(Update 2x) What to Do When a Law Man is a Baby Raper?
By Mona
.
Arrested for allegedly seeking carnal knowledge of a 5-year-old girl, United States Attorney John David R. Atchison was today arraigned in U.S. District Court in Detroit.
In deposition, detectives said Atchison suggested the mother [an undercover agent] tell her daughter that “you found her a sweet boyfriend who will bring her presents.”.The undercover detective expressed concern about physical injury to the 5-year-old girl as a result of the sexual activity. Detectives said Atchison responded, ” I am always gentle and loving; not to worry, no damage ever, no rough stuff ever. I only like it soft and nice.”.The undercover detective asked how Atchison can be certain of no injury. He responded, “Just gotta go slow and very easy. I’ve done it plenty,” according to detectives.
Assuming Atchison is convicted, where else can they incarcerate him but in a hellish Super Max, unless the state wants him dead within a year. Between his profession and alleged status as a molester of tots, he’d have to be be locked up that tightly.
.
Yes, certainly, if guilty the man has monstrous proclivities and sought to act on them. But I still object to incarceration schemes where everyone winks and nods at the likelihood of tike molesters being viciously murdered. And the Super Max prisons are… well, I personally would prefer execution to the isolation and lack of any stimulation for the rest of my days. I oppose capital punishment, but if Atchison is convicted, he’d really be better of dead.
*****
Update:
Hmmm. Melissa McEwan notes:
Given the enormous scandal that erupted over the administration’s insistence that every federal prosecutor’s office be staffed with administration lackeys, it’s probably safe to assume that Atchison is a Republican. Just saying.
Admittedly, that was my first thought as well, tho his political affiliation isn’t known. Yet the party of family values does have this sort of thing going on.
*****
Update II: Jason Fliegel in comments makes a true and good point:
Assistant U.S. Attorneys are career guys, so I don’t think we can assume this guy was a Republican simply because he’s a current AUSA.
It’s the U.S. Attorneys who are the political appointees, though the custom until President Bush came along was to appoint good lawyers of one’s own party and then stand back and trust in them to uphold the Constitution without regard to political affiliation.
It’s just that all the sexual hypocrisy (some involving minors) and scandals coming from GOP ranks in lo these many years does dispose one to leap to a conclusion that really isn’t warranted. And I’m only joining McEwan in speculating, which perhaps neither of us should have done.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
September 17, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
Is the last link correct? I’m getting 404 errors. My DNS server has never heard of a domain called “www.abcnews.go.com”. Is that correct? Not sure if the problem is on my side or yours.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
September 17, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
“http://abcnews.go.com/” seems to work.
Remove the “www” from the URL, perhaps?
Comment by Mona —
September 17, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
Gee, Lawrence, the link works for me — just checked. Not sure what the issue is — I use Mozilla. Are you on another browser?
Comment by Mona —
September 17, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
Lawrence: to see the guy and situation I’m taking about, just google “Doyle, Homeland, Internet.”
Comment by Brett —
September 17, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
Lawrence, the problem is likely on your side – you may need to refresh your DNS cache, or it could be a problem with your ISP. I can access the web page as well.
Comment by Jason Fliegel —
September 17, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
Assistant U.S. Attorneys are career guys, so I don’t think we can assume this guy was a Republican simply because he’s a current AUSA.
It’s the U.S. Attorneys who are the political appointees, though the custom until President Bush came along was to appoint good lawyers of one’s own party and then stand back and trust in them to uphold the Constitution without regard to political affiliation.
Comment by Leonard —
September 17, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
On the issue of prisoner rights… well, that’s yet another problem with a monopoly justice agency. Given that it has essentially all of the power in the prisoner/prison relationship, you can expect the state to act without regard to the prisoner’s well-being. It will only do whatever the state apparat wants, in this case, proxying the voters’ distaste for criminals in general and child molesters specifically.
