If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Doan and the Reasonable Standard...
.... a concept he insists be applied to a question that is not a
legal, but a factual question. Showing how "reasonable" Doan is, and how stupid. http://www.diaryofalawstudent.com/20...rson-standard/ ....In the end, we're probably better off sticking with the reasonable person as it now stands and forcing everyone to live up to that legal fiction. Facts of individual cases will color the jury's decision, implicitly taking into account group characteristics. The reasonable person is not sexist, because ***the reasonable person does not exist.*** And a single standard, no matter how superficially it may apply to tiny portions of the population, serves the broader justice by maintaining crucial judicial consistency.Technorati gender, legal scholars, negligence, sexist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimina..._ standard.3F ....What is the reasonable person standard? This is not a real person but a legal fiction, an objective yardstick against which to measure the culpability of real people. For these purposes, the reasonable person is not an average person: this is not a democratic measure. To determine the appropriate level of responsibility, the test of reasonableness has to be directly relevant to the activities being undertaken by the accused. What the 'average person' thinks or might do would be irrelevant in a case where a doctor is accused of wrongfully killing a patient during treatment. Hence, there is a baseline of minimum competence that all are expected to aspire to. This reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. This standard can never go down, but it can go up to match the training and abilities of the particular accused. In testing whether the particular doctor has misdiagnosed a patient so incompetently that it amounts to a crime, the standard must be that of the reasonable doctor. Those who hold themselves out as having particular skills must match the level of performance expected of people with comparable skills. When engaged in an activity outside their expertise, such individuals revert to the ordinary person standard. This is not to deny that ordinary people might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but the ordinary person as an accused will not be at fault if he or she does not do that extraordinary thing so long as whatever that person does or thinks is reasonable in those circumstances. The more contentious debate has surround the issue of whether the reasonable person should be subjectively matched to the accused in cases involving children, and persons with a physical or mental disability. Young and inexperienced individuals may very well not foresee what an adult might foresee, a blind person cannot see at all, and an autistic person may not relate to the world as a "normal" person. Cases involving infancy and mental disorders potentially invoke excuses to criminal liability because the accused lack of full capacity, and criminal systems provide an overlapping set of provisions which can either deal with such individuals outside the criminal justice system, or if a criminal trial is unavoidable, mitigate the extent of liability through the sentencing system following conviction. But those who have ordinary intellectual capacities are expected to act reasonably given their physical condition. Thus, a court would ask whether a blind reasonable person would have set out to do what the particular blind defendant did. People with physical disabilities rightly wish to be active members of the community but, if certain types of activity would endanger others, appropriate precautions must be put in place to ensure that the risks are reasonable. The jury in the trial of the two that murdered a child, their own, by "discipline," did not hinge on WHERE THE LINE WAS, but only that it had been crossed. My question was, where IS this line. Not even the judicial can say. They can only say when it has been crossed, and sometimes then with great difficulty, as in the city councilman case. This case, with the death of a battered child, did not even take "reasonable person standards" as it was all too obvious what had occurred. The child had been "disciplined to death," by battering. Doan, once again, shows his low moral and ethical standards. The Line is a Fiction, Doan, just as the 'reasonable person' is a fiction. There is no such person. It is a construct, used for making decisions. Now apply that to the parent about to spank. How does he or she avoid risk of injuring the child? The city councilman injured his child...he simply wasn't found guilty of a crime. A very sad day for the child, and for human beings. Even the judge in the case was deeply troubled by having to find as he did. He KNEW the child had been injured by the state law did not deal with reality. He knew it, YOU KNEW IT, and of course, I know it. You are a liar. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Doan and the Reasonable Standard...
