Moral question on OJ Simpson

[dude58677]

Isn't sentencing someone to 9-33 years in prison kidnapping as well and isn't that beyond an "eye for an eye" as the victims were kidnapped for only 5 minutes and forgave OJ during the trial?

The IRS does armed robbery on a grand scale on a daily basis as well as state and local tax agencies.

As a result, OJ should have been found not guilty.

 

[nate895]

The crime of kidnapping in Nevada carries a 15-year minimum (and he had two counts he was convicted on), plus he had the armed robbery charges. This sentence is just IMO, that isn't to say what the IRS does is just.

 

[nate895]

OJ obviously didn't get a fair trial, I would think he will only serve 5 years in prison....

Hahahaha, what?

OJ Simpson couldn't have gotten a fair trial if the only jurors were people who have been in a coma for the past 20 years, along with anyone who stranded on a deserted island for that period of time. He got as fair trial as he could have gotten. He violated the law, after getting away with murder, he should have just gone home and continued hiding his money from the Goldmans.

 

[dude58677]

The crime of kidnapping in Nevada carries a 15-year minimum (and he had two counts he was convicted on), plus he had the armed robbery charges. This sentence is just IMO, that isn't to say what the IRS does is just.

I'm NOT asking about what the law states. I am asking from a MORAL perspective, isn't sentencing someone to jail kidnapping as well? You take someone against their will and place them somewhere else.

The victims in OJ's kidnapping are not kidnapped right now but OJ is for the next 9-33 years.

 

[Kludge]

OJ's getting butt-raped...

 

[dude58677]

OJ's getting butt-raped...

That doesn't answer my question.

 

[Kludge]

That doesn't answer my question.

Your "question" wasn't posed in earnest.

 

[socialize_me]

Your "question" wasn't posed in earnest.

Your "earnest" wasn't posed in question.

 

[Kludge]

Your "earnest" wasn't posed in question.

You're on your way to earning a learning, young man, and by learning, I mean a series of unpleasant events.

 

[nate895]

I'm NOT asking about what the law states. I am asking from a MORAL perspective, isn't sentencing someone to jail kidnapping as well? You take someone against their will and place them somewhere else.

The victims in OJ's kidnapping are not kidnapped right now but OJ is for the next 9-33 years.

Difference is, OJ committed a crime in that he kidnapped someone, he therefore forfeited his rights, and a jury determined that. The victims did not consent to being kidnapped, or trying to get robbed of stuff that Mr. Simpson couldn't legally own if he wanted to. Mr. Simpson therefore forfeited his rights, and that is what the legislature determine is just punishment in the case of kidnapping (and I would tend to agree with them).

 

[tremendoustie]

I'm NOT asking about what the law states. I am asking from a MORAL perspective, isn't sentencing someone to jail kidnapping as well? You take someone against their will and place them somewhere else.

The victims in OJ's kidnapping are not kidnapped right now but OJ is for the next 9-33 years.

Self defense does not imply eye for an eye. If someone shoots a thief breaking and entering their house, they have acted in self defense -- even if that thief only intended to steal property. If kidnapping only carried a prison sentence equal to the length of the kidnapping, it would be no deterrent. You think OJ's going to worry about less than a day in jail? Furthermore, jailtime is not the same as being held by a bunch of thugs with guns who could wheel off and shoot you at any point.

I don't know if your question was in earnest, but the short answer is, self defense and justice are not limited to eye-for-an-eye. If you act violently against someone you are at the mercy of the circumstances in how they defend themselves, and later at the mercy of what the people have determined is a reasonable punishment for the crime you have committed. Neither the person defending themselves, nor the justice system is in this case initiating violence -- OJ initiated the violence.

If you wish to hold a strict eye-for-an-eye view of justice (or even moral self defense), you are welcome to it, but that is not libertarianism, and I would certainly disagree with you.

 

[dude58677]

Hahahaha, what?

OJ Simpson couldn't have gotten a fair trial if the only jurors were people who have been in a coma for the past 20 years, along with anyone who stranded on a deserted island for that period of time. He got as fair trial as he could have gotten. He violated the law, after getting away with murder, he should have just gone home and continued hiding his money from the Goldmans.

We're not talking about laws. We are talking about morals. Isn't the government just as immoral or more immoral than OJ because isn't the act of arresting someone morally kidnapping?

 

[dude58677]

Self defense does not imply eye for an eye. If someone shoots a thief breaking and entering their house, they have acted in self defense -- even if that thief only intended to steal property. If kidnapping only carried a prison sentence equal to the length of the kidnapping, it would be no deterrent. You think OJ's going to worry about less than a day in jail? Furthermore, jailtime is not the same as being held by a bunch of thugs with guns who could wheel off and shoot you at any point.

I don't know if your question was in earnest, but the short answer is, self defense and justice are not limited to eye-for-an-eye. If you act violently against someone you are at the mercy of the circumstances in how they defend themselves, and later at the mercy of what the people have determined is a reasonable punishment for the crime you have committed. Neither the person defending themselves, nor the justice system is in this case initiating violence -- OJ initiated the violence.

If you wish to hold a strict eye-for-an-eye view of justice (or even moral self defense), you are welcome to it, but that is not libertarianism, and I would certainly disagree with you.

I'm NOT talking about self-defense. I am saying that the government arresting someone and putting them in jail is morally a form of kidnapping because they are held against their will.

 

[Theocrat]

Moral Answer

We're not talking about laws. We are talking about morals. Isn't the government just as immoral or more immoral than OJ because isn't the act of arresting someone morally kidnapping?

I think an implicit assumption in your argument is that a civil government does not have a right to apprehend individuals who commit immoral acts. It is not immoral for a civil government to take criminals (not innocent citizens) into their custody when the criminals have committed an or many immoral acts against their neighbor. As a matter of fact, it would be immoral for any civil government to not keep criminals from the public arena because it would be allowing an increase towards rights infringements of law-abiding citizens.

The civil authorities have a right to apprehend criminals when they break the law (assuming the law is just, to begin with), and they receive that right from God Himself. Now, what they do to the criminal after he's been taken into their custody is a different matter, and it varies, depending on the offense. In cases of proven murder, the criminal should be capitally punished by death so that the rights of victim killed is satisfied. The proven-guilty murderer should not be allowed to live in prison for the rest of his life. That would be immoral, as well.

 

[t0rnado]

OJ should be grateful that he wasn't shot trying to kidnap whoever he kidnapped. OJ should be hanging off of a branch right now.

In my opinion, his fate should be left to the victims. He violated their property rights, not the governments. The only thing the government did was apprehend him.

 

[tremendoustie]

I'm NOT talking about self-defense. I am saying that the government arresting someone and putting them in jail is morally a form of kidnapping because they are held against their will.

You can believe in whatever moral code you want to. I believe it is entirely moral to punish someone for committing violence against another person. I believe it is not initiating violence to administer justice, and so it is not immoral (although of course the administration of justice can be perverted).

That is, it is only kidnapping for the person who initiates the violence. If you detain someone in order to prevent them from committing further assaults, or if the law detains someone as a punishment for violence they have committed, I believe it is not kidnapping, because it is a response to violence rather than the initiation of it.

I think my belief is the common libertarian understanding of the "never initiate violence" concept, and that most libertarians would agree with it.

Of course, if you think punishment for crimes is immoral, you are welcome to that view. I could not argue with you without knowing more about your philosophical belief as to the basis for morality.

 

[Grandson of Liberty]

We're not talking about laws. We are talking about morals. Isn't the government just as immoral or more immoral than OJ because isn't the act of arresting someone morally kidnapping?

No offense, but. . .

 

[anaconda]

I am most angry at O.J. for not being able to do a Naked Gun IV. That's when reality set in for me.

And that, as a felon, he will be unable to vote for the Kucinich/Paul ticket in 2012.

 

[AutoDas]

OJ should be grateful that he wasn't shot trying to kidnap whoever he kidnapped. OJ should be hanging off of a branch right now.

In my opinion, his fate should be left to the victims. He violated their property rights, not the governments. The only thing the government did was apprehend him.

If we're defending property rights then I think OJ was setup during this robbery. How did the victims know to record when OJ walked in with a gun when he was trying to reclaim his stolen memorabilia?

 

[dude58677]

http://www.perbylund.com/the_library_anuncivilizedargumentforanarchy.htm

http://www.perbylund.com/the_library_whystatistsalwaysgetitwrong.htm