It seems to me that we ought to have much more diversity in our prisons at the prison level, not the prisoner lever. Rather than sprinkling a handful of child molesters into each prison, we could have a prison entirely devoted to sexual deviants, for example, or even a small subclass of them. There’s no reason why guys like this perv should ever be incarcerated with sexually normal prisoners. If he had any say in things, he would surely choose a pervert-only prison rather than the mass prisons. Of course he does not have a say.
It would certainly be cheaper to lock up the average child molester in a special molesters-only prison, than attempting to put him in a super-high security prison in protective custody. I doubt most child-molester types would require particularly high security to prevent escape, and they’d probably be much more tractable than the average prisoner. Most of them could do useful work and help pay for their punishment.
On the other hand, it’s even cheaper to put a deviant in the general prison population and let him be murdered. One might even argue that this is the will of the people expressed democratically.
Comment by Mona —
September 17, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
Yes, exactly. And objecting to that does not mean I accept the horrible act of molesting a 5-year-old(hey, I had three kids and have two grandsons, and would defend with deadly force anyone trying to rape them.)These men are in the grips of some compulsion we cannot tolerate, but the punishment ought not be de facto torture and/or agonizing execution in gen pop. Or the insanity-inducing confinement of a Super Max. Your proposal is sound.
Comment by Barry —
September 18, 2007 @ 6:25 am
“On the issue of prisoner rights… well, that’s yet another problem with a monopoly justice agency. Given that it has essentially all of the power in the prisoner/prison relationship, you can expect the state to act without regard to the prisoner’s well-being.”
Sigh. Many rich, white-collar defendants would agree with you. I’d certainly contract with the ’spare the rod’ justice agency.
Comment by William Teach —
September 18, 2007 @ 8:00 am
As far as it goes, I have yet to see anyone covering this story providing any evidence that he is a Republican.
Comment by kid bitzer —
September 18, 2007 @ 10:33 am
dkos has posted some research showing that someone of that name and age and municipality is registered to vote R.
not sure how much that really matters in the big picture, unless like craig and vitter and foley and…he was not only a creep and a republican, but also a creepy republican who advanced his career by claiming to be a family-values guy.
which remains to be seen, even if dkos has his voter registration correct.
Comment by alyssa —
September 18, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
this man is responsible for helping to wrongly convict my father for white collar crime- and he fought for a sentence of 17 years. He questioned me in a grand jury situation and until this weekend, repeatedly terrorized my sister. I’d like to say that I am shocked by this. I’d like to say he’s going to supermax…but he probably won’t go anywhere. He’ll never get the sentence he saw to it that was imposed on my 65 year old dad. Personally, I wish they’d turn him loose in Gulf Breeze- see what happens…
Comment by Thomas L. Knapp —
September 18, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
Nobody, least of all me, likes to stand up for pedophiles, but even assuming that this guy is guilty, what he’s guilty of is …
… flying from Florida to Michigan. Not only was there no child molestation, there was no child. The entire incident — the victim, the opportunity, etc. — was created from whole cloth by law enforcement.
Um … doesn’t that bother anyone? I can’t feel too bad for this guy because it probably wouldn’t bother him one bit if he was, as he usually is, on the other side of the deal. But it’s still just plain wrong.
Comment by just sayin —
September 18, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Assistant U.S. Attorneys are career guys, so I don’t think we can assume this guy was a Republican simply because he’s a current AUSA.
Not so much anymore. Part of Monica Goodling’s testimony was that the decisions on the career side had been pretty thoroughly politicized under this administration as well.
Comment by Mona —
September 18, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Thomas Knapp writes:
It doesn’t bother me; unlike drug stings in which the activity ought not be illegal anyway, how else should law enforcement catch child predators other than online sting operations, given that the molesters use the Internet to hook up? There does not appear to be any entrapment, that is, inducement to do what the accused would not do but for the cop’s activity. (But I withhold final opinion until trial on that as well as actual guilt.)
So that aspect, no, I have no problem with it.
