Refutations to the allegation of criminal guilt (legal compatibilism)

[Dennis Blewett]

"Thesis: A judge's argument that a verdict based on a standard of evidence is *legitimate* because the necessary criteria for the standard of evidence has been satisfied is a strawman argument because the judge fails to address the legitimacy that the standard of evidence has been truly satisfied, whereby such satisfaction can never actually occur because no judge (nor anyone at all) has the authority to claim that the necessary criteria for the standard of evidence has been satisfied."

source: Self. Personal e-mail to self at [email protected] on September 21st, 2021.

[LuckyR]

All that is reasonable is logical. It is logical (reasonable) to hold a doubt because one is not infallible.

1) If it is logical (reasonable) to hold a doubt because it is not possible to be infallible, then one cannot prove one or more defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
2) It is logical (reasonable) to hold a doubt because it is not possible to be infallible.
Therefore, one cannot prove one or more defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

o.Ô

Declarations at the level of opinion. Perfectly fine, but ultimately personal (not generalizable).

[Steve3007]

A lot of people on here have "hobbyhorses" - repeated themes. Often wacky personal theories about some subject or other. Dennis, one of yours seems to be odd ideas about the theory of Special Relativity. As in, for example, the topic this text links to.

I feel that the theory of special relativity helps deny the existence of free will.

It doesn't.

You seem to have returned to that theme in this topic:

b. The defendant did not fulfill the elements of the crime because the defendant was interdependent with the dimensions of space and the dimension of time, whereby such interdependence is proven by the theory of special relativity ("the non-causative agent" argument).

Do you have any sources for, or any more detail about, this unusual proposed defense?

The "2" in H2O should be considered a subscript 2.

You can use the "sub" tag to do subscripts. Put sub in square brackets before the text that you want to subscript and then /sub in square brackets after it. E.g: H₂O.

[Steve3007]

OK, I found a bit more in the OP.

In its current formulation, the theory of special relativity argues that causality exists for persons. The non-causative agent argument relies on the theory of special relativity with a caveat: I deny the allegation that there exists a cause-and-effect relationship in any light cone, which is a theoretical structure employed in support of the theory of special relativity. In doing such, I deny that any defendant exists as a causative agent ("actor").

Special Relativity doesn't say anything specifically about persons. It says that if two events are separated by a spacelike spacetime interval then one event can't be the cause of the other, and the question of which event came first (or whether they're simultaneous) is dependent on the movement of the observer. But if they are separated by a timelike interval then they can be causally connected.

if you "deny the allegation that there exists a cause-and-effect relationship in any light cone" then presumably you dispense with causality altogether? You don't believe any event can be said to be the cause of any other event regardless of their relative positions in spacetime? Or are you simply saying that human actions, specifically, are not caused by anything? Either way, this has nothing to do with Special Relativity.

[Steve3007]

I, the instantaneous identity of the non-continuous self of whom is using the name Dennis Blewett to submit this post, would care because getting a bloody nose and my lunch money taken would be a form of pain and suffering for myself (if such pain and suffering instantaneously coinciding with my existence) and pain and suffering is bad.

You, the instantaneous identity of the non-continuous self who is using the name Dennis Blewett, didn't get your lunch money stolen. That was one of the previous instantaneous selves. You didn't get punched either. That was also one of the previous instantaneous selves. As Lucky and Lucanor have pointed out, if you're going to deny the existence of a continuous self then there are no victim, perpetrators, judges, juries or anyone else. Just a load of people puzzling over the apparent contents of their brains.

At least, that's according to your position on this.

I guess this is essentially similar to people who come on sites like this claiming to believe in solipsism. They don't stop to think whether their idea actually works.

[Steve3007]

The act of stepping into the river takes time, during which the river is changing, instant by instant.

There is not a "point in time", but a short period of time. So all the calculus in the world won't help.

I like the point you made here and in your previous post.

On the traditional form of that river thing:

I think if somebody points out that when you step in a river twice you're stepping in a different load of water each time, that doesn't mean they haven't stepped in the same river twice. It just tells us something (that we already knew but perhaps hadn't previously reflected on) about what kind of entity the word "river" refers to. i.e. an entity whose continuity of existence is not based on the continuity of the same pieces of matter.

I presume the saying "you don't step in the same river twice" is meant to illustrate that point, and not to be taken literally. Daniel seems to have taken it literally!

