Justice

Post Reply New Topic

All right Mr. Mustard!

How do you know someone in a court room is lying or not?

The anwser is cross-examining.
Yet even that is fool proof.

In cybernetic technology, there might be a way that we can find out what people are thinking.
This is the ultimate in infringing on our privacy rights.
Should this be achieved on the quest for truth?

Knowledge is very important. If such a technology exists then it should be used. A small loss of privacy rights is better than punishing a person who does not deserve it.

I think there are diminishing returns on security. If we're at the point where we can punish most crimes while maintaining peoples' rights, is it really worth it to go reading minds?

If we had that kind of technology, why stop there? We could be even safer if we just screen everybody who has potentially violent thoughts, and remove them from society. Or we could read everyone's thoughts all the time and prevent whatever devious behavior someone should have in mind...

Tolerance is a two-way street, if you want to live in a free society, you have to be prepared to let a little vice slip through. Not that we should be lawless, but there needs to be restriction on authority (why we have a bill of rights).

Well, if we had that technology we could use it for good purposes. Just removing people with potentially violent thoughts would be bad for the economy because it would reduce the amount of labor available, it would quite possibly make people feel less safe because punishment for thought crime seems arbitrary because there is no physical action, it might reduce the amount of good leaders and entrepreneurs we have because many successful males have high levels of testosterone and testosterone can be linked with criminal behavior, the use of this technology could give the state too much power over the economy leading to stagnation, and would basically be economically inefficient due to how it would weaken independent action.

The way to use this technology that would seem economically efficient to me would be to use it in court cases (this would reduce costs for courts), to be used on military prisoners (interrogation and information without the political repercussions or difficulty of torture), it would be an excellent tool for psychological research (assuming that more has to be done in that field, we do already have a mind reader), maybe even education in order to make sure students understand the material, and possibly private markets provided that there are regulations for its use in businesses and that it is easy enough to use that it presents no risk yet is difficult enough to used that the subject must be restrained or willing. It could be a good tool for worried parents to use on their children or possibly couples trying to understand each other better or something of that nature.

Actually, it might also be a good tool in the hands of the government provided that it was not used in a 1984 terrorize the populace and perfect mind control type of way. If we could do effective central planning then this would be the ultimate way to do it. We could control the minds of the populace through rewards and punishment, we could effectively create a utopia by preventing any attempts to do harm from happening through discouragement. Heck, this technology might be able to create a centrally planned economy that actually works and outproduces capitalism. Mind-reading allows the government to continually provide incentives for hard work and use people to their maximum ability. Although there is a risk that we would create a nightmare in the end if there is a benefit to be gained then it will be done by someone, it is better that we do it with good intentions rather than let some foreign dictator use it and supercharge his economy into a monster that devours us all.

I recently read a book that addresses this called The Road to Serfdom by Freidrich Hayek. The main point was that we can't create a planned utopia because once we give that level of power to an authority, however benevolent its intentions, it will abuse its power simply because it can. He uses the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy as examples. Communism has as its aims some noble ideas, but communist regimes went to any means to acheive those ends and only ever managed to leave their people in poverty.



Actually, this was one of the driving rationales behind Mussolini's Fascist movement. He argued that industry needed to be corpoatised (organised into state-sanctioned and controlled monpolies) in order to protect against the threat of communism. The idea that we should accept a slightly less totalitarian or somehow more benevolent absolute authority is ridiculous. Furthermore, the idea that said foreign dictator would be able to "supercharge" his economy is doubtful as command economies are almost never more efficient.

Would We have the right to use technology, to see and screen somebody brain for potentially violent thoughts and remove them from society. Why not go further with this technology, and be able to change the brain, so they would not have these violent thoughts or tendencies toward violence then in the end.