Comment by jane011749 —
September 19, 2007 @ 12:31 am
John David R. Atchison is a registered Republican, you can find it at:
groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/browse_thread/thread/52d1c081640fb94f-
Just the fact that he would even consider an act like this is despicable, but it’s not fair to put ALL Republicans in the same classification as him. Some of us are actually decent people, as I’m sure there are some decent people in the democratic party. What if we (Republicans) clumped all democrats in the same group as some of the not so nice people in that party. Let’s be fair now.
Comment by Thomas L. Knapp —
September 19, 2007 @ 5:46 am
Mona,
That’s the whole point: When law enforcement runs a sting like this, they may or may not be catching a “child predator.” It’s impossible to know, since the person being predated upon is not a child (it’s an undercover officer impersonating a child), and since no molestation or attempted molestation takes place, there being no child for it to take place with.
If I buy a bag of oregano from you, maybe I thought I was buying a bag of pot … but I didn’t buy a bag of pot. I bought a bag of oregano. This guy may have thought he was going to Michigan to molest a child, but there was no child, no parent bargaining away a molestation opportunity, etc.
How else should law enforcement catch child predators? The same way they catch speeders, bank robbers, etc. — by catching them actually doing, attempting to do, or having done the thing they’re accused of, not by creating an imaginary situation and putting someone in jail for what they tricked him into thinking he was going to do. There are plenty of real child predators with real child victims to keep the police busy without resorting to amateur theatre.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Comment by Eric the .5b —
September 19, 2007 @ 10:25 am
I have to say that the fact that the first reaction of a lot of Blues online (and surely a lot of Reds, to) was to try to establish that this guy belonged to the other team is just…typical.
Myself, I’ll have to echo other libertarians who’ve argued the hinkiness of online pedophile stings when a government official wasn’t the suspect. Other things I’ve read suggest that there’s real merit to this arrest, but people with any skepticism about the criminal justice system need to show due wariness, at least at this point.
Comment by Mona —
September 19, 2007 @ 10:45 am
Well I certainly retain all the usual skepticism about law enforcement that characterizes most libertarians. But in the case of online solicitation of tots to have sex with, sting operations make sense because there effectively is no complaining witness: No adult who is robbed to file a complaint, no body of a murder victim. What five-year-old is going to march herself down to the local PD and say: “Hi, my Mommy sells me on the Internet and a couple time a week nice men from all over fly in with presents and then stick their Johnsons in my widdle ‘gina?”
Comment by kid bitzer —
September 19, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
you’re right, mona.
no fiver year old would ever use the term “johnson”.
Comment by Leonard —
September 19, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
“Typical”, yes. But I think we can be a bit stronger here: disgusting. The guy is just one probable pervert; his perversion has no relationship to his party affiliation.
I tend to agree with Mona on this one re: entrapment. I am as libertarian as the next guy when it comes to victimless crimes and consenting adults, but this is one of those edge cases that libertarianism does not speak to. If we have laws against behavior that does not create hard evidence or self-aware victims, and such behavior is common and/or odious enough to require aggressive enforcement, I don’t see how else to enforce other than stinging, which means prosecuting intent.
Post hoc prosecution of crimes is an adequate deterrent, I think, when a crime is easy to discover, and to the degree which the crime can be compensated or at least handled by the victim without undue anguish. But we have laws against attempts to do other crimes, even for easily discovered crimes. For example, battery (physical contact with intent to injure) is a crime. But assault (attempted battery) is also a crime. Murder is a crime, but attempted murder is also, even if the victim was utterly unaffected by the attempt.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
September 19, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
They may, and they may be valid, but there are serious risks of entrapment in their conduct.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
September 19, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
I thought I said that with the implied phrase “typical partisan”.
My disagreement, Leonard, is that I think sting operations can be conducted without entrapment (and the issue is “whether it has been” in any given case) – but if they really can’t as you and Mona hint, then you do pretty much have to do without if you believe in this whole “rights” thing.