Anti-spanking zealotS like Kane just don't like the Reasonable STandard! Yet the links he provided actually SUPPORTED the Reasonable Standard, e.g, "In the end, we're probably better off sticking with the reasonable person as it now stands..." HOW STUPID IS THIS Kane? ;-) Doan On 23 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote: ... a concept he insists be applied to a question that is not a legal, but a factual question. Showing how "reasonable" Doan is, and how stupid. http://www.diaryofalawstudent.com/20...rson-standard/ ...In the end, we're probably better off sticking with the reasonable person as it now stands and forcing everyone to live up to that legal fiction. Facts of individual cases will color the jury's decision, implicitly taking into account group characteristics. The reasonable person is not sexist, because ***the reasonable person does not exist.*** And a single standard, no matter how superficially it may apply to tiny portions of the population, serves the broader justice by maintaining crucial judicial consistency.Technorati gender, legal scholars, negligence, sexist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimina..._ standard.3F ...What is the reasonable person standard? This is not a real person but a legal fiction, an objective yardstick against which to measure the culpability of real people. For these purposes, the reasonable person is not an average person: this is not a democratic measure. To determine the appropriate level of responsibility, the test of reasonableness has to be directly relevant to the activities being undertaken by the accused. What the 'average person' thinks or might do would be irrelevant in a case where a doctor is accused of wrongfully killing a patient during treatment. Hence, there is a baseline of minimum competence that all are expected to aspire to. This reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. This standard can never go down, but it can go up to match the training and abilities of the particular accused. In testing whether the particular doctor has misdiagnosed a patient so incompetently that it amounts to a crime, the standard must be that of the reasonable doctor. Those who hold themselves out as having particular skills must match the level of performance expected of people with comparable skills. When engaged in an activity outside their expertise, such individuals revert to the ordinary person standard. This is not to deny that ordinary people might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but the ordinary person as an accused will not be at fault if he or she does not do that extraordinary thing so long as whatever that person does or thinks is reasonable in those circumstances. The more contentious debate has surround the issue of whether the reasonable person should be subjectively matched to the accused in cases involving children, and persons with a physical or mental disability. Young and inexperienced individuals may very well not foresee what an adult might foresee, a blind person cannot see at all, and an autistic person may not relate to the world as a "normal" person. Cases involving infancy and mental disorders potentially invoke excuses to criminal liability because the accused lack of full capacity, and criminal systems provide an overlapping set of provisions which can either deal with such individuals outside the criminal justice system, or if a criminal trial is unavoidable, mitigate the extent of liability through the sentencing system following conviction. But those who have ordinary intellectual capacities are expected to act reasonably given their physical condition. Thus, a court would ask whether a blind reasonable person would have set out to do what the particular blind defendant did. People with physical disabilities rightly wish to be active members of the community but, if certain types of activity would endanger others, appropriate precautions must be put in place to ensure that the risks are reasonable. The jury in the trial of the two that murdered a child, their own, by "discipline," did not hinge on WHERE THE LINE WAS, but only that it had been crossed. My question was, where IS this line. Not even the judicial can say. They can only say when it has been crossed, and sometimes then with great difficulty, as in the city councilman case. This case, with the death of a battered child, did not even take "reasonable person standards" as it was all too obvious what had occurred. The child had been "disciplined to death," by battering. Doan, once again, shows his low moral and ethical standards. The Line is a Fiction, Doan, just as the 'reasonable person' is a fiction. There is no such person. It is a construct, used for making decisions. Now apply that to the parent about to spank. How does he or she avoid risk of injuring the child? The city councilman injured his child...he simply wasn't found guilty of a crime. A very sad day for the child, and for human beings. Even the judge in the case was deeply troubled by having to find as he did. He KNEW the child had been injured by the state law did not deal with reality. He knew it, YOU KNEW IT, and of course, I know it. You are a liar. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Doan and the Reasonable Standard...
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:55:49 -0800, Doan wrote:
Anti-spanking zealotS like Kane just don't like the Reasonable STandard! Yet the links he provided actually SUPPORTED the Reasonable Standard, e.g, "In the end, we're probably better off sticking with the reasonable person as it now stands..." HOW STUPID IS THIS Kane? ;-) Well, given that the "reasonable person" is a legal fiction, I'd say he's not stupid at all. And given that the question isn't one of what is reasonable but what is INJURY, I'd say he's considerably smarter than you. But then you are very good at driving the discussion away from the actual question, Doan. That's smartness of a kind, but not an ethical kind. The question, Doan, since you seem to be dodging it and need reminders, isn't what the "legal definition is," but what the practical definition of The Line is so that parents can make good decisions about whether or not to even choose to spank, or use other forms of CP. Now tell us, Doan, were exactly is that line under THESE circumstances. The law does not set standards to keep people (children) from being hurt. I PROSECUTES AFTERWARD. We parents would prefer NOT waiting until afterward to know that "we have crossed the line." Well, that is responsible, reasonable parents. You are too stupid to breath without instructions, aren't you, Doan? Kane Doan On 23 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote: ... a concept he insists be applied to a question that is not a legal, but a factual question. Showing how "reasonable" Doan is, and how stupid. http://www.diaryofalawstudent.com/20...rson-standard/ ...In the end, we're probably better off sticking with the reasonable person as it now stands and forcing everyone to live up to that legal fiction. Facts of individual cases will color the jury's decision, implicitly taking into account group characteristics. The reasonable person is not sexist, because ***the reasonable person does not exist.