Deliberately punish one who is known to merely resemble a particular criminal.

[Boojatta]

For example, there are video images of a bank robber. Someone whose face superficially resembles the face in the video images could be given some degree of official punishment.

I'm not talking about mistaken identity. Before the punishment is imposed, the authorities reach the conclusion that the person who superficially resembles the criminal definitely isn't the criminal. In fact, it could be exactly the same evidence that allows people to observe a superficial resemblance that also allows for the conclusion that the person who superficially resembles the criminal isn't the criminal.

Now, if good and evil are arbitrary constructs, then what basis is there for opposing a system of law that includes the feature described above?

[Ken Burch]

1. Well, in communities of color, the law has pretty much ALWAYS done that.

n/t.

[dmallind]

2. Because it causes significant harm and generates no benefit. NT

[Boojatta]

3. You have made at least one claim about causation.

Perhaps we could set aside issues of causation for the moment, so that you can make a more modest claim that will be easier to support, a claim about correlations. Of course, any claim about correlations will be based on a limited amount of data, restricted to the past. There is no guarantee that efforts to generalize from limited data and extrapolate from that data to future events will be successful.

You didn't write the above paragraph, so I have the impression that your thought process is somewhere else. Perhaps you simply recognize that to experience injustice is to suffer a kind of harm and that it is beneficial for a legal system to deliver justice. If that is the case, then you still rely upon the concept of justice to arrive at your conclusion. In particular, I presume that you have a concept of justice that allows you to see that the "feature" I described in the Original Post of this thread would be an example of injustice.

[dmallind]

12. Mealy mouthed crap

There is no need for correlation and certainly no need for statistical correlation. If the justice system deliberately punishes the innocent it absolutely causes, not correlates to, harm at many levels. Harm to the punished (we can assume he will not enjoy it or it would not be punishment). Harm to the trust in the system by those upon whom it is imposed (we can ssume people prefer the guilty to be punished not the innocent).

Unlike some juvenile wannabe sophists, I generally say what I mean.

You do not need non-abstract concepts of justice to assess injustice when it causes more harm than benefit.

[Boojatta]

13. "Harm to the punished (we can assume he will not enjoy it or it would not be punishment)."

I agree, but where did you use an assumption of innocence?

we can assume people prefer the guilty to be punished not the innocent

I believe that some people prefer the guilty to be punished, but how do you confirm that, whenever an event of a kind that they prefer to occur doesn't actually occur, significant harm has been caused, and no benefit has been caused?

[Boojatta]

17. "Harm to the punished (we can assume he will not enjoy it or it would not be punishment)."

I agree, but where did you use an assumption of innocence?

[tama]

4. Arbitrary constructs

There are no criminals without laws. What basis is there accepting system based on laws?

[DeSwiss]

5. You mean something sort of like this?

[LARED]

6. If good and evil are arbitrary constructs...

then there is no basis for a system of laws.

[Boojatta]

7. Kick

[ChadwickHenryWard]

8. It depends what you mean by "arbitrary."

If you mean "not empirical," then sure, good and evil are arbitrary. If you mean "totally without valid logical support of any kind," then perhaps you are suffering under unhelpful definitions.

(Just as an aside, I think you may wish to shy away from the terms "good" and "evil." They are loaded terms, with a lot of religious baggage. If what we're talking about here is justice, they may not be the best terms to use. Justice is not based on religious or metaphysical notions or "good" and "evil," it is based on logically sound notions of rights - of the individual and of society at large - and violations thereof.)

Actually, to be frank, I'm not really sure what resemblance has to do with it. This is a pretty simple principle - we only punish someone for a crime when we are as certain as we can possibly be that he or she committed the crime. I'm not sure what it has to do with good or evil, either.

[ZombieHorde]

9. "what basis is there for opposing a system of law that includes the feature described above?"

Popular opinion is the first which comes to mind. I don't think most people would be happy with such a system.

[Boojatta]

10. You seem to have provided two different answers.

What people would choose and whether they would be happy with the choice aren't always the same thing.

For example, if I had asked what basis was there for opposing the re-election of Richard Nixon when he was trying to be re-elected to the office of President of the USA, then what would you have said? However, I don't see any connection between Nixon and the topic of this thread.

[ZombieHorde]

11. "what basis was there for opposing the re-election of Richard Nixon"

I don't know, I did not exist then. If I had existed, I would have been shaped by completely different experiences and would most likely have a different world view.

If you replace Nixon with G. W. Bush, I would have pointed out the weak economy, wars, and other typical DU concerns. I believe most people do not like weak economies and war.

"What people would choose and whether they would be happy with the choice aren't always the same thing."

I completely agree, but the results of some situations are more predictable than other situations.

I believe, for most adults, the emotional result from punishing a known murderer will be more satisfying than the emotional result from punishing a known innocent.

Locking up known murderers will make some of us feel safer (an emotional result which seems to be satisfying for many) than locking up known innocents.

(edit to add bold, I like the way bold quotes visually breaks up the post)

[Boojatta]

14. Kick

[edhopper]

15. You seem to think

That because atheist do do believe that good and evil are the embodiment of some super natural being or entity, that they think good and evil do not exist.
You premise is wrong.

[Critters2]

16. Scapegoats are usually chosen at random, with an explanation

arrived at after the fact. Pretending our system of "justice" is rational hides its real violence from us, and gives us a false sense of security.