Comment by Mona —
September 19, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
*I* hinted no such thing. Putting an undervocer cop at cites known to be favored by pedophiles seeking to by 5 year-old’s sexual services, is fair game. Presumably the guy’s computer — and any record of communications made by the undercover of what transpired — will show whether the alleged pedophile had to be lured into doing what he otherwise would not have done (entrapment), or whether he was very eager indeed.
Comment by Leonard —
September 19, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
Hmm, I guess we’re talking about slighty different things. I thought a sting was pretty much by definition entrapment, at least of a common-sense kind. (Legally, I’m sure there’s some hair-splitting around “entrapment” which I do not pretend to understand.) Even a sting where you let the criminal complete the crime (ethical if the “trap” is property, unethical if a human being), the crime still would not have happened as it did but for the creation of the trap by the stingers.
If there’s no “trap”, it’s not a sting.
I have two comments here.
First, I’m an anarchist anyway, so “rights” are just a helpful abstraction to me: “rules of thumb” if you will, not some sort of platonic form. Where they break down, I can admit it, and it does not cause me any particular cognitive dissonance. For example, I do not have any problem arguing that the innocent possession of nuclear weapons should be banned, in spite of the 2nd Amendment. A true rights-absolutist runs into problems here.
Second, even within the paradigm of rights, I don’t think it is clear that people have a right to have criminal intent. Certainly we should have strong procedural rights that can (and should) make the proving of criminal intent very difficult. However, that is more or less an implementation detail. (Consider a scifi scenario where we have machines which can plumb the thoughts of people, accurately detecting the intent to murder, or in this case, rape a child.)
I think most libertarians would agree that imposing undue risk on someone is a crime. This is one way we frame drunk driving laws, for example, or firing guns in the air in a populated area. Well, if criminal intent is not the imposition of risk on others, I am not sure what is.
Comment by Thomas L. Knapp —
September 20, 2007 @ 1:13 am
Mona,
You write:
“Presumably the guy’s computer — and any record of communications made by the undercover of what transpired — will show whether the alleged pedophile had to be lured into doing what he otherwise would not have done”
What he did that he otherwise would not have done was fly from Florida to Detroit. Last time I noticed, that’s neither a misdemeanor nor a felony.
He didn’t rape a child. He didn’t attempt to rape a child. Or rather, at least in this case he didn’t do either of those things, because the child in question doesn’t exist.
Comment by Mona —
September 20, 2007 @ 6:56 am
No Thomas, that is far from all he did, if the police affidavits reflect his online communications with the “mother.” He sought to purchase sex with a five-year-old girl; engaged in negotiations to do so. He described how to comfort the child with promises of presents, and reassured the “mother” that he’d be very gentle with the child as he raped her. Entering a contract for such a thing is, in fact, a felony.
How else do your propose to apprehend these online predators who buy tots for sex?
Comment by Thomas L. Knapp —
September 20, 2007 @ 11:34 am
Mona,
You write:
“He sought to purchase sex with a five-year-old girl;”
… who did not exist.
“engaged in negotiations to do so.”
… with an alleged mother who did not exist.
“He described how to comfort the child”
… who did not exist.
“Entering a contract for such a thing is, in fact, a felony.”
But he entered into no such contract, since a contract requires two or more parties and he was the only alleged party to the contract who actually existed.
“How else do your propose to apprehend these online predators who buy tots for sex?”
It’s difficult, I know, but we do it the same way we apprehend other criminals. We catch them committing, or attempting to commit, a crime. Apprehending someone for imagining he was going to molest a child who didn’t exist makes about as much sense as handing out speeding tickets to people who think about going 71mph — on roads that hasn’t been built and in cars they don’t have.
Comment by Mona —
September 20, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
He wasn’t apprehended for whathe “imagined”; he was arrested for many overt steps taken to commit a crime that, unbeknownst to him, could not have come into fruition.
Thomas, I really think you are grossly underestimating the seriousness of the offense, and the difficulty of apprehending those who commit these monstrous acts. Radar and such will catch speeders. By contrast a parent selling a child isn’t going to complain, nor is the tot. Capturing pedophiles who accept (and are the initiators) of an attempt to rape a child — and to arrange for it over the Internet — are best caught via stings. Even if there existed a radar to know who was flying to Michigan to rape kids, and nab him just as he was about to penetrate a real girl — well does THAT make sense to you?