*** And a single standard, no matter how superficially it may apply to tiny portions of the population, serves the broader justice by maintaining crucial judicial consistency.Technorati gender, legal scholars, negligence, sexist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimina..._ standard.3F ...What is the reasonable person standard? This is not a real person but a legal fiction, an objective yardstick against which to measure the culpability of real people. For these purposes, the reasonable person is not an average person: this is not a democratic measure. To determine the appropriate level of responsibility, the test of reasonableness has to be directly relevant to the activities being undertaken by the accused. What the 'average person' thinks or might do would be irrelevant in a case where a doctor is accused of wrongfully killing a patient during treatment. Hence, there is a baseline of minimum competence that all are expected to aspire to. This reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. This standard can never go down, but it can go up to match the training and abilities of the particular accused. In testing whether the particular doctor has misdiagnosed a patient so incompetently that it amounts to a crime, the standard must be that of the reasonable doctor. Those who hold themselves out as having particular skills must match the level of performance expected of people with comparable skills. When engaged in an activity outside their expertise, such individuals revert to the ordinary person standard. This is not to deny that ordinary people might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but the ordinary person as an accused will not be at fault if he or she does not do that extraordinary thing so long as whatever that person does or thinks is reasonable in those circumstances. The more contentious debate has surround the issue of whether the reasonable person should be subjectively matched to the accused in cases involving children, and persons with a physical or mental disability. Young and inexperienced individuals may very well not foresee what an adult might foresee, a blind person cannot see at all, and an autistic person may not relate to the world as a "normal" person. Cases involving infancy and mental disorders potentially invoke excuses to criminal liability because the accused lack of full capacity, and criminal systems provide an overlapping set of provisions which can either deal with such individuals outside the criminal justice system, or if a criminal trial is unavoidable, mitigate the extent of liability through the sentencing system following conviction. But those who have ordinary intellectual capacities are expected to act reasonably given their physical condition. Thus, a court would ask whether a blind reasonable person would have set out to do what the particular blind defendant did. People with physical disabilities rightly wish to be active members of the community but, if certain types of activity would endanger others, appropriate precautions must be put in place to ensure that the risks are reasonable. The jury in the trial of the two that murdered a child, their own, by "discipline," did not hinge on WHERE THE LINE WAS, but only that it had been crossed. My question was, where IS this line. Not even the judicial can say. They can only say when it has been crossed, and sometimes then with great difficulty, as in the city councilman case. This case, with the death of a battered child, did not even take "reasonable person standards" as it was all too obvious what had occurred. The child had been "disciplined to death," by battering. Doan, once again, shows his low moral and ethical standards. The Line is a Fiction, Doan, just as the 'reasonable person' is a fiction. There is no such person. It is a construct, used for making decisions. Now apply that to the parent about to spank. How does he or she avoid risk of injuring the child? The city councilman injured his child...he simply wasn't found guilty of a crime. A very sad day for the child, and for human beings. Even the judge in the case was deeply troubled by having to find as he did. He KNEW the child had been injured by the state law did not deal with reality. He knew it, YOU KNEW IT, and of course, I know it. You are a liar. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Doan and the Reasonable Standard...
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:55:49 -0800, Doan wrote: Anti-spanking zealotS like Kane just don't like the Reasonable STandard! Yet the links he provided actually SUPPORTED the Reasonable Standard, e.g, "In the end, we're probably better off sticking with the reasonable person as it now stands..." HOW STUPID IS THIS Kane? ;-) Well, given that the "reasonable person" is a legal fiction, I'd say he's not stupid at all. And given that the question isn't one of what is reasonable but what is INJURY, I'd say he's considerably smarter than you. But then you are very good at driving the discussion away from the actual question, Doan. That's smartness of a kind, but not an ethical kind. The question, Doan, since you seem to be dodging it and need reminders, isn't what the "legal definition is," but what the practical definition of The Line is so that parents can make good decisions about whether or not to even choose to spank, or use other forms of CP. Now tell us, Doan, were exactly is that line under THESE circumstances. Where is the line between talking to your kids and verbal abuse? The law does not set standards to keep people (children) from being hurt. I PROSECUTES AFTERWARD. So what is the point of passing an anti-spanking law? To PROSECUTES parents? We parents would prefer NOT waiting until afterward to know that "we have crossed the line." Well, that is responsible, reasonable parents. So your logic would dictate that parents shouldn't talk to their kids either? Where is the line, Kane? You are too stupid to breath without instructions, aren't you, Doan? The proven STUPID LIAR here is you! Kane Doan On 23 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote: ... a concept he insists be applied to a question that is not a legal, but a factual question. Showing how "reasonable" Doan is, and how stupid. http://www.diaryofalawstudent.com/20...rson-standard/ ...In the end, we're probably better off sticking with the reasonable person as it now stands and forcing everyone to live up to that legal fiction. Facts of individual cases will color the jury's decision, implicitly taking into account group characteristics. The reasonable person is not sexist, because ***the reasonable person does not exist.