Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

[Coveny]

Intent is very important when it comes to prosecuting someone, but should that be enough to overcome giving advice that costs someone their lives? Day after day I see people posting articles against vaccination, or promoting cures for cancer that either do nothing or makes things worse. For this I’m going to assume these individuals believe they are giving good advice, and their intent is to help the individual they are giving the advice too.

For years, I’ve used this example. If I have a fly on my chest and your intent is to help me and kill the fly, but instead you kill me. This is an exaggeration, but the concept is still the same. Should good intent supersede harmful advice/action.

Just this year Michelle Carter was sentenced to two and half years for encouraging her boyfriend to kill himself. The law seems to finally be moving in the direction of the results rather than the intent.

So at what line do you believe anti-science need to cross before the intent can be ignored, and the individual is punished for the results?

[Area54]

That is an excellent question and a damnably tough one. A proper answer requires rational thought, but for many suppressing the associated emotion will be difficult. I shall follow this thread with interest to see what others think. I need to reflect on it more before forming even a provisional opinion.

(My subsconsious was doing a neat job of reflecting on it while I was typing and came up with this thought - "Whatever we do we must avoid the appearance or the reality of a witch hunt".)

Edit: I just noticed your location. I hope you get through Irma without incident.

Edited September 10, 2017 by Area54

[Ten oz]

Medical malpractice is a real thing and people are prosecuted. The diet/sport supplement industry gets a bit of a pass but there are still avenues to take them to court and what not. So to an extent there are already safe guards in place one simple must be determined to pursue them. I think part of the problem is that the intentions are dishonest most of the time. People know when they are thinking or feeling something that would not broadly be accepted or popular so they knowingly dress up their language and play with messaging in an attempt to get what they want. Those who argue against Climate Change and Evolution don't do so because they have considered the facts and are legitimately convienced the evidence isn't sufficient. Rather they simply don't care. So what if the weather changes and so what humans all came from Africa. They know their cynical apathy toward facts won't win an argument so they make stuff up and treat it like sport.

 

In my opinion at the tops of the anti vaccine movement there are a bunch of selfish sociopathic people who are simply enriching themselves and growing a brand off of what they know to be public manipulation. Religious ministers/pastors/preachers are a perfect model of how it works. No Preacher ever grows their church into a wealthy mega church by saying all is good in the world. No, they all point made up evils in society and speak of looming armageddon. They say the economy is bad because homsexuals are allowed to marry or that crime is up because of abortion. dissatisfaction and anger is easier to sell than contemptment. For every market there is a counter market. People look to fill a niche. 

 

Educating people is all that can be done. In a free country the Govt represents the people and as such generally is no more educated or knowledgeable than the average person. So I personally wouldn't trust Govt to have the final say when it comes to science. We just have to hoope society continues to improve and logic wins the day.

[John Cuthber]

11 hours ago, Coveny said:

...

For years, I’ve used this example. If I have a fly on my chest and your intent is to help me and kill the fly, but instead you kill me. This is an exaggeration, but the concept is still the same. Should good intent supersede harmful advice/action.

...

Well, if they use their hand to brush off the fly, it's a non-issue.

If they use fly spray- and unfortunately, you are allergic and it kills you- that's just bad luck. There's no culpability.

But the law recognises the concept of "recklessness"

Using a hammer (which he happened to have in his hand because he was putting up a picture) to remove the fly...

would be reckless.

Using a gunshot would lead to a court deciding whether or not they believed that the "intent" was to act in your best interest by removing the fly, or if the intent was actually murder.

 

I believe that, in some notable cases  (of snake oil salesmen and religious nutters) the events are somewhere between the hammer and the gun- the only question is what crime should we prosecute for.

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, Coveny said:

Intent is very important when it comes to prosecuting someone, but should that be enough to overcome giving advice that costs someone their lives? Day after day I see people posting articles against vaccination, or promoting cures for cancer that either do nothing or makes things worse. For this I’m going to assume these individuals believe they are giving good advice, and their intent is to help the individual they are giving the advice too.

2

The intent is the line in the sand, ignorance is forgivable, deception is less so.

[Coveny]

On the point of Michelle Carter what if her intention to end his suffering? There are numerous cases where assisted suicide and mercy killings were prosecuted. Also with Michelle there is the aspect of free speech. How many times have you heard someone say something like “you should kill yourself” or wishing some form of death on another person. So, was the amount or persuasiveness of those statements that caused her to go to jail? Is it ok to say “The world would be a better place without you” once or twice… but at three times … that’s just too much? Or maybe it’s too much when you start listing their failures or maybe even how the world would be a better place without them, or that pain would end. And what about the type of pain as well? Pain from a breakup vs pain from a terminal illness are different situations.

 

Also, when there are accepted best practices and they aren’t followed we have no problem prosecuting people like Medical Malpractice. I think everyone agrees Doctors intentions is good but the results were bad and cost someone their life. Generally, though it’s only a loss of money, and takes repeated offenses before the doctor loses their license and no they are no longer able to practice medicine. There are rarely criminal charges brought against them, and they don’t serve any time in jail even if they are the cause of multiple people’s deaths. So, there is some precedence that recklessness and stupidity led to people going to jail regardless of intent.

 

But how incompetent, misguided, stupid, or reckless do you need to be? Does anyone have suggestions or ideas on where those lines should be drawn?

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, Coveny said:

 

But how incompetent, misguided, stupid, or reckless do you need to be? Does anyone have suggestions or ideas on where those lines should be drawn?

They are drawn on a case by case basis by society at large. In Democracies that is how it works. Enough a strong enough contingency of the population feels a certain those feelings typically are get treated with respect whether they are correct or not. It is not a perfect solution but the alternatives tend to come with more opportunity for abuse. Ultimately we need society to be as well educated as possible. 

[Coveny]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

They are drawn on a case by case basis by society at large. In Democracies that is how it works. Enough a strong enough contingency of the population feels a certain those feelings typically are get treated with respect whether they are correct or not. It is not a perfect solution but the alternatives tend to come with more opportunity for abuse. Ultimately we need society to be as well educated as possible. 

Each case's merit is based on something, something that we as a society haven't been able to fully define and that's what this debate is about. If you prefer I can follow you down the rabbit hole and ask why it this case is handled this way, or that case is handled that way? It still comes back to the lines that are drawn, and where they are drawn.

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, Coveny said:

Each case's merit is based on something, something that we as a society haven't been able to fully define and that's what this debate is about. If you prefer I can follow you down the rabbit hole and ask why it this case is handled this way, or that case is handled that way? It still comes back to the lines that are drawn, and where they are drawn.

As perviously stated society decides and society doesn't speak with a unified or often times even an experienced voice. In a society morals and accepted standards of behavior change. That is how we go from women not being able to vote to women candidates or child labor to no child labor. That requires a society which is able to assess and reassess at will. Often the more firmly some is put into law or argued to be law the more collateral Political visceral contempt it creates. Just look at the 2nd admendment.