Interesting. So you might have some sort of adjudication function, and then a person advocating on behalf, and also a person advocating in opposition of the, let’s just call them “defending person,” and maybe you try to in that way recognize and account for the particularities of each individual’s circumstances and the thing that they’re accused of?
And if the rest of your community was in favor, you would accept that this is how the community has decided to do it and, ignoring all else, it is not an unreasonable, even if not preferable to you personally, system?
Fair enough. How would you deal with the most dangerous members of society?
I take everything on a case by case basis. people have unique circumstances.
Interesting. So you might have some sort of adjudication function, and then a person advocating on behalf, and also a person advocating in opposition of the, let’s just call them “defending person,” and maybe you try to in that way recognize and account for the particularities of each individual’s circumstances and the thing that they’re accused of?
i would oppose such a system in my community, but I don’t presume to tell others how they should deal with problems in their own communities.
And if the rest of your community was in favor, you would accept that this is how the community has decided to do it and, ignoring all else, it is not an unreasonable, even if not preferable to you personally, system?
I advocate for consent and consensus. I would oppose such a system vocally, and persistently.