*** And a single standard, no matter how superficially it may apply to tiny portions of the population, serves the broader justice by maintaining crucial judicial consistency.Technorati gender, legal scholars, negligence, sexist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimina..._ standard.3F ...What is the reasonable person standard? This is not a real person but a legal fiction, an objective yardstick against which to measure the culpability of real people. For these purposes, the reasonable person is not an average person: this is not a democratic measure. To determine the appropriate level of responsibility, the test of reasonableness has to be directly relevant to the activities being undertaken by the accused. What the 'average person' thinks or might do would be irrelevant in a case where a doctor is accused of wrongfully killing a patient during treatment. Hence, there is a baseline of minimum competence that all are expected to aspire to. This reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. This standard can never go down, but it can go up to match the training and abilities of the particular accused. In testing whether the particular doctor has misdiagnosed a patient so incompetently that it amounts to a crime, the standard must be that of the reasonable doctor. Those who hold themselves out as having particular skills must match the level of performance expected of people with comparable skills. When engaged in an activity outside their expertise, such individuals revert to the ordinary person standard. This is not to deny that ordinary people might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but the ordinary person as an accused will not be at fault if he or she does not do that extraordinary thing so long as whatever that person does or thinks is reasonable in those circumstances. The more contentious debate has surround the issue of whether the reasonable person should be subjectively matched to the accused in cases involving children, and persons with a physical or mental disability. Young and inexperienced individuals may very well not foresee what an adult might foresee, a blind person cannot see at all, and an autistic person may not relate to the world as a "normal" person. Cases involving infancy and mental disorders potentially invoke excuses to criminal liability because the accused lack of full capacity, and criminal systems provide an overlapping set of provisions which can either deal with such individuals outside the criminal justice system, or if a criminal trial is unavoidable, mitigate the extent of liability through the sentencing system following conviction. But those who have ordinary intellectual capacities are expected to act reasonably given their physical condition. Thus, a court would ask whether a blind reasonable person would have set out to do what the particular blind defendant did. People with physical disabilities rightly wish to be active members of the community but, if certain types of activity would endanger others, appropriate precautions must be put in place to ensure that the risks are reasonable. The jury in the trial of the two that murdered a child, their own, by "discipline," did not hinge on WHERE THE LINE WAS, but only that it had been crossed. My question was, where IS this line. Not even the judicial can say. They can only say when it has been crossed, and sometimes then with great difficulty, as in the city councilman case. This case, with the death of a battered child, did not even take "reasonable person standards" as it was all too obvious what had occurred. The child had been "disciplined to death," by battering. Doan, once again, shows his low moral and ethical standards. The Line is a Fiction, Doan, just as the 'reasonable person' is a fiction. There is no such person. It is a construct, used for making decisions. Now apply that to the parent about to spank. How does he or she avoid risk of injuring the child? The city councilman injured his child...he simply wasn't found guilty of a crime. A very sad day for the child, and for human beings. Even the judge in the case was deeply troubled by having to find as he did. He KNEW the child had been injured by the state law did not deal with reality. He knew it, YOU KNEW IT, and of course, I know it. You are a liar. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Doan and the Reasonable Standard...
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:43:28 -0800, Doan wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote: On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:55:49 -0800, Doan wrote: Anti-spanking zealotS like Kane just don't like the Reasonable STandard! Yet the links he provided actually SUPPORTED the Reasonable Standard, e.g, "In the end, we're probably better off sticking with the reasonable person as it now stands..." HOW STUPID IS THIS Kane? ;-) Well, given that the "reasonable person" is a legal fiction, I'd say he's not stupid at all. And given that the question isn't one of what is reasonable but what is INJURY, I'd say he's considerably smarter than you. But then you are very good at driving the discussion away from the actual question, Doan. That's smartness of a kind, but not an ethical kind. The question, Doan, since you seem to be dodging it and need reminders, isn't what the "legal definition is," but what the practical definition of The Line is so that parents can make good decisions about whether or not to even choose to spank, or use other forms of CP. Now tell us, Doan, were exactly is that line under THESE circumstances. Where is the line between talking to your kids and verbal abuse? The law does not set standards to keep people (children) from being hurt. I PROSECUTES AFTERWARD. So what is the point of passing an anti-spanking law? If you remember, Doan, for the first few years I posted here I was against any such law. I accepted the Swedish model as a possibility...a no penalty law to make a social statement. To PROSECUTES parents? Given the about the same determination to spank that I detect in you and others such as you, as I believe there once was in keeping women in subjegation, maintaining slavery, and using children in mines and factories, I have had to change my position on a law. I believe the only way we can succeed, given the temperment of US citizens, is to prosecute those that hit children for any reason, just as we can and do for adults. It is a crime to hit an adult unless there is statute covering it...such as self defense or defense of others. We parents would prefer NOT waiting until afterward to know that "we have crossed the line." Well, that is responsible, reasonable parents. So your logic would dictate that parents shouldn't talk to their kids either? Where is the line, Kane? Nonsense, Doan. That's like saying a parent shouldn't wave at their children. There is no harm in talking to one's children, normally. There is in abusing the verbally however, and it's already illegal in most states. Very possibly all at this late date, given the federal mandates on funding and consistency of state policy and statute concerning child protection. It's considered emotional abuse. You are too stupid to breath without instructions, aren't you, Doan? The proven STUPID LIAR here is you! You are too stupid to breath without instructions, aren't you, Doan? You could not logically or factually rebut the argument I presented so you simply go back to your bull****. Your logic if flawed. Your thinking is in serious error. And your understanding of human behavior, an social reform is seriously lacking. Why not learn, grow up, do something with your life, eh? Kane Kane Doan On 23 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote: ... a concept he insists be applied to a question that is not a legal, but a factual question. Showing how "reasonable" Doan is, and how stupid. http://www.diaryofalawstudent.com/20...rson-standard/ ...In the end, we're probably better off sticking with the reasonable person as it now stands and forcing everyone to live up to that legal fiction. Facts of individual cases will color the jury's decision, implicitly taking into account group characteristics. The reasonable person is not sexist, because ***the reasonable person does not exist.