Comment by Thomas L. Knapp —
September 20, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
Mona,
Far from “underestimating the seriousness of the offense,” I take it so seriously that I think law enforcement should be directed at actual criminals with actual victims or potential victims, not manufactured criminals with non-existent victims.
While the Internet does afford a measure of privacy via encryption and such, experience tells us that these criminals do in fact out themselves in places like public IRC chat rooms and through the exchange of information, child porn, etc., on de facto central servers.
To the extent that this happens and is noted by non-criminals who report it (which is frequently the case — I’ve done it myself), probable cause arises for seeking warrants, wiretaps, etc., and catching these creeps:
a) In the actual commission of, or attempt to commit, a crime; or
b) With evidence that they have already committed a crime.
You want to talk about seriousness? Okay, answer this question: How many REAL children in Macomb County, Michigan were ACTUALLY molested while the county sheriff’s department spent its resources, money and personnel hours playing games on the Internet? How many of those crimes will never be detected, investigated, solved or prosecuted because it’s easier to just make up crimes, as happened here?
Comment by Mona —
September 20, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
I don’t know. How many five-year-olds do you suppose are saved because law enforcement plays such “games?” What do you propose to do to find these guys who buy children online?
Comment by Thomas L. Knapp —
September 20, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Mona,
I’ve answered the question “what do you propose to do to find these guys who buy children online?” multiple times now.
If your argument boils down to “this guy is icky, so he should go to jail even though there was no actual or attempted molestation, or even any child to molest,” fine … but why not just admit it?
You have yet to make a case that arresting someone who didn’t molest a non-existent child somehow magically protects children who do exist from people who do molest them, let alone that this magical protection is valuable enough that it justifies arresting people for the crime of flying from Florida to Michigan while thinking things we don’t want them to think.
Comment by Thomas L. Knapp —
September 20, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
An analogy, inspired by a friend’s musings:
If I go into a chat room and offer Witch Doctor Umgawa $10,000 to kill a non-existent victim by sticking pins in an effigy thereof; and if Witch Doctor Umgawa takes the money, creates an effigy from an illustration of the non-existent victim, and sticks pins in it, genuinely believing that this will result in the death of the non-existent victim …
… should he be charged with attempted murder?
Comment by Mona —
September 20, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
Thomas: No he should not be charged with attempted murder. But if you went into a chat room that law enforcement knows has begun to draw hit men, and you are pretending (as undercover agent) that you are looking for someone to shoot your non-existent wife, and enter into an agreement and the guy flies to your city to do it, he should be charged with attempted murder.
Witchcraft cannot really kill people. (And for the same reason we do not allow “the devil made me do it” defense of demonic possession.) Shooting folks can kill. Unlike demons, we know guns are real and cause death and maiming. Overt acts in furtherance of an a crime that ACTUALLY harms people are different from belief in magic.
Comment by Leonard —
September 20, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
Thomas: intent can be criminal. It is now, for attempting murder. Certainly the case of the witch doctor (more generally, attempting murder via impossible means), is an interesting one. (David Friedman discusses it in one of his books, IIRC.) There are arguments both ways. But it is beside the point, here. The perp in question certainly had the means to commit his crime, and was attempting to do so.
You are hung up on the lack of actual victim, but I don’t know why. Consider: a man parks a ticking car bomb on a busy street and walk offs. Luckily the bomb is detected and disarmed before it explodes. Nobody is harmed in any way. Is this attempted murder? Is it even a crime, in your opinion?
Comment by Thomas L. Knapp —
September 21, 2007 @ 8:39 am
Mona,
You write:
“But if you went into a chat room that law enforcement knows has begun to draw hit men, and you are pretending (as undercover agent) that you are looking for someone to shoot your non-existent wife, and enter into an agreement and the guy flies to your city to do it, he should be charged with attempted murder.”
