From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:34:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.233140.5409@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.135634.23822@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>}>}why shouldn't they be treated equally?
>}>
>}>Because pregnancy is often chosen, whereas disease is rarely by choice.
>}>
>}
>}Its interesting you would say this after the argument you were in about
>}abortion a few weeks ago.
>
>Another good point.  I've been trying to get you to accomodate the fact
>that pregnancy can be accidental, or chosen.  I can see the possibility for
>having accidental pregnany treated like any other accident, but not one that
>was chosen.
>

	It appears I asked this question to you twice.  In the my last
post (might end up being a few back) I asked it again.  Sorry, ignore it
there.  Problem of splitting up posts <g>.

>}>I did think of another possible position: pemitting juries to define the
>}>immediateness of a threat by their consciences in cases where women killed
>}>their husband-batterers, rather than having a definition shoved down their
>}>throat by the judge.
>}
>}Perhaps a jury selection system has gotten really bad.
>
>This isn't a problem with jury selection, but with the rules of evidence.
>Juries have the right and power to admit and interpret evidence, not the
>judges or other parties to a case.  One juror I read about in the SF Examiner
>wanted to vote to acquit, but was instructed by the judge to narrowly
>interpret the immediacy of danger.  She later changed her mind, and is
>working to get the woman she voted to convict released.
>

	Might be true.  I hope, that it is legal system that has destroyed
juries and not that they are intrinsically incompetent.  I've gotta say
that the rules of evidence do strike me as crazy.

>But everyone I
>}know who has seen the jurys at work was unimpressed.  The general feeling
>}of lwayers.... Is that jurys seem to be little better than descision by
>}craps, or some equally fair method.  This is a whole nother topic though.
>
>Yes, it is another topic.  Frankly, the system is rigged to produce poor
>juries.  Attorneys can get intelligent people dismissed, and they tend to
>do so.  They can get "prejudicial" evidence barred, as if jurors were
>presumed incompetent to interpret it.  Jurors aren't told that they have
>the right, power, and duty to nullify the law if unjust de jure or in
>application according to their conscience.
>

	Well, start a topic on this.  Maybe we can get a lawyer to defend
the system as it stands.  

>}	As for the legal argument, the victums of this crime (woman) want
>}to see the penalty radically increased.  Seeing as their ones under your
>}scenerio who would be taking the risk of getting murdered; I can't see why
>}their views on this matter shouldn't count heavily.
>
>Which crime are you talking about?  Marital homicide by battered women?
>

	Split post.  We were talking about rasing the penalty of rape, and
you responded this would increase the cance of murder, so I responded with
the above.

>}>}A typo, I meant, "no fault divorce".
>}>
>}>All right, what's this, and what's unlibertarian about it?
>}
>}Basically originally when two people got divorced, it was because one of
>}them, or possibly both had broken their marriage vows.  The division of
>}the estate, and alimony differed wildly depending on who was at fault.  No
>}fault divorce attempted to end on this, and say that divorces were
>}everybody's fault.  The estate gets split up evenly.  Basically nuder no
>}fault its almost impossible to prove you were wronged.
>}	A good analogy would be no fault auto laws.  Imagine if the
>}governemt declared that when an accident occured, both parties were at
>}fault unless one of them was parked at the time.  Basically woman think
>}that no fault divorce has hurt their standard of living.  Many want to
>}return to the old system.
>
>Sounds about right to me.  As a private contract, breach of contract should
>be actionable, and the offender should be liable for damages.
>

	Ok, there we go.  that's 8 out 14 now.  You see what I mean with
feminism and Lib. being much more compatable than people think.

>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

--JMB



Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian