Cheeso wrote:
hito wrote:
1. I don't know if any deductively valid argument can be made for Polanski going to jail.
He's a convicted felon. He fled justice. Felony is a crime punishable by imprisonment.
No one can or has made a deductively valid argument to refute those facts.
if you included the rest of my post "nobody will make a watertight case unless everyone becomes absolutists when it comes to jailing criminals". You and many people obviously are an absolutist when it comes to jail.
As I said earlier, for many people there are four things to consider: reform, retribution, restraint and deterrent. Read the earlier posts for the discussion about this.
So, if you ignore those four principles and are an absolutist then for your argument to be deductively valid it would have to be:
- He's a convicted felon
- All felons must go to jail
therefore
- He must go to jail
premise 1 is true
premise 2 is not always true and some would not accept such a strict premise
therefore
the conclusion is not deductively valid
There is an outstanding US warrant and an outstanding international warrant for his arrest. The charges were not dropped, conviction not overturned, warrants still outstanding. Unless those change, there is no reason not to bring him in.