Attempted murder of whom?
Leonard:
In the case you describe, there is a “busy street” full of real, existing intended victims, and there is an overt violent act (which, even if the victims all happened to walk away at once, would damage property). So of course it’s a crime.
In the instant case, there were no real, existing intended victims, nor was there any overt violent act.
Read up on your criminal law — intent is one of two elements of a criminal offense. The other is the act itself, which in the instant case was simply impossible for him to have committed.
Sorry, people, but you’re letting the ick factor get in the way of clear thinking here and that’s dangerous. It’s dangerous to the real children who were actually molested while the police who are supposed to protect them were off playing on the Internet, and it’s dangerous to civil liberties insofar as it minimizes the negative possibilities inherent in doing things like arresting people for traveling while thinking unapproved thoughts.
Extract crania from recta, please.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
September 21, 2007 @ 9:14 am
How many guys “buy children online”? How many children get sold online? Why not sting people selling kids online instead of hoping you’ll find all the buyers?
Frankly, I assume that even given ideal police work, people will get away with some crimes because there’s just no proof without stepping over some civil liberties line. Knowing that that will happen somewhere, sometime doesn’t justify stepping over those lines, whether it’s entrapment or torture.
I shouldn’t have to say this to libertarians.
Comment by Leonard —
September 21, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
So assume the guy parked and walked away from the car at night, after carefully checking that nobody is in sight. Or just assume that he believes that the timer is long enough that no specific person he can see when he leaves the bomb will be affected by it. OK? So there is no specific “real existing intended” victim.
Does that make not attempted murder?
So, you would charge him with what, graffiti? Look, we agree that property damage is a crime. People don’t have the right to damage other people’s property with carbombs. Fine. We seem to be disagreeing about whether or not imposing great risk on unknown people is a crime. In the event that this car bomb is discovered and disarmed, or if it blows up and the street just happens to be empty, and you catch the perp: would you or would you not support a charge of attempted murder?
If you are willing to call this attempted murder, then you have accepted the notion of criminal intent.
Comment by anodyne —
September 22, 2007 @ 12:46 am
Observations from a casual observer (with no dog in this fight) who is keenly interested in seeing this argument judged in a libertarian court with no appeal to stare decisis:
Leonard said:
“I don’t think it is clear that people have a right to have criminal intentâ€
Given Thomas has argued that there is no crime if the victim does not exist (a bright line), this argument strikes me as razor’s edge circulus in demonstrando.
Your second invocation of criminal intent seems to be a glancing blow as well since Thomas has already stated that there is no crime if a potential victim doesn’t exist.
Leonard said:
“We seem to be disagreeing about whether or not imposing great risk on unknown people is a crime.â€
From where I sit this is not the crux of the disagreement.
Thomas said:
“… and it’s dangerous to civil liberties insofar as it minimizes the negative possibilities inherent in doing things like arresting people for traveling while thinking unapproved thoughts.â€
Which I interpreted as a non-trivial adherence to a libertarian principle.
Leonard said:
First, I’m an anarchist anyway, so “rights†are just a helpful abstraction to me: “rules of thumb†if you will, not some sort of platonic form. Where they break down, I can admit it, and it does not cause me any particular cognitive dissonance.
So, is there authoritative libertarian source to which an unenlightened observer could turn to settle this? Or is this one of those you are free to apply whatever principle you wish in establishing your position, including the principle of no personal cognitive dissonance?
Thomas seems to hold the upper hand here for the moment because his opposition in this argument appears to be conceding (by dismissing out of hand or attempting to wriggle around) the bright line he laid out. He also seems to have attached a litmus test to the line. Is there a libertarian counter to his bright line?
Btw,
“Consider: a man parks a ticking car bomb …â€
Oh no you didn’t
Comment by anodyne —
September 22, 2007 @ 12:54 am
Observations from a casual observer (with no dog in this fight) keenly interested in seeing this argument judged in a libertarian court.