Well, the Communists did make the Soviet Union the 2nd superpower and were able to keep that up long enough for the cold war. Now it may be true that the Soviet Union was never as powerful as the USA but then the USA always had the advantage and the Soviet Union was a backwards state that was trying to assert itself in the world. The failure of the Soviet Union was partially because they were a weaker country trying to take on a stronger country. Also, I would not say that all central authority is to be feared, central authority can be dangerous and needs to be watched for corruption but the important thing is that power consolidations are not allowed within the government. Some form of checking and balancing needs to exist. However, you are right, abuse does often happen in those systems and probably could not be avoided without some level of openness within the system. People look out for their own best interests and so long as people feel that a system is working and it is doing well against its competition then it is a good system

You are right that central planning generally is not more efficient but we are dealing with a technology that can read the problems of the people. Central planners tend to lack the ability to incentize people effectively or to respond to their demands effectively either but it is not like some levels of central planning have not been successful, Germany before WW2 was able to pull off its own economic gloriousness through cleverness and this country that was suffering horribly from depression became a formidable power that was able to fight a massive war against many enemies, of course they lost to the US, we were stronger than they were. However, a technology that can detect what people want could definitely be used to supercharge an economy, especially with a good propaganda system. Such a technology could very likely be used to get the most out of people while giving them the least in an economic sense and still might be able to leave them happy. Economies become powerful by what they produce and production is created by labor both manual and thoughtwise as well. A person who is working his hardest for a goal that he believes in will be very productive, the guy who invented the AK-47 was working out of patriotism and was never economically rewarded. Mind readers could allow for a high level of production from the masses which is something that Communism cannot inspire and it would be able to detect problems within its systems well as well. Besides, my point was not how benevolent we would be but simply because I want to beat the other guy.

Yes, a technology that could read minds and detect violent impulses could be used to get rid of them. However, I would prefer to control the violent impulses, we will still have a need for armed forces to protect national interests and the like. However, the power of such a tool could seriously bring about utopia if used correctly, if used incorrectly it would bring about great horrors, but one way or another it would be used and most likely would be a tool for control by some powerful group.

I think if we figure out why people have violent tendencies, we can prevent it.
One reason is survival, and that is tough to get rid of.

For an example of true justice, I pick...

Batman!

I am not being sarcastic at all. Batman Begins had many great examples of justice.
The difference between being a vigilante and a hero.

Mithrandir

Justice is Justice even Batman had Justice did that make His Justice better or not? For what Justice in a World that We Live in to Day. What makes this World Just? We have a lot yet to learn what makes Justice and what is Justice in this World do We not. Maybe Batman did it right in the end but did He do it right in the end. That is My Question to You.

The reason is because Batman in the ideal sense is cool. His character persona is similar to that of Locke (FF3) or Indiana Jones, John Kelly, and Jack Bauer.

He is honost to himself. He is uncorruptable. Finally he saves people because it needs to be done. He has little of a hidden agenda. I call him the ultimate in a Justice philanthropist.

I like the character because Batman shows the extent of humanity. We can achieve this!
He doesn't have any special powers or achieved a certain state "by accident."
He planned did everything himself (and some Jujitsu/Ninjistu training).

What is your pick for the ultimate ideal in justice?
I want some names for the poll.

Probably the world most famous executioner, the King's executioner, Britains longest serving "hangman", the late, Albert Pierrepoint, turned out against the death penalty late in life and has seen his life's work as unproductive. He believed that the threat of execution hadnt prevented one murder.

More to the point he has hanged several people that have since been posthumanely proved innocent of the crimes they were accused of. I have no doubt that a percentage of the people been executed/murdered today by the countries and states that have capital punishment are and were innocent but continue to be killed as a way of bloodthirst and as a tool against political opposition. Apparently 85% of the world's population live in such states. This is completely unnacceptable to me.

The problem that ones that kill really don't care for themselve or others.

I'm sorry for making my first post in this thread so late in coming, but I've had an interest in crime/violent criminals for a long time now (a very morbid interest I know ) and just wanted to throw in a couple things here.
I really don't think that to prevent crime and prosecute criminals that mind-reading or mind control would be necessary (at least I hope not ). Forensic science, criminal profiling, and criminal psychology have improved greatly and are continuing to improve and have made great contributions to both law enforcement and our understanding of the nature of criