В заголовках новостей этого часа

[birdwatcher]

Blooomberg: Федеральное правительство наняло столько народу для обработки результатов переписи населения, что изменило ситуацию с занятостью населения.

ibid.: на месте преступления -- при попытке вылететь в Египет двумя различными рейсами -- задержаны двое любителей Востока. Им предъявлены обвинения в занятиях физкультурой и игре в пейнтбол. Арестованным угрожает пожизненное заключение.

Comments

[bbb.livejournal.com]

От того, что вы выделили слово imminent жирным шрифтом, оно не перестало быть именно той самой субъективной оценкой, о которой столько говорилось в уже пройденной цепочке. Таким образом, все упирается в, так сказать, степень этой самой imminence - и я уверен, что вы не хуже меня понимаете, как абсурдно было бы пытаться проводить заранее заданную границу, типа, 75 процентов неизбежности дают нам состав преступления, а с 74 процентами человека объявляют невиновным.

[averros.livejournal.com]

I would think there's not a single reasonable person who would consider talking big and intending to participate in training exercises to be an imminent threat.

This kind of activities may justify increased surveilance and watchfulness, but that's about it.

It's kind of funny to see how people torture and twist the meaning of words to fit their preconceived notions, isn't it? "Imminent" means something which is going to happen very soon. Going to a traning camp meant that these two weren't going to do anything anytime soon.

If ever. More likely than not that couple would learn that they're expected to blow themselves into bits - for real - and would slink back to the land where TP is soft and people are nice - to never again entertain the thought of becoming terrorists. The reality is quite different from romantic fantasies, and the glory of terrorism is something so impressively aggrandized by the Western TV. Nothing kills a romantic fantasy better than trying to live it.

In any case I find the whole notion of pre-crime highly dubious and very clearly distinct from the notion of self-defense against imminent threat. Subjectivity of the boundary doesn't mean there isn't any difference.

[bbb.livejournal.com]

Наверно, вы не заметили, что я старался отойти от обсуждения конкретного эпизода в сторону общей идеи подготовки к преступлению как части собственно преступления.

[averros.livejournal.com]

Generalization is generally meaningless. That's why there's a need for courts and the reasonableness and impartiality standard for judges and juries.

Libertarian legal approach does not consist of trying to codify everything (if anything, codifying is a statist game), but rather in lying down general principles (i.e. proportionality of punishment to crime aka lex talonis, the principle of restitutory justice rather than punitive, deterring, reformatory, etc) and to allow competition between local interpretations of these general principles (aka "polycentric law") by allowing competition for provision of justice.

It means that circumstances of every particular case have to be considered before an opinion could be formed. Additionally, libertarian legal system does not have consistency as its goal - so it is quite possible that different judges will arrive to different conclusions in same circumstances (consistency is a foolish idea anyway - the desire for uniformity and consistency produces serious legal hobgoblins like people serving life for stealing a gumstick - not an uncommon occasion in CA, by the way).

Basically, what libertarian legal theory is about is rough consensus on what constitutes crime, with borderline cases considered on case by case basis by impartial judges who are expected to ground their reasoning in the general principles. It's all about upholding spirit rather than the letter of the law.