[Steve3007]

I mean Dennis.

[Pattern-chaser]

So you cannot step into the same river even once, as the excellent Cratylus suggested?

No, because I believe there is a point in time where it may be operationally defined that an entity has stepped into the river. An instant later, however, the river is no longer the same river. Something significantly different from the time of Cratylus is that we have differential calculus and the concept of instanteous velocity. The water molecules in a river may be alleged to be experiencing change in spatial position over time.

The act of stepping into the river takes time, during which the river is changing, instant by instant.

There is not a "point in time", but a short period of time. So all the calculus in the world won't help.

I like the point you made here and in your previous post.

On the traditional form of that river thing:

I think if somebody points out that when you step in a river twice you're stepping in a different load of water each time, that doesn't mean they haven't stepped in the same river twice. It just tells us something (that we already knew but perhaps hadn't previously reflected on) about what kind of entity the word "river" refers to. i.e. an entity whose continuity of existence is not based on the continuity of the same pieces of matter.

I presume the saying "you don't step in the same river twice" is meant to illustrate that point, and not to be taken literally. Daniel seems to have taken it literally!

I think perhaps that the maxim "you can't step into the same river twice" is meant to be taken literally. From the link I originally posted (above):

Cratylus took as his starting point the doctrine of the flux of phenomena (Heraclitus), and he capped Heraclitus's saying that one cannot step twice into the same river by adding "nor once either." His reason clearly was his contention that the river is changing even as you step into it. He ended by coming to the view that one ought not to say anything, but only move the finger, since no true statement can be made about a thing that is always changing.

It was because of this , er, doctrine that Cratylus became my all-time favourite philosopher. He stuck to his guns, and would only hold up his little finger to acknowledge that someone had spoken to him. He would not reply, of course, since one cannot even do that once....

[Steve3007]

I think perhaps that the maxim "you can't step into the same river twice" is meant to be taken literally. From the link I originally posted (above):...

OK. I guess I was wrong about the intention of that maxim then. He was clearly a funny guy!

It was because of this , er, doctrine that Cratylus became my all-time favourite philosopher. He stuck to his guns, and would only hold up his little finger to acknowledge that someone had spoken to him. He would not reply, of course, since one cannot even do that once....

Yes, I can see the appeal. Although, if I were him, I don't think I'd be able to resist the temptation to cheat at my own game and invent some kind of digital (in the literal sense of that word) code for communicating.

[Dennis Blewett]

The premises for every criminal action are often times founded by society , this should be clear. A minor social descent of a person is certainly not helpfull for refraining from criminal actions. The problem is how much is a society really involved in a crime and if this is the case is this fascism or social darwinism of the society and the political system , that really determines the life of an individual in the sense of criminal actions. The problem that imposes to the person confronted with this thought is determinism for the persons mind embedded in a society that declines the person due to a lack of an endowment with financial supplies.

Your post touches on the concept of mobocracy (mobocratic thought).

One of the things that I thought of while I was in jail was about how people work together to engage in parasitism by supporting the philosophy of legal compatibilism and prosecutorial behavior, such as those of whom are proponents of the concept of free will in order to justify the ethos that persons should be held "accountable" for behaviors. People do this because they think they can get away with it without significant consequences: They are short-sighted as a race of people, for prosecutorial behavior toward an individual is a wrong (because no one has the authority for such in the first place).

When I took a class at the University of Illinois at Chicago, we covered Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper. For what I recall, there was a discussion about mobocracy being a ruling thing in relation to whether or not a scientific theory was considered valid, which was dependent on "the mob" agreeeing rather than on testability/falsification itself.

All that is reasonable is logical. It is logical (reasonable) to hold a doubt because one is not infallible.

1) If it is logical (reasonable) to hold a doubt because it is not possible to be infallible, then one cannot prove one or more defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
2) It is logical (reasonable) to hold a doubt because it is not possible to be infallible.
Therefore, one cannot prove one or more defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

o.Ô

Declarations at the level of opinion. Perfectly fine, but ultimately personal (not generalizable).

I disgree because free will does not exist for someone to guarantee absolution in (to have control of the variables of) the necessary nor sufficient criteria.

You've touched on the theory of special relativity and free will.

My variated version of special relativity for legal applications considers more than the four dimensions as discussed by Einstein and Lorentz:

Free will does not exist for someone to guarantee absolution in (to have control of the variables of) the necessary nor sufficient criteria because all (whereby all are made of matter) are interdependent with all dimensions of reality, such as the dimension of time and the dimensions of space.

