That is indeed my point -- 'we' (society, or our laws) often recognize that whether or not a person actively intends malice is not always the determinative question, especially if they're killing people or hurting people in certain ways.
I don't know why you think I would disagree with this, then. I mean I assume you do since you keep snarking about the "malice" thing, but you're going after totally the wrong issue.
I will admit to some snark here, though I'd argue that it seems at least like you are disagreeing with this. Per Dunasmisdeos's point, I'm focusing more here on the immigration aspect of this debate with the executing of possible criminals as a 'mere' hypothetical aside.
You're right. To state that the detention center were made miserable as deterence and that isn't malicious is also fucked, though. Because if making it bad so people stop coming is a solution, then why not just let them roam free, because that's pretty bad, too.
I think we fundamentally disagree on what "malice" means. To me, malice means WANTING people to suffer; if you feel that you need to make a credible threat of suffering in order to prevent people from doing something, and you accept the possibility that you may have to carry out that threat, that is not malicious — even if you're wrong.
To supply a concrete example, I would absolutely shoot a trespasser and I know people who have. I do not want people to trespass on my property, therefore I do not want to have to shoot a trespasser, but if it came down to it I would. I do not think this qualifies as malice against potential trespassers, since, if people do not trespass and thus do not get shot, I'm perfectly happy with that outcome.
The question I'm indirectly snarking around is: at what level of a "credible threat of suffering in order to prevent people from doing something" does the question of actual malice no longer matter? The forced sterilizations/hysterectomies, if they occurred, could arguably creep into that territory. When you have
facilities with suicide and ongoing attempted suicide amidst heavy use of solitary confinement, lack of medical care, and other issues,
combined with the family separation policy, it does become eyebrow raising at the least. Note that the scope of the linked document goes back into the Obama era, so this isn't solely a Trump problem - but the latter's administration actively worked to make things worse.
I mean, this was how the
leaked internal memo described the policy:
Announce that DHS is considering separating family units, placing the adults in adult detention, and placing the minors under the age of 18 in the custody of HHS as unaccompanied minor children (UACs) because the minors will meet the definition of "unaccompanied alien child"
That is, actively using a loophole to mass-send kids to facilities they know are underequipped to handle things. While DHS ultimately denied ever having a policy, the above is indeed what they actually did under the zero tolerance approach.
And, on the topic of coyotes, note that the internal comments on the memo note a
lack of policy consideration towards better enforcement on that front. Instead the short term options are all about
intentionally increasing UAC detainees.
(There's also the logical debate over whether one can realy deny one doesn't want someone to suffer in a particular way when you set up a punishment to a crime you know will occur, to a person who likely doesn't know the specific punishment to begin with. That punishment is desired in one form or another, and at some level policymakers have to take responsibility for it.)
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4223712 times)