL* I'd rather be your friend than your fiend, though. *G* | ||
| Morgan Lafay
Senior Member Username: morganlafay Post Number: 2650 Registered: 08-2005 |
Exodus 21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. etc. Exact punishment should be meted out; no trial; no waste of money or time on the evil human(?) that did it. Die MF! | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 570 Registered: 05-2006 |
I do not support burning Mr. Oyler. * * * * * The "an eye for an eye" position framed above as "life for life" is fraught with certain . . . difficulties. Let's look at the abortion question through this lens. I would define an unborn fetus as just that, an unborn fetus. Since I am an abortion supporter, I believe that, especially prior to the 3rd trimester, the fetus is not a full human being. Rather, it is a human being in the process of formation. But to say that a fetus, say at 19 weeks, is a human being in formation is not the same as saying it is not life. By any definition of life I know of, the fetus IS life. It is not independent life, but then my spine is not independent life. So, if we follow this further, terminating the life of the 19-week-old fetus would require "an eye for an eye." This leads to the thorny matter of equivalence. What living entity should we kill to square the balance of justice for having killed a 19-week-old fetus? It would literally be "overkill" to zap an adult human being. Perhaps we can disconnect an old person in intensive care from life support a little earlier. Maybe we can do away with a severely retarded person. Perhaps, we can take a healthy adult and remove a foot, an ear, a finger. An eye for an eye. A vision of justice suitable for children, or for cowboys from Tombstone circa 1883, but way too simplistic for my ethics. Fred | ||
| Morgan Lafay
Senior Member Username: morganlafay Post Number: 2653 Registered: 08-2005 |
Evil is evil and should be punished. This isn't a puzzle Fred. You are the one that asked the question. I'm giving my opinion/belief. Did you put this "out there" to refute everyone's opinion but your own? Go play by yourself with your own marbles. (Message edited by morganlafay on November 07, 2006) | ||
| "A-Bear"
Senior Member Username: dane Post Number: 1900 Registered: 11-1998 |
Tsk, tsk, Morgan. It’s a question of ethics, not marbles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics. Ethics is an all encompassing word, and in my opinion, it has to be applied on a case by case basis. Even then, it is still just one person’s opinion versus another. It bridges morality and makes light of good and evil, right and wrong, etc., and I honestly don’t know if my own personal standards would hold true (especially in the eyes of a higher power). Fred makes a good point with the abortion issue but I am sure there are many rebuttals are out there who believe “life” begins at the moment of conception and it is not based on the age of a fetus or a certain trimester. What do I personally believe? Let me put it this way, if I knock somebody up at my age, she’s definitely going to have an abortion or I’m leaving the country to live elsewhere. In short, I’ll either be considered an accomplis to murder or a worthless deadbeat who refused to support his offspring. Not very ethical of me, I know, and a no win if there ever was. D | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 571 Registered: 05-2006 |
Sometimes the best thing to do with evil is not to punish it, but to ignore it. Fred (Message edited by sandiegopoet on November 08, 2006) | ||
| Morgan Lafay
Senior Member Username: morganlafay Post Number: 2654 Registered: 08-2005 |
Dane, please don't tsk tsk me. I know what ethics is, and the one you listed is sad. ************* Fred, why did you remove part of your post: Posted by Fred Longworth on Wednesday, November 08, 2006 - 2:10 am: Morgan, I know that, for my own part, sometimes I get hung up on courtesy and ignore the value of a good old-fashioned invective. So, thanks for the temper. * * * * * It wasn't temper. It was my opinion and belief. Ignore evil? You are free to do so. I surely do not believe this is the consensus for the majority. What a messed up world we would have. Hard to imagine it could get much worse as far as evil being alive and well. Ignore evil? Never. Ignore this discussion further...yes. Have a sun-shiny day. | ||
| "A-Bear"
Senior Member Username: dane Post Number: 1901 Registered: 11-1998 |
Morgan -the "tsk tsk" was meant to be humorous and I promise, never again (well, not really, but it reads nice to say that - smile). As for the definition of ethics, I'm pleased you know what they are. I thought I knew as well until I did the "Wikipedia" search. It was then I realized how large a word it is and how many sub-categories it pertains to and touches. I knew the basics (what my parents taught me) but I was not prepared for the full blown version. In summary, however, I think it comes down to what you can live with after passing judgement on the behavior of others. Sad but true. D 40% chance of rain today | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 573 Registered: 05-2006 |
Morgan, I reason I revised my post was because I had second thoughts about what was appropriate to say at this point in the thread. It was up for only several minutes. The fact that you highlighted it, saved it, and then pasted it into your comment, above, suggests that you were waiting at your computer like a crouching panther. I will allow readers of this thread to draw their own conclusions as to motive. * * * * * Please note that in my revised comment I did say -- "Sometimes the best thing to do with evil is not to punish it, but to ignore it." It appears that in your reaction to these lines, you have skipped over the adverb "sometimes." Sometimes, those little adverbs makes all the difference. * * * * * I sincerely believe that much of the "evil" being perpetrated by radical Jihadist Islamics against American troops in Iraq -- and against Iraqi people -- is fomented, fostered, or exacerbated by the way our military feeds this negative energy by so violently resisting it. As many have said, we have created a breeding ground for terrorists. I strongly believe that had we "ignored" some of this evil, rather than so valiantly opposing it, the magnitude of it would be considerably less than we are facing now. I just heard that Rumsfeld is out. Whoopie! Fred | ||