[Dennis Blewett]

Correction: "...the necessary or sufficient criteria..."

[Steve3007]

One of the things that I thought of while I was in jail was about how people work together to engage in parasitism by supporting the philosophy of legal compatibilism and prosecutorial behavior, such as those of whom are proponents of the concept of free will in order to justify the ethos that persons should be held "accountable" for behaviors. People do this because they think they can get away with it without significant consequences: They are short-sighted as a race of people, for prosecutorial behavior toward an individual is a wrong (because no one has the authority for such in the first place).

So you don't believe that anybody, ever, should be prosecuted for any crime?

[Steve3007]

Dennis, It seems to me that your philosophy is this:

There are no causal connections between any events. There are no people, in any sense that that word is normally meant. There are no crimes. There are no victims. There are no consequences to any actions. The world consists of a sequence of disconnected events happening completely at random.

Is that a fair summary?

[Dennis Blewett]

Correction to formerly presented thesis: It is logical (reasonable) to hold a doubt because no one has the authority to know anything if but only theorize. Subthesis: No one has the authority to know anything if but only theorize because no one has the expertise for such authority; (sub-sub premise) no one has the necessary nor sufficient criteria for such expertise.

So you don't believe that anybody, ever, should be prosecuted for any crime?

"Crime" is a very specific word.

To say someone should not be prosecuted for a crime implies that a "crime" occurred in the first place. I do not think that crimes occur.

Answer: I do not believe people should be falsely alleged to have committed a crime.

Dennis, It seems to me that your philosophy is this:

There are no causal connections between any events. There are no people, in any sense that that word is normally meant. There are no crimes. There are no victims. There are no consequences to any actions. The world consists of a sequence of disconnected events happening completely at random.

Is that a fair summary?

Answer: Yes.

If, say the ecosystem were to condition (operant conditioning) me to believe that there are "persons," as though I should believe there is some kind of arbitrary way of defining the boundaries of matter to define some materialed body as a "person," then I might think differently lest pain and suffering befall me.

It very much appears to me there are "wrongs," in the sense that disturbances in an ecosystem need to get rectified/resolved in some way sooner or later for the ecosystem to seek homeostasis. I've not been a fan of (subscribed of) the concepts of "right" and "wrong."

[Steve3007]

Dennis, why do you press the keys on your keyboard? I do it because I think it causes words to appear on my screen. Why do you do it?

---

1) If it is logical (reasonable) to hold a doubt because it is not possible to be infallible, then one cannot prove one or more defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
2) It is logical (reasonable) to hold a doubt because it is not possible to be infallible.
Therefore, one cannot prove one or more defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The above argument relies on a fallacy of equivocation in (1) over the word "reasonable".

At the start of (1) you state that you're using the word "reasonable" as a synonym for the word "logical". But that is not the way that the word "reasonable" is used in the term "beyond reasonable doubt" in a legal context. In that and similar contexts it means "beyond a high threshold of probability which is considered very likely though not certain". If it said "beyond logical doubt" that would be a different thing. It would refer to something that is tautologically true. "1 + 1 = 2" is beyond logical doubt. "Ted Bundy killed a lot of people" is beyond reasonable doubt. Two very different things.

Dennis, It seems to me that your philosophy is this:

There are no causal connections between any events. There are no people, in any sense that that word is normally meant. There are no crimes. There are no victims. There are no consequences to any actions. The world consists of a sequence of disconnected events happening completely at random.

Is that a fair summary?

Answer: Yes.

OK. So do you ever wonder why certain events always happen after certain other events? For example, when I turn the keys in the ignition of my car the engine starts. Obviously the turning of the keys didn't cause the engine to start (because there are no causal connections between any events). But do you have a theory as to why those two events tend to go together?

It very much appears to me there are "wrongs," in the sense that disturbances in an ecosystem need to get rectified/resolved in some way sooner or later for the ecosystem to seek homeostasis.

But that rectification could never happen, right? Because rectification requires something to be done in order for something else to happen. i.e. it requires causality. In your worldview, in which there is no causality, there's literally no point in ever doing anything, ever. For example, if you're hungry there's no point putting food in your mouth in the hope that that will cause you to be less hungry. Putting food in your mouth, like all other actions, doesn't cause anything else to happen. Right?