*** And a single standard, no matter how superficially it may apply to tiny portions of the population, serves the broader justice by maintaining crucial judicial consistency.Technorati gender, legal scholars, negligence, sexist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimina..._ standard.3F ...What is the reasonable person standard? This is not a real person but a legal fiction, an objective yardstick against which to measure the culpability of real people. For these purposes, the reasonable person is not an average person: this is not a democratic measure. To determine the appropriate level of responsibility, the test of reasonableness has to be directly relevant to the activities being undertaken by the accused. What the 'average person' thinks or might do would be irrelevant in a case where a doctor is accused of wrongfully killing a patient during treatment. Hence, there is a baseline of minimum competence that all are expected to aspire to. This reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. This standard can never go down, but it can go up to match the training and abilities of the particular accused. In testing whether the particular doctor has misdiagnosed a patient so incompetently that it amounts to a crime, the standard must be that of the reasonable doctor. Those who hold themselves out as having particular skills must match the level of performance expected of people with comparable skills. When engaged in an activity outside their expertise, such individuals revert to the ordinary person standard. This is not to deny that ordinary people might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but the ordinary person as an accused will not be at fault if he or she does not do that extraordinary thing so long as whatever that person does or thinks is reasonable in those circumstances. The more contentious debate has surround the issue of whether the reasonable person should be subjectively matched to the accused in cases involving children, and persons with a physical or mental disability. Young and inexperienced individuals may very well not foresee what an adult might foresee, a blind person cannot see at all, and an autistic person may not relate to the world as a "normal" person. Cases involving infancy and mental disorders potentially invoke excuses to criminal liability because the accused lack of full capacity, and criminal systems provide an overlapping set of provisions which can either deal with such individuals outside the criminal justice system, or if a criminal trial is unavoidable, mitigate the extent of liability through the sentencing system following conviction. But those who have ordinary intellectual capacities are expected to act reasonably given their physical condition. Thus, a court would ask whether a blind reasonable person would have set out to do what the particular blind defendant did. People with physical disabilities rightly wish to be active members of the community but, if certain types of activity would endanger others, appropriate precautions must be put in place to ensure that the risks are reasonable. The jury in the trial of the two that murdered a child, their own, by "discipline," did not hinge on WHERE THE LINE WAS, but only that it had been crossed. My question was, where IS this line. Not even the judicial can say. They can only say when it has been crossed, and sometimes then with great difficulty, as in the city councilman case. This case, with the death of a battered child, did not even take "reasonable person standards" as it was all too obvious what had occurred. The child had been "disciplined to death," by battering. Doan, once again, shows his low moral and ethical standards. The Line is a Fiction, Doan, just as the 'reasonable person' is a fiction. There is no such person. It is a construct, used for making decisions. Now apply that to the parent about to spank. How does he or she avoid risk of injuring the child? The city councilman injured his child...he simply wasn't found guilty of a crime. A very sad day for the child, and for human beings. Even the judge in the case was deeply troubled by having to find as he did. He KNEW the child had been injured by the state law did not deal with reality. He knew it, YOU KNEW IT, and of course, I know it. You are a liar. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Doan and the Reasonable Standard...
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:43:28 -0800, Doan wrote: On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote: On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:55:49 -0800, Doan wrote: Anti-spanking zealotS like Kane just don't like the Reasonable STandard! Yet the links he provided actually SUPPORTED the Reasonable Standard, e.g, "In the end, we're probably better off sticking with the reasonable person as it now stands..." HOW STUPID IS THIS Kane? ;-) Well, given that the "reasonable person" is a legal fiction, I'd say he's not stupid at all. And given that the question isn't one of what is reasonable but what is INJURY, I'd say he's considerably smarter than you. But then you are very good at driving the discussion away from the actual question, Doan. That's smartness of a kind, but not an ethical kind. The question, Doan, since you seem to be dodging it and need reminders, isn't what the "legal definition is," but what the practical definition of The Line is so that parents can make good decisions about whether or not to even choose to spank, or use other forms of CP. Now tell us, Doan, were exactly is that line under THESE circumstances. Where is the line between talking to your kids and verbal abuse? The law does not set standards to keep people (children) from being hurt. I PROSECUTES AFTERWARD. So what is the point of passing an anti-spanking law? If you remember, Doan, for the first few years I posted here I was against any such law. I accepted the Swedish model as a possibility...a no penalty law to make a social statement. Then the law has no teeth! To PROSECUTES parents? Given the about the same determination to spank that I detect in you and others such as you, as I believe there once was in keeping women in subjegation, maintaining slavery, and using children in mines and factories, I have had to change my position on a law. False analogies, Kane! I believe the only way we can succeed, given the temperment of US citizens, is to prosecute those that hit children for any reason, just as we