| ~M~
Board Administrator Username: mjm Post Number: 8848 Registered: 11-1998 |
You know, folks -- I always shudder quietly when someone posts a controversial topic hoping for an ensuing discussion. I sit here with every appendage I have crossed hoping that everyone will behave, state their opinions respectfully, and have a good healthy debate. Nothing wrong with that. But sometimes it degenerates into something you often see on schoolgrounds. And then I have to come in here sounding like some tight-assed librarian asking people to keep it civil. What am I referring to? This: "Go play by yourself with your own marbles." (i.e., the playground equivalent of "Poopey on you, Poophead!") And then this: "The fact that you highlighted it, saved it, and then pasted it into your comment, above, suggests that you were waiting at your computer like a crouching panther." (i.e., the playground equivalent of "Well, double poopey on you, DoublePoophead!!") C'mon, guys. Debate the topics and stop hurling insults at each other. Honestly, I'm not a tight-assed librarian (all evidence to the contrary). But I do have to keep order and respect in a public community (I know -- who died and left me Solomon? Did I get the jab in on myself to everyone's satisfaction?). Feel sorry for the office of admin -- it ain't an easy job. Please hurl the poop in private e-mails. You can say the most vile things you can think of to each other in that venue and there's not a damn thing I can do about it. Thanks for your cooperation. You People Make Me Crazy Sometimes, But I Love Ya' Anyway, M | ||
| LJ Cohen
Moderator Username: ljc Post Number: 5774 Registered: 07-2002 |
Yeah. What she said. ljc Once in a Blue Muse Blog | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 574 Registered: 05-2006 |
Point well taken. Fred (removing hackles and placing in small hole in backyard, then covering up with fresh-turned earth) | ||
| Morgan Lafay
Senior Member Username: morganlafay Post Number: 2655 Registered: 08-2005 |
Yeah. What he said. PS....sorry Dane | ||
| ~M~
Board Administrator Username: mjm Post Number: 8861 Registered: 11-1998 |
Thanks very much, guys, for the hackle removal. It is most appreciated! And since it seems that my comment brought this thread to a grinding halt, I'll add my two cents in the hopes of getting things started again. Unfortunately, Fred, like Michelle, I think the three analogies are dissimilar to the firestarter in one important aspect that makes comparison almost impossible. The connection of the original perpetrators to the ensuing deaths is indirect at best. I'm sure a judge would determine (and most reasonable people would also conclude) that the football player, the computer hacker, and the dog beater are not guilty of murder. If you played the trace back game, nearly every crime could be off-loaded onto a different source -- i.e., parents would be found guilty when children committed a crime because if those parents had never given birth to those children, the crime wouldn't have been committed, and how about the grandparents who gave birth to the parents, etc. The arsonist is a different story. He is directly connected -- the fire he set is the fire the men died in. However, this doesn't necessarily make him a murderer. The defining difference here, in my opinion, is intent. There was no murderous intent on the part of the arsonist. At most, I would expect him to brought up on charges of involuntary or voluntary manslaughter. But this is 2006. I don't think this is a matter of ethics, however, as I don't think ethics is fueling the desire to charge this man with murder. It's more a matter of increased public consciousness and the legal system attempting to meet the demand of that increased consciousness. Since the tragedy of 9/11, firefighters are finally being seen as the heroes they've always been. And people want retribution when heroes die. You kill a firefighter now (directly or indirectly) and you will probably be charged with murder. The same as it's always been with policemen. So, are you correct in saying "where the fate of the rescuers determines the magnitude of the crime"? In my opinion, yes, you're onto something, but it's not the fate of the rescuers, it's their importance to society. It's the perceived value of those who died. Would the arsonist had been charged with murder if a group of homeless men died in the blaze? Probably not, as the homeless men are no one's heroes. Is this fair? No, but what about the world is fair? Our legal system, as good as it is, is still filled with bias. And the bias of public consciousness is a strong one. I do hope that an experienced judge will be assigned to this case and consider the issue of intent. My question is why the hell aren't we treating mental illness in this society? You said Oyler was a known arsonist. What I think is damned tragic is the fact that he's done this before, but there's no help in the system for people with mental afflications like the desire to commit arson. If people want to play the blame game, they should point the fingers at themselves for not demanding a mental health system that provides treatment and counseling for people who've been identified as mental health risks and getting them the help they need in the first place. If Oyler had gotten treatment when he first demonstrated this love of matches, maybe he wouldn't have gone on to set the fire that killed the firemen. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The real problem in this country isn't the legal system. It's people's ignorance of mental illness and their refusal to support initiatives that would provide affordable health care (mental and physical) to all our citizens. We're great at locking the barn door after the cows have escaped (throwing people in jail for the commission of crimes). What about taking a stab at prevention? Oh, but that's way too expensive. Oh, yeah -- and what is that war in Iraq costing us? *sigh* Well, them's my two cents. I'm sure someone will be along to tell me I'm full of shit, but that's OK. I probably am. *LOL* | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 576 Registered: 05-2006 |
Anna Graham said, "You're full of this." -- but you know Anna: she can't tell this from . . . [Fred winks to an imaginary ~M~ staring back at him from the computer screen.] * * * * * In the media, they've been touting "murder, murder, murder." It just didn't seem right. The dude is twisted -- and you're correct: he didn't invent his twistedness for the Esperanza fire. Speaking hypothetically, it showed up when he was ten, and he set a fire in the neighbor's backyard. Then at fourteen, he poured lighter fluid on a neighborhood cat and . . . And so on. He'd set several fires before this one, and the system allowed him to run free and untreated. * * * * * And I HATE child molesters, but, why is child molesting an unrehabilitatable thing, whereas killing that same child is not? We just approved a proposition in California requiring the registered offenders wear GPS tracking devices and live no closer than 2000 feet from a school or park. After a molester "pays his dues" and is released, he is considered a pariah until the day he dies -- and now society wants to so SERIOUSLY restrict his access to children that in the process it's unlikely that he'll ever be able to hold a job or live in an urban area. (A judge just issued a temporary injunction against the proposition.) But if he KILLED that same kid, after he served his time, he could live 100 feet from a nursury school. [Fred shrugs.] Fred | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 578 Registered: 05-2006 |
Is the singling out of child molesters as society's most heinous monsters -- to be ostracized, unremittingly stigmatized, and burdened in ways that make their "release" a living hell -- a way our society does penance for otherwise being promiscuous? | ||
| ~M~
Board Administrator Username: mjm Post Number: 8867 Registered: 11-1998 |
That's an interesting question, Fred, and the reasoning you propose is certainly a possibility. In my opinion, it probably can be traced back to our Puritanical roots. As much as we complain that there is too much exposure to "sex" in our society (TV, movies, print ads, etc.), we are still one of the more repressed cultures in the world. Some Europeans have a much more open response to sex, nudity, etc. I also remember studying a primitive culture back in my college sociology classes (pardon me, as it's been quite a while and I can't remember who or what part of the world now) where adults having sex with children was not seen as heinous. It was considered instructional. Adults were expected to teach children about sex just as adults teach children about a wide variety of life issues. This instruction was not considered shameful, reprehensible, immoral, or illegal. It was just part of their society, no better or worse than any other part. And none of the children were damaged by this instruction as it was not perceived as evil. I had the opportunity to sit down and discuss this at length with a convicted child molester, one who had served time for his crime. While I cannot go into all that we talked about (as it would take too long), the final conclusion by him is that this behavior is a compulsion, just like obsessive/compulsive disorder causes people to wash their hands hundreds of times a day, even when their hands are raw and bleeding and they are praying for the behavior to stop. Obsessive/compulsives do NOT want to keep performing these repetitive and compulsive acts. Nor did this child molester. He considered his illness as heinous and monstrous as everyone else does. He said the problem was that the crime is merely punished, but the behavior is not treated. He sought mental health treatment on his own because he was in a position to understand he needed this treatment and he could afford to pay for it. With medication and behavior modification, compulsive thought stopping and other techniques, his disorder is now under control. However, most offenders are not so fortunate. They either do not know about or cannot afford such treatment. You cannot merely punish these people; you must go on to treat them if you wish the behavior to stop. Putting them in jail and then releasing them on probation after their jail sentence is over is useless. They will most likely re-offend if they are not successfully treated. This is a mental disorder. Why can't we get that through our heads? We've got to start using the word "illness" instead of the word "evil." Until we turn ourselves from a punitive society into one that treats, we will not solve the problem. Registration of offenders, GPS tracking devices and all those other methods of control are wasted money in my opinion. I'd rather see those dollars spent on prevention and treatment. I'm not saying that sex offense is an easy disorder to treat -- offenders must be committed to their treatment programs and have a strong desire to reform. But treatment does reduce recidivism -- it's as simple as that. | ||
| Emusing
Moderator Username: emusing Post Number: 3889 Registered: 08-2003 |
M brings up an interesting subject, the idea of criminal reform and she is absolutely correct, reform and not punishment is the only long-term way to handle these issues. Punishment only reinforces the abberation and the only real change is self-determined not other-determined. Unfortunately, much of modern psychiatry treats (and experiments on) prisoners which at their worst turn prisons into fodder for psychiatric experiments with horrific results, and their best, they suppress the symptoms with medication and behavior modification but often do not get to the source of the ills. I have been a volunteer supervisor for Criminon for 8 years. I have dealt with lifers who have committed heinous crimes. I can say that if the person is willing to change he can be helped without drugs or harmful therapies. Man is basically good, even those that seem most despicable--that goodness when discovered and rekindled can convert all that blackness into light. E www.criminon.org Word Walker Press | ||
| Gary Blankenship
Senior Member Username: garyb Post Number: 9584 Registered: 07-2001 |
E, have you ever seen a baby-lover who changed? Fred, change the football scene. He stomps on the guy's head who then dies after a lingering illness in the hospital... Everything is not murder; every accident is not a crime. There is good historical reasons for the idea of levels of murder and manslaughter. We should not change them. However, we might throw the key away for those idiots who come up with the sleazist political ads. Smiles. Gary who is against capital punishment, except when he is not... A River Transformed The Dawg House July FireWeed more War/Peace | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 605 Registered: 05-2006 |
~M~ Even as we sexualize our children in a manner that would've shocked our grandparents, we come up with ever greater criminal penalties and ever greater extra-penal burdens that a "sex offender" must bear. I wonder just how far this "split" in our values could be pushed. Imagine a world in which children between seven and thirteen were obliged to go around naked with day-glo paint on their genitals. At the same time, adults would be required to wear tumescence sensors on their genitals. And any adult caught "responding" to the sexuality of these children would be ritually tortured. Absurd? Indeed . . . but not so very far away from where we are now. * * * * * If Sirhan Sirhan ever got parolled, there would be no law prohibiting him from living within 2,000 feet of a convention center or statehouse. * * * * * Consider the very term: sex offender. Do we call somebody who steals a car a vehicle offender? No, we use terms like "grand theft auto" and "car thief." If a man beats his wife half to death, is he a "body offender"? No, he's a wife beater and his crime is assault and battery, perhaps with intent to kill. Sex offenders are the lowest of low-life (according to our culture,") yet they are given a mild, almost innocuous label. * * * * * I posit that by sexualizing our children we all are drawn into sexual fantasies about them. But most of us do not act upon these fantasies because our guilt and fear of punishment stop us. I further posit that the greater the guilt and fear of punishment the greater the punishments and persecution of "offenders." Fred | ||
| resuri
New member Username: resuri Post Number: 43 Registered: 11-2002 |
hm. i'm a little bit late on this post, i guess because i haven't had time to play with you guys for about 7 months. mainly because i started practicing law. :-) Criminal defense, to be precise. Now i've relocated to california and while i await the horrifying california bar exam in february, i have nothing but time to "study" and try to catch up on what i've missed. which is impossible. anyway, bear in mind that this is coming from a baby lawyer, barred only in one US jurisdiction for about a year, who is oversimplifying for the sake of a discussion on the internet. sorry for the tangent. when you participate in a sporting event willingly and someone hurts you within the anticipated play of the game, you are pretty much SOL. This guy was playing football, seems perfectly natural the other guy would want to "take him out." It'd be a different story if the guy tried to stab him, because, to the chagrin of many an eagle fan during cowboy games, knifing someone is not expected football play. As many of you have pointed out, there is something amiss in all three examples as compared with the arson case. Felony murder occurs when an actor engages in or is an accomplice to a felony in commission, and requires an act that is clearly dangerous to human life and which causes the death of an individual. Usually these crimes include robbery, rape, kidnapping, and you guessed it, arson. Recklessly burning something in an unenclosed area could foreseeably cause death or serious bodily injury, as could robbing a bank with a gun, etc. Uploading computer virus--no. Dog-beating -- no. That being said, I'm defense-oriented. I hope this guy gets proper representation. | ||
| Gary Blankenship
Senior Member Username: garyb Post Number: 9615 Registered: 07-2001 |
Then let's call them what they are: baby/child rapers Smiles. Gary Seriously, there is a problem with degree - lack of balance Living next to the guy who spends his day looking at pics of naked boys on the web is one thing... Living next to the guy who sets up a studio to take the pics is another... The punishment should be appropriate - the first blinded, the second should have his nuts removed... Seriously, I have the same problem with the evil-doers who prey on the elderly, take all they have to reduce their existence to cat food... dealers who sell to kids... wife beaters... serial killers... telemarketers... Smiles. A River Transformed The Dawg House July FireWeed more War/Peace | ||
| Morgan Lafay
Senior Member Username: morganlafay Post Number: 2699 Registered: 08-2005 |
Finally, someone that gets it! Right on Gary! | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 609 Registered: 05-2006 |
You can go down to any shopping mall and see hundreds of pre-pubescent little girls out shopping with one or more parents -- the girls dressed in short skirts or pants, these skirts or pants pushed down to show the top of the buttock, their little waistlines bare, their hair gussied up, traces of mascara and eye shadow, gaudy lipstick. Oh yes -- they're just going along with "the trend." And their parents sooooooooo want them to be popular. * * * * * If you lay out a tableau of vivid temptations, there will always be a group of people who, due to some weakness of character or malady of mind, fall prey to the temptation. As I see it, society is not supposed to be a challenge game, designed to see who can resist intense temptations. (That is, unless you are a confirmed Social Darwinist, who believes that culling out the weak is the whole point.) Responsible community participation implies a degree of reticence or discretion regarding what temptations you present. Leave a fat wallet sitting on the table at a restaurant while you go to the restroom, and don't be surprised if some morally weak person snags it. Take the wallet with you, and you are engaging in one of society's responsibilities: reducing the harm that the weak can do to themselves and others. To persecute pedaphiles while allowing parents to "sex up" their little children is hypocrisy at its worst -- that is, unless you are a Social Darwinist. Fred (Message edited by sandiegopoet on November 17, 2006) | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 610 Registered: 05-2006 |
resuri, You wrote: "Recklessly burning something in an unenclosed area could foreseeably cause death or serious bodily injury, as could robbing a bank with a gun, etc." There is a substantial difference in immediacy of consequence. A person with a limited or impaired ability to pre-visualize consequence would still likely realize, gun in hand, that any second this could result in a killing. A raging fire could also result in a killing, but here a person of limited or impaired ability to pre-visualize would be required to imagine dire events substantially later in time and abstract in causality as compared to a bank robbery. Perhaps in law there is no difference -- though I expect it would be considered mitigating; but in ethics the difference is, I think, significant. Fred | ||
| LJ Cohen
Moderator Username: ljc Post Number: 5820 Registered: 07-2002 |
Fred, One of the flaws of our current society (as I see it) is the sense of entitlement that many people have of wanting rights without exercising responsibility. As a parent of 2 young children, it is my responsibility to monitor their television/internet access. I do that. However, I also have the right to expect that they will be protected from rampant displays of violence and inappropriate sexuality when they are viewing what is rated as G or PG content. (for example) I don't believe it is up to the individual to remove all temptation--isn't that the justification that dresses middle eastern women in burkas? (and yes, I'm giving an extreme, likely provacative response). I also am appalled at the clothing marketed to little girls. It says a lot about the way our society sees sexuality--and it's not a positive message. If one takes the social darwinist type of argument further, then it becomes a 'blame the victim' kind of approach. That is also a slippery slope. How to separate legality from morality in your examples? I don't know. I'm neither an ethical scholar nor a lawyer. But setting intentional fires is a destructive, sociopathic act where the potential harm is reasonably forseen. In any case, one could argue that a person of limited/impaired ability to pre-visualize would have difficulty connecting any act to its consequence. Sadly, I see much of society acting out that scenario. best, ljc Once in a Blue Muse Blog | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 611 Registered: 05-2006 |
ljc, I have long thought that a mandatory module of elementary school (and later) education should be teaching children to pre-visualize and to make choices (choice being predicated on the capacity to pre-visualize.) It is assumed in pedagogy and in the legal system that most people possess a working measure of pre-visualization ability and choice-making skill. One only has to look around to see this is not so. In raising my son, now age 19, I long endeavored to present him with "situations" in which pre-visualization/choice were expected. * * * * * As individuals, and participants in a free society (as opposed to an Islamic, or other, theocracy -- or a Fascist dictatorship,) we remove or downplay the worst of temptations, and/or the temptations besetting the weakest individuals -- and allow free competition otherwise. The fundamental question is always: where to draw the line. Half of ethics is what one ought to do, or what ought in general to be done; the other half is line-drawing, what one ought not do, or what in general ought not be done. Which brings us to OJ's book on how the murders of Goldman and OJ's wife might have been accomplished had he (hypothetically speaking) done the deed. This is so far over the line that I reel in disgust. Fred | ||
| Gary Blankenship
Senior Member Username: garyb Post Number: 9623 Registered: 07-2001 |
Fred, which means? Yes, our mores have changed though not always for the better, but there were pedos before teens ran around in bare mid-rifs, and in our high school days the same might have been said for any skirt that was shorter than two inches below the knees. Fact is there have pedos forever. Some were Roman leaders. And we used lock our Uncle Johns in the basement or at least never discussed them. In the end, it is not about sex. It is about power - over those unable to fight back, who would be believed if they did, and would be blamed for whatever happened to them because they flaunted it. We can't excuse Bundy because his puppy died when he was young and his parents told him it went to live on the farm. And we can't excuse pedos because they are tempted. They would be tempted by pics in Parent's Magazine. Seperating legality and morality? Or no morality and everything legal because everything is relative. Let's bring back genocide, slavery, foot-binding and temple prostitution. Gary sometimes over the top A River Transformed The Dawg House July FireWeed more War/Peace | ||
| "A-Bear"
Senior Member Username: dane Post Number: 1922 Registered: 11-1998 |
Gary -I'm all for the Temple thing if the price is reasonable. As for the other stuff you want to bring back, my vote is a firm NO. Fred -"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Not sure who said that but it was either Sigmund Freud or Bill Clinton. So, if I rape or molest someone, regardless of their age (or gender), my best defense is to say it was “their fault” because they dressed provocatively? Sue the parents for allowing it to happen? I know that's not what you are saying, Fred, but all the same, it does make for a strong defense based on what has been said. I strongly agree with Gary about punishment fitting the crime. I personally have no problem at all with castration. Just because you hang with nuts doesn't mean you have to act like one. *smile* D | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 612 Registered: 05-2006 |
The paradox is that people need to be held responsible for their actions, while at the same time it needs to be recognized that behavior is a complex product of many simultaneous factors, of which will or choice is usually the dominant element. People nearly always come down on one side of this or the other, believing that ethics -- or morality -- cannot be predicated on a paradox or seeming contradiction. To a degree I am responsible for the behavior of others. To a degree the behavior of everyone is determined by external causes. If I run screaming into a pickup basketball game of African-American teenagers shouting "Nigger! Nigger!" it would be silly to imagine that each young man stands there for a moment reflecting on the options and then, after careful consideration, decides to "teach me a lesson." No, most people would say that I was a racist idiot who pushed their buttons. Similarly, when I wrote the poem "Bad Religion," most people felt that I bore some responsibility for the reactions of others. In fact -- let's admit it -- when we write poems we are using our power as writers to influence the reactions of our readers. How odd it would be for people to read our poems, and reflect a hundred times throughout the poem as to whether they wanted to react to the poem as the writer wanted them to, or to "will" some other reaction. So, that's the ethical paradox: we are responsible, while at the same time a significant influence on what we do and think is not within our conscious control. But yes it is! -- I hear someone say. No, that it how it is for a few enlightened high beings. The rest of us are far less in control of our lives than our pride would suggest. So again, we must act as if we were the architects of our lives, while at the same time acknowledging that, often, something or someone else largely draws the plans. Fred | ||
| Morgan Lafay
Senior Member Username: morganlafay Post Number: 2700 Registered: 08-2005 |
 | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 614 Registered: 05-2006 |
Epiphany I saw the world in black and white, where wrong was wrong, and right was right. Where zero to one was equal size as ace to deuce, as eye to eyes. And then one day, I faced a thug. My gun had one more than one slug. The first I used to save my life. The second I wasted on the knife. If one is thin, then two is skinnier. A nuanced world, and quite non-linear. | ||
| resuri
New member Username: resuri Post Number: 44 Registered: 11-2002 |
interesting observations fred. but at the end of the day, when you engage in a dangerous activity without taking the proper precautions, you cannot later disclaim responsibility for the natural and/or foreseeable consequences. that's why the felony murder statute generally applies to violent crimes...when one illegally employs force that when improperly used can be deadly, one is demonstrating a kind of indifference for the possible outcome of those acts that society feels it needs extra protection against. To be honest with you, even as a defense attorney, I would question the morals of the man setting that fire. To have that level of indifference sure seems dangerous. | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 615 Registered: 05-2006 |
resuri, It still remains that the assumption, on which ordinary ethics and the law is predicated, that most people pre-visualize the consequences of their actions is significantly untrue. In reality, people just do, mostly by habit. Even their ethical behavior (or lack of same) is primarily governed by habit. Along with the non-think that habit implies, there is also active denial. I do not -- as Gary and, I think, Morgan impute -- argue that non-thinking and non-visualizing in some sense absolve a person of responsibility for his or her actions. I am saying that the myth of autonomous ethical agency is just that -- a myth. It is a fiction we adopt because the physicality of a person implies a bounded locus of causality -- and the fiction is the simplest and most intuitive model of agency. That doesn't make it exhaustive, and it doesn't render it correct. Practically speaking, as well, the collateral factors -- i.e. the broader agenry -- are often unknown or only partially known. They may be abstract. They may be in any short-term sense intractable, as, for example, the social mileua of an inner-city ghetto. So, we simplify and assign agency wholly to the individual, and discard more complex models as impractical and unwieldy. Thus we return to the paradox I presented earlier in this thread: that on the one hand we act as if each person were an autonomous responsible agent who pre-visualizes and chooses; and on the other we acknowledge that in truth the causality is much more complex. Fred | ||
| resuri
New member Username: resuri Post Number: 45 Registered: 11-2002 |
personally, fred, i am more afraid of the person who, even when performing a dangerous and illegal act, does not "pre-visualize the consequences of their actions" than someone who intended to hurt someone. the husband who, learning that his wife was cheating on him, plots to kill her or her lover versus a man who just happens to be ignorant (or feign ignorance) regarding the dangerous nature of what he's doing. The first is a targeted hit, and is generally punished harsher. But the second can hurt anyone, at random. While both victimize someone, and are probably punishable by law, one is less likely to hurt someone again, while the other, being blissfully indifferent regarding the damage he could potentially cause (again and again), seems more likely to do so. I guess what i'm saying is, the actions of the man you describe are more terrifying to me than the average intentional actor. Speaking from the point of view of a potential victim, i'd prefer to live and die by the associations i make than at the hands of someone who doesn't know or more likely doesn't care the damage they can do, simply out of habit. That's not a legal opinion. Clearly the intentional doer is punished more harshly than a reckless or negligent actor, with the possible exception in depraved heart situations which, when you think about it, is really just the amplified version of your actor. ~~L | ||
| Kathy Paupore
Senior Member Username: kathy Post Number: 3926 Registered: 12-2003 |
It really sucks when you do a big , long, thoughtful post and it doesn't post when you hit post message! So, I'll try to remember the high points: IMHO our mental health system does the best it can, new treatments, new meds etc all the time, BUT you can't treat someone who doesn't want to be treated or recognize they need treatment. It doesn't matter what you wear or don't wear, or if society is saturated with sex, the temptation is there whether under layers of clothing or skin is exposed. It starts in the mind, and has been around since the beginning of time. Some people might want their children to be popular, I don't. But I think my dtr might be, in the cheerleading crowd. Those are pretty skimpy outfits, but modest compared to what some of the kids wear to school. You can't forbid your child wear something, then they become secretive about it, you can only guide and hope they make the right choices. I think on some level that pedophiles, rapists, serial killers etc know that what they are doing is wrong, not accepted by society, but they do it anyways. Why? I don't think there is a clear black and white answer for that. IMHO they are very devious and secretive and most lack a conscience. They tell you what they think you want to hear. I just read a book about the BTK serial killer (bind, torture, kill) who was considered a "good" religious person, held a high position in his church, gave sermons etc. He reasoned that since he went to church he was forgiven by God for his killings and so could continue killing. He even used the church while committing one of his crimes. How twisted is that? I admit it, I'm a junkie of serial killer books. K (Message edited by kathy on November 18, 2006) (Message edited by kathy on November 18, 2006) You're invited to: Wild Flowers "Poetry is a shuffling of boxes of illusions buckled with a strap of facts." Carl Sandburg | ||
| "A-Bear"
Senior Member Username: dane Post Number: 1926 Registered: 11-1998 |
I agree totally in theory, Fred, and in reality, the law of man (I believe) was created to compensate for our human nature (to let the good times roll and to obtain wealth and services with the least effort possible). Locks keeping honest people honest is just another way of saying to take the fat wallet with you when you go to the bathroom. Ask anybody in prison if they are guilty of committing a crime and they will tell you they are victims of unfortunate circumstance. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time (the cops showed up). Otherwise, they would be under more favorable and fortunate condition. The thought of getting caught and paying the ultimate price with our freedom (and dignity) is enough to keep most folks walking the straight line. Even so, there is always that time or two in our life when the temptation is just too overwhelming and we cross over to the other side. DUI offenders come to mind. They often say it was their first time driving while intoxicated. What they are really saying is it was their first time getting pulled over and being analyzed for intoxication. D | ||
| Vernon Clayton Hensley
New member Username: only1ne Post Number: 4 Registered: 11-2006 |
Call Me simplistic, but to Me it's just a way of casting blame because someone was in the wrong place at the wrong time an did the wrong thing, or are We just seeking revenge for things We can't control ? or umm like the Lady a long time ago suing Mickie D's for hot coffe that She spilled ?...anyway. I'd tell the Man at the street corner that He was robbed because no sane Man walks these streets after dark ..did He deserve it ? I don't walk into Lion cages either. | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 621 Registered: 05-2006 |
Gosh, Vernon . . . Don't forget. The lion is an autonomous ethical agent. You're not being stupid going into the lion's cage. No, you're just doing your thing. When they find your bones, they'll terminate the lion. Bad lion. Bad lion. Fred | ||
| "A-Bear"
Senior Member Username: dane Post Number: 1927 Registered: 11-1998 |
Vernon -when I was much younger, say about thirty years ago, I actually did get robbed in a project area at 2 in the morning. They took everything I had. And you know what the cop's first question was -what were you doing in this part of town at 2 in the morning? Yikes! Busted -no answer good enough. 2 wrongs won't make a right (but 2 lefts will -smile). D | ||
| marty
Advanced Member Username: marty Post Number: 871 Registered: 10-2003 |
Sorry for the very delayed reply on the subject matter...but just trying to suggest a perspective here; Consider if we were the victim, or we were close to the victim? Then our decisions will be made in anger not on a rational thought process. However being human, we are prone to bring an emotional element in the decision. What I am saying is that the decision would dramatically change if one is directly in the center of the storm. I have been raised a catholic, and always the dictum has been, "forgive and do not judge". God died on the cross forgiving our sins even before we committed them, so this sin (in reference to what was highlighted in the original message) was already forgiven. But where is peace there? Ultimately I want peace, we all want peace...sadly there can never be peace without justice. reading through everyone's responses made me feel like i was watching a lawyer's argument. The fact remains though, that the child deprived of a father, the parents deprived of a son, the wife deprived of a husband, a family deprived of land and home.....they all beg for justice. Ask them what they feel and feel their pain. But on the other hand, there is the principle of being accountable for those things one has direct control over. So in the sense, if it can be proven that somewhere along the way the firefighters made a wrong decision that led to their death, the arsonist must not be charged with murder but homicide. But however, if their death is a direct result of putting out the fire then the arsonist is guilty of murder. The difference was the intention, and the case of death (which is an accident as a result of doing one's job). Oh well, that is why the world is never at peace. Cheers brethren | ||
| "A-Bear"
Senior Member Username: dane Post Number: 1929 Registered: 11-1998 |
Marty -it's an argument I've made for years whenever someone professes to be a conscientious objector. In principle, it’s a wonderful thing. I too am peaceful by nature and character. I was never one to pull apart butterflies (or hurt insects) growing up as a child, let alone did I ever consider torturing or killing a fellow human being. I was also raised Catholic and taught that vengeance was a right of the Lord (and only the Lord). That said, until you’re in a situation where self-preservation is required by the use of violence or force, or to protect a loved one, you really can’t say “exactly” how you might react. Emotions differ when danger rears its head. And as for extracting vengeance for a crime perpetrated against one of your own, well, until the time comes (God forbid) it’s difficult to say exactly how you might feel or react. It’s all conjecture until the moment of truth puts us to the test, IMHO, of course. Peace brother, Dane | ||
| resuri
New member Username: resuri Post Number: 46 Registered: 11-2002 |
we spent a long time analyzing the mcdonald's case in law school. it's interesting how different the actual case was from how it was portrayed in the media, and it's also interesting how easily people parrot the things they hear on tv...i think we can all merit from a little bit of research rather than making quick, albeit popular, generalizations based on sensationalized news stories. just sayin... | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 633 Registered: 05-2006 |
I understand that in the McDonald's case the store in question had repeatedly been warned about excessively hot coffee, and they had done nothing to correct this. Thus the tort emerged in the aftermath of a history of the store's refusal to correct a safety hazard potentially injurious to both employees and customers. Am I correct, resuri? Fred | ||
| Vernon Clayton Hensley
New member Username: only1ne Post Number: 15 Registered: 11-2006 |
Some stores coffe is hotter than others, I always check the temperature an add ice if necessary, if the store doesn't have anyway for Me to add to ice their overly hot coffe, I don't buy there, I've been in restaurants where the soup was really hot, if the mickie D's in question had a reputation then She should have been forwarned, but I live in a small town, but I know only Me takes care of Me...Was it the first time She bought coffee there ? An I wonder if She was a regular coffee drinker ? I can't count the times I've bought it from different places an it was scallding to the tonge ...If I'm hunting on a Mans' properity with permission an step into a groundhog hole an break My leg, is He liable because He didn't eliminate the varmit ? Horse owners know of the dangers posed by groundhog holes to horses. Some People like really HOT coffee . | ||
| Fred Longworth
Intermediate Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 634 Registered: 05-2006 |
Here's an example, Vernon. There's a local organic foods restaurant that has only one customer exit, consisting of a double door. They normally keep one side of this open and the other locked. A good friend of mine, who has worked in food services most of her adult life, told them that, under current San Diego fire code regulations both sides of the double door must be unlocked. (This is in fact current regulation.) They didn't change a thing. She kept checking, reminded them again -- and still they didn't unlock that door. If there were a fire at this point and someone got hurt because they couldn't get out fast enough, my friend would no doubt testify in court (on behalf of the plaintiff) that she had informed them of regulations and that afterward she had witnessed repeatedly no correction of the infraction. This would no doubt count heavily against the restaurant in court. Fred | ||
| "A-Bear"
Senior Member Username: dane Post Number: 1931 Registered: 11-1998 |
Fred -not sure about San Diego fire code but here in Reno both sides of our double doors must be unlocked, only NOT the outside. We try to keep the criminal element out and from getting in unexpectedly. Wouldn't make sense to do otherwise. Sounds like this restaurant is having a minor lock problem and if they unlock both doors it allows the outside to work as an entrance rather than an egress. They definitely should invest a few dollars and fix it. One call to the fire marshall should get them headed in the right direction -fixing the problem will cost a lot less than the fine he would impose. More importantly, it could save a life. That's the purpose of the regulation, no? And now, for the 64K question, what is the ethical thing to do if the owners refuse to comply? D | ||
| Vernon Clayton Hensley
New member Username: only1ne Post Number: 17 Registered: 11-2006 |
The size an amount of doors increases patron capacity .Close them down is My judgement.Take away their license . |