Leonard said:
“I don’t think it is clear that people have a right to have criminal intentâ€
Given Thomas has argued that there is no crime if the victim does not exist (a bright line), this argument strikes me as razor’s edge circulus in demonstrando.
Your second invocation of criminal intent seems to be a glancing blow as well since Thomas has already stated that there is no crime if a potential victim doesn’t exist.
Leonard said:
“We seem to be disagreeing about whether or not imposing great risk on unknown people is a crime.â€
From where I sit this is not the crux of the disagreement.
Thomas said:
“… and it’s dangerous to civil liberties insofar as it minimizes the negative possibilities inherent in doing things like arresting people for traveling while thinking unapproved thoughts.â€
Which I interpreted as a non-trivial adherence to a libertarian principle.
Leonard said:
First, I’m an anarchist anyway, so “rights†are just a helpful abstraction to me: “rules of thumb†if you will, not some sort of platonic form. Where they break down, I can admit it, and it does not cause me any particular cognitive dissonance.
Is there an authoritative libertarian source to which an unenlightened observer could turn to settle this? Or is this one of those you are free to apply whatever principle you wish in establishing your position, including the principle of no personal cognitive dissonance?
Thomas seems to hold the upper hand here for the moment because his opposition in this argument appears to be conceding (by dismissing out of hand or attempting to wriggle around) the bright line he laid out. He also seems to have attached a litmus test to the line. Is there are libertarian counter to his bright line?
Btw,
“Consider: a man parks a ticking car bomb …â€
Oh no you didn’t
Comment by anodyne —
September 22, 2007 @ 8:45 am
test
Comment by anodyne —
September 22, 2007 @ 8:50 am
Leonard said:
“I don’t think it is clear that people have a right to have criminal intentâ€
Given Thomas has argued that there is no crime if the victim does not exist (a bright line), this argument strikes me as razor’s edge circulus in demonstrando.
Your second invocation of criminal intent seems to be a glancing blow as well since Thomas has already stated that there is no crime if a potential victim doesn’t exist.
Leonard said:
“We seem to be disagreeing about whether or not imposing great risk on unknown people is a crime.â€
From where I sit this is not the crux of the disagreement.
Thomas said:
“… and it’s dangerous to civil liberties insofar as it minimizes the negative possibilities inherent in doing things like arresting people for traveling while thinking unapproved thoughts.â€
Which I interpreted as a non-trivial adherence to a libertarian principle.
Leonard said:
“First, I’m an anarchist anyway, so “rights†are just a helpful abstraction to me: “rules of thumb†if you will, not some sort of platonic form. Where they break down, I can admit it, and it does not cause me any particular cognitive dissonance.â€
Is this one of those you are free to apply whatever principle you wish in establishing your position, including the principle of no personal cognitive dissonance?
Thomas seems to hold the upper hand here for the moment because his opposition in this argument appears to be conceding (by dismissing out of hand or attempting to wriggle around) the bright line he laid out. He also seems to have attached a litmus test to the line. Is there a “libertarian” counter to his bright line?
Btw,
“Consider: a man parks a ticking car bomb …â€
Oh no you didn’t
Comment by Willy Bman —
October 15, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
Abut your lawman who molested a child. Do you think there is a differnce if the officer is telling the child to do unlawful things to himself and while showing the child nude pictures of a woman. Is that perverted or what. What if the child was being drugged with a substance that was later described as a BOC and maybe more. What do you think if the person was using GOD as the molester. That makes it even more disguisting. Now I think my son wont be going to church if it was up to me – at least not for a while. Check this out too. What if you were confronted with the issue and the guy person sais you cant do a fffing thing about it because they represent the law in some way shape or form. Then you wonder if this long time friend molested you. They say when you are sexually molested as an adolesence you supress a lot of the issues. I think more and more about it and recollect a lot that was happening to me. How would an official of a higher power do that. Over a period of years of would he just jump the issue right then and there to cover for his devious actions. But the God thing really irritates me!!!!!