can and do for adults. That is your BELIEF! It is a crime to hit an adult unless there is statute covering it...such as self defense or defense of others. It's also a crime to confine an adult (grounding) against his/her will too, Kane. The police carry batons and can use them under "reasonable force" statues, Kane. It seems that "reasonable" is the underlining determining standard. We parents would prefer NOT waiting until afterward to know that "we have crossed the line." Well, that is responsible, reasonable parents. So your logic would dictate that parents shouldn't talk to their kids either? Where is the line, Kane? Nonsense, Doan. That's like saying a parent shouldn't wave at their children. There is no harm in talking to one's children, normally. But where is the line, Kane? Ask your guru, Dr. Straus, Kane. In his studies, he found that verbal abuses are more damaging than CP! There is in abusing the verbally however, and it's already illegal in most states. Very possibly all at this late date, given the federal mandates on funding and consistency of state policy and statute concerning child protection. Huh? What is "abusing the verbally"? You are not making any sense! And there are laws against child abuse already! It's considered emotional abuse. What is consider "emotional abuse" and how do a parent know when they have committed "emotional abuse", Kane? Come on, Kane! Show me that PRECISE line that you demanded. You are too stupid to breath without instructions, aren't you, Doan? The proven STUPID LIAR here is you! You are too stupid to breath without instructions, aren't you, Doan? Hihihi! You are the PROVEN STUPID LIAR here! You could not logically or factually rebut the argument I presented so you simply go back to your bull****. Oops! "bull****" coming out of your mouth again! Your logic if flawed. Your thinking is in serious error. And you are STUPID! And your understanding of human behavior, an social reform is seriously lacking. Hihihi! You're going the REFORM the world, Kane? Why not learn, grow up, do something with your life, eh? And maybe I can a "published researcher" like you, Kane? Hihihi! Kane Kane Doan On 23 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote: ... a concept he insists be applied to a question that is not a legal, but a factual question. Showing how "reasonable" Doan is, and how stupid. http://www.diaryofalawstudent.com/20...rson-standard/ ...In the end, we're probably better off sticking with the reasonable person as it now stands and forcing everyone to live up to that legal fiction. Facts of individual cases will color the jury's decision, implicitly taking into account group characteristics. The reasonable person is not sexist, because ***the reasonable person does not exist.*** And a single standard, no matter how superficially it may apply to tiny portions of the population, serves the broader justice by maintaining crucial judicial consistency.Technorati gender, legal scholars, negligence, sexist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimina..._ standard.3F ...What is the reasonable person standard? This is not a real person but a legal fiction, an objective yardstick against which to measure the culpability of real people. For these purposes, the reasonable person is not an average person: this is not a democratic measure. To determine the appropriate level of responsibility, the test of reasonableness has to be directly relevant to the activities being undertaken by the accused. What the 'average person' thinks or might do would be irrelevant in a case where a doctor is accused of wrongfully killing a patient during treatment. Hence, there is a baseline of minimum competence that all are expected to aspire to. This reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. This standard can never go down, but it can go up to match the training and abilities of the particular accused. In testing whether the particular doctor has misdiagnosed a patient so incompetently that it amounts to a crime, the standard must be that of the reasonable doctor. Those who hold themselves out as having particular skills must match the level of performance expected of people with comparable skills. When engaged in an activity outside their expertise, such individuals revert to the ordinary person standard. This is not to deny that ordinary people might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but the ordinary person as an accused will not be at fault if he or she does not do that extraordinary thing so long as whatever that person does or thinks is reasonable in those circumstances. The more contentious debate has surround the issue of whether the reasonable person should be subjectively matched to the accused in cases involving children, and persons with a physical or mental disability. Young and inexperienced individuals may very well not foresee what an adult might foresee, a blind person cannot see at all, and an autistic person may not relate to the world as a "normal" person. Cases involving infancy and mental disorders potentially invoke excuses to criminal liability because the accused lack of full capacity, and criminal systems provide an overlapping set of provisions which can either deal with such individuals outside the criminal justice system, or if a criminal trial is unavoidable, mitigate the extent of liability through the sentencing system following conviction. But those who have ordinary intellectual capacities are expected to act reasonably given their physical condition. Thus, a court would ask whether a blind reasonable person would have set out to do what the particular blind defendant did. People with physical disabilities rightly wish to be active members of the community but, if certain types of activity would endanger others, appropriate precautions must be put in place to ensure that the risks are reasonable. The jury in the trial of the two that murdered a child, their own, by "discipline," did not hinge on WHERE THE LINE WAS, but only that it had been crossed. My question was, where IS this line. Not even the judicial can say. They can only say when it has been crossed, and sometimes then with great difficulty, as in the city councilman case. This case, with the death of a battered child, did not even take "reasonable person standards" as it was all too obvious what had occurred. The child had been "disciplined to death," by battering. Doan, once again, shows his low moral and ethical standards. The Line is a Fiction, Doan, just as the 'reasonable person' is a fiction. There is no such person. It is a construct, used for making decisions. Now apply that to the parent about to spank. How does he or she avoid risk of injuring the child? The city councilman injured his child...he simply wasn't found guilty of a crime. A very sad day for the child, and for human beings. Even the judge in the case was deeply troubled by having to find as he did. He KNEW the child had been injured by the state law did not deal with reality. He knew it, YOU KNEW IT, and of course, I know it. You are a liar. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Doan and the Reasonable Standard...
On Feb 24, 10:26 am, Doan wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote: On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:43:28 -0800, Doan wrote: On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote: On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:55:49 -0800, Doan wrote: Anti-spanking zealotS like Kane just don't like the Reasonable STandard! Yet the links he provided actually SUPPORTED the Reasonable Standard, e.g, "In the end, we're probably better off sticking with the reasonable person as it now stands..." HOW STUPID IS THIS Kane? ;-) Well, given that the "reasonable person" is a legal fiction, I'd say he's not stupid at all. And given that the question isn't one of what is reasonable but what is INJURY, I'd say he's considerably smarter than you. But then you are very good at driving the discussion away from the actual question, Doan. That's smartness of a kind, but not an ethical kind. The question, Doan, since you seem to be dodging it and need reminders, isn't what the "legal definition is," but what the practical definition of The Line is so that parents can make good decisions about whether or not to even choose to spank, or use other forms of CP. Now tell us, Doan, were exactly is that line under THESE circumstances. Where is the line between talking to your kids and verbal abuse? The law does not set standards to keep people (children) from being hurt. I PROSECUTES AFTERWARD. So what is the point of passing an anti-spanking law? If you remember, Doan, for the first few years I posted here I was against any such law. I accepted the Swedish model as a possibility...a no penalty law to make a social statement. Then the law has no teeth! Yet Sweden has changed considerably. Once where abusive discipline was common and unreported, now it is. Once where parents did not have non- CP alternatives in the numbers they do now it has changed. I said, and I will again, since you seem so slow and stupid, and with such a poor memory, that I stood behind social sanctions, even laws "without teeth," that make a social statement. To PROSECUTES parents? Given the about the same determination to spank that I detect in you and others such as you, as I believe there once was in keeping women in subjegation, maintaining slavery, and using children in mines and factories, I have had to change my position on a law. False analogies, Kane! No, I'm afraid not, Doan. Just a dodge by you. The analogies are sound. Unless you believe children are less "human" than adults and thus don't deserve the same right to protection of their bodies and psyches, then my boy, you have no argument. Children deserve MORE protection because they are not yet able by size, development, and LAW to protect themselves. I believe the only way we can succeed, given the temperment of US citizens, is to prosecute those that hit children for any reason, just as we can and do for adults. That is your BELIEF! Precisely. That is why I went from, as you know, a belief that there was hope for social sanctions and appeals to conscience being effective in ending CP, to accepting that humans just aren't ready for such things in sufficient numbers to matter. That's why the analogy of slavery, the exploitation of women, and children is so apt, Doan. We got LAWS that changed those things....and those came out of an appeal to conscience that had gone of for a very long time...where little or nothing changed until the laws were passed. In once case a devastating war having to be fought. No, Doan, prosecution is likely the only answer. It is a crime to hit an adult unless there is statute covering it...such as self defense or defense of others. It's also a crime to confine an adult (grounding) against his/her will too, Kane. No it isn't. The police carry batons and can use them under "reasonable force" statues, Kane. Not for the same purpose as people hit children, unless your buddies that claim they are teaching children are lying and in fact they are cowards "defending themselves and others against," children as police protect people from others by the use of force. The police aren't "teaching," for if they attempted that argument they themselves would be guilty of lawbreaking, Doan. It seems that "reasonable" is the underlining determining standard. And a "reasonable person," is a legal fiction. Just as "reasonable" is not immutable. It changes from person to person. Or don't you follow the history of this newsgroup? Are you prepared to say that all those that came here FROM YOUR SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT, that had very wide ranging beliefs in what was 'reasonable CP" from a light slap on the clothed butt of a child, using one's hand, to those extremes that claimed they themselves deserved to be beaten bloody with a belt actually constitute a "standard" of "reasonable?" We parents would prefer NOT waiting until afterward to know that "we have crossed the line." Well, that is responsible, reasonable parents. So your logic would dictate that parents shouldn't talk to their kids either? Where is the line, Kane? Nonsense, Doan. That's like saying a parent shouldn't wave at their children. There is no harm in talking to one's children, normally. But where is the line, Kane? Ask your guru, Dr. Straus, Kane. In his studies, he found that verbal abuses are more damaging than CP! I may just write him about that and see if that's what he actually did find, or if in fact he was "testing" children that had in fact at other times been spanked. It's rare anyone spanks a child without words being spoken by that parent, Doan. Suddenly "words" take on a whole new meaning. Now if a child had NEVER been spanked, and someone used abusive language to them you might have a real arguement. But how would you compare? It's very difficult to control for the variables. There is in abusing the verbally however, and it's already illegal in most states. Very possibly all at this late date, given the federal mandates on funding and consistency of state policy and statute concerning child protection. Huh? What is "abusing the verbally"? You are not making any sense! And there are laws against child abuse already! "abusing the verbally" has a superfluous "the" in it. My error. Or I left out "child," don't you think? As for you statement, "and there are laws against child abuse already!" what would be your point. I already said that in the paragraph you are refering to. It's considered emotional abuse. What