[ show plain text ]
Pardon my lax syntax. What I intended to say about Q's argument as reported
by you leaves you and I in agreement.
Dr Michael Williams
Economics and Social Sciences
De Montfort University
fax: 0870 133 1147
[This message may be in html, and any attachments may be in MSWord 97. If
you have difficulty reading either, please let me know.]
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 7:26 PM
Subject: [OPE-L:2237] FW: Re: Statistical regularities
> > I have to say I'm confused as to the point Mike W is making here: in
> > response to my pointing out Quetelet's view
> > > that the regularities which he discovered implied that the agents were
> > under
> > > compulsion to carry out the acts involved: "society prepares the
> > crimes",
> > he
> > > said. Thus he argued that responsibility and punishment were
> > inappropriate
> > > categories in this connection.
> > Mike says
> > This is the standard rabid right wing argument against Hampstead
> > It is clearly a non sequitur: because we understand an act doesn't mean
> > that
> > we, individually or socially, must condone it. It may of course have a
> > bearing on what preventative regimes might be considered efficacious.
> > Does his first sentence refer to Q., or to Mike's second sentence? If
> > first, I'd have said most right-wingers were pretty hot on individual
> > responsibility.
> > If the second, I have to say that I've never felt persuaded by "tout
> > comprendre, tout pardonner" either -- rather the opposite, one suspects
> > some cases...
> > Julian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:08 EST