stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Comparison of collective punishment and... "generalized offenses" or "collective v...
Collective punishment is punishing a group for the actions, offenses, or violations of an individual in that group. It is unjustifiable and fails to recognize individuality. While often times groups of individuals can all be guilty of violations or offenses, they must each be charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced individually based on their individual actions.
Generalized offenses are like collective punishment, but instead of the collection being one of individuals which might actually contain a mix of guilty and innocent, or more and less guilty, generalized offenses are collections of actions which might sometimes be a legitimate offense, but aren’t always and can’t be assumed to be such, by mere fact that they are categorically similar to an action that is a legitimate offense.
Generalized offenses punish actors for an action which is placed into a collection and treated the same as all other actions in that collection whether the individual action in question rises to the level of legitimate offense or not, just by virtue of the fact it categorically fits in the collection. Generalized offenses are unjustifiable for many of the same reasons that collective punishment is unjustifiable.
For instance, an action which is usually a legitimate offense, say drunk driving, might be turned into a generalized offense so that all instances of drunk driving are collectively punished without consideration of whether or not the specific instance of drunk driving actually violated or endangered another person.
--------
I was just thinking about this. Thoughts?
Collective punishment is punishing a group for the actions, offenses, or violations of an individual in that group. It is unjustifiable and fails to recognize individuality. While often times groups of individuals can all be guilty of violations or offenses, they must each be charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced individually based on their individual actions.
Generalized offenses are like collective punishment, but instead of the collection being one of individuals which might actually contain a mix of guilty and innocent, or more and less guilty, generalized offenses are collections of actions which might sometimes be a legitimate offense, but aren’t always and can’t be assumed to be such, by mere fact that they are categorically similar to an action that is a legitimate offense.
Generalized offenses punish actors for an action which is placed into a collection and treated the same as all other actions in that collection whether the individual action in question rises to the level of legitimate offense or not, just by virtue of the fact it categorically fits in the collection. Generalized offenses are unjustifiable for many of the same reasons that collective punishment is unjustifiable.
For instance, an action which is usually a legitimate offense, say drunk driving, might be turned into a generalized offense so that all instances of drunk driving are collectively punished without consideration of whether or not the specific instance of drunk driving actually violated or endangered another person.
--------
I was just thinking about this. Thoughts?