is consider "emotional abuse" and how do a parent know when they have committed "emotional abuse", Kane? Come on, Kane! Show me that PRECISE line that you demanded. I cannot. And you cannot show the one for CP and abuse, Doan. That IS my point. And you have NOT seen me defend abusive or even punishing language to children, now have you? Are you going to answer honestly, for once? You are too stupid to breath without instructions, aren't you, Doan? The proven STUPID LIAR here is you! You are too stupid to breath without instructions, aren't you, Doan? Hihihi! You are the PROVEN STUPID LIAR here! Pointless babble again, Doan? You are stupid, and that's readily apparent in your silly arguments. You could not logically or factually rebut the argument I presented so you simply go back to your bull****. Oops! "bull****" coming out of your mouth again! And out of yours instead of logically or factually rebutting my argument, right? Your logic if flawed. Your thinking is in serious error. And you are STUPID! Nope. You are. And that's very obvious. You have some serious thinking errors going on. You draw conclusions not based on fact or logic. And your understanding of human behavior, an social reform is seriously lacking. Hihihi! You're going the REFORM the world, Kane? Nope. Just some small part if possible. Do you not wish society to improve? Or shall we go back to jungle law? Why not learn, grow up, do something with your life, eh? And maybe I can a "published researcher" like you, Kane? Hihihi! You couldn't, Doan. Your thinking errors would be readily apparent and your work woudl be rejected. I doubt you could get published. Even in a comic book. Your attempts to lie by putting words and meaning in other's mouths that is not there would trip you up quickly. I gather you are single. I can see why. Kane Kane Doan On 23 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote: ... a concept he insists be applied to a question that is not a legal, but a factual question. Showing how "reasonable" Doan is, and how stupid. http://www.diaryofalawstudent.com/20...-and-the-reaso... ...In the end, we're probably better off sticking with the reasonable person as it now stands and forcing everyone to live up to that legal fiction. Facts of individual cases will color the jury's decision, implicitly taking into account group characteristics. The reasonable person is not sexist, because ***the reasonable person does not exist.*** And a single standard, no matter how superficially it may apply to tiny portions of the population, serves the broader justice by maintaining crucial judicial consistency.Technorati gender, legal scholars, negligence, sexist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimina...s_the_reasonab... ...What is the reasonable person standard? This is not a real person but a legal fiction, an objective yardstick against which to measure the culpability of real people. For these purposes, the reasonable person is not an average person: this is not a democratic measure. To determine the appropriate level of responsibility, the test of reasonableness has to be directly relevant to the activities being undertaken by the accused. What the 'average person' thinks or might do would be irrelevant in a case where a doctor is accused of wrongfully killing a patient during treatment. Hence, there is a baseline of minimum competence that all are expected to aspire to. This reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. This standard can never go down, but it can go up to match the training and abilities of the particular accused. In testing whether the particular doctor has misdiagnosed a patient so incompetently that it amounts to a crime, the standard must be that of the reasonable doctor. Those who hold themselves out as having particular skills must match the level of performance expected of people with comparable skills. When engaged in an activity outside their expertise, such individuals revert to the ordinary person standard. This is not to deny that ordinary people might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but the ordinary person as an accused will not be at fault if he or she does not do that extraordinary thing so long as whatever that person does or thinks is reasonable in those circumstances. The more contentious debate has surround the issue of whether the reasonable person should be subjectively matched to the accused in cases involving children, and persons with a physical or mental disability. Young and inexperienced individuals may very well not foresee what an adult might foresee, a blind person cannot see at all, and an autistic person may not relate to the world as a "normal" person. Cases involving infancy and mental disorders potentially invoke excuses to criminal liability because the accused lack of full capacity, and criminal systems provide an overlapping set of provisions which can either deal with such individuals outside the criminal justice system, or if a criminal trial is unavoidable, mitigate the extent of liability through the sentencing system following conviction. But those who have ordinary intellectual capacities are expected to act reasonably given their physical condition. Thus, a court would ask whether a blind reasonable person would have set out to do what the particular blind defendant did. People with physical disabilities rightly wish to be active members of the community but, if certain types of activity would endanger others, appropriate precautions must be put in place to ensure that the risks are reasonable. The jury in the trial of the two that murdered a child, their own, by "discipline," did not hinge on WHERE THE LINE WAS, but only that it had been crossed. My question was, where IS this line. Not even the judicial can say. They can only say when it has been crossed, and sometimes then with great difficulty, as in the city councilman case. This case, with the death of a battered child, did not even take "reasonable person standards" as it was all too obvious what had occurred. The child had been "disciplined to death," by battering. Doan, once again, shows his low moral and ethical standards. The Line is a Fiction, Doan, just as the 'reasonable person' is a fiction. There is no such person. It is a construct, used for making decisions. Now apply that to the parent about to spank. How does he or she avoid risk of injuring the child? The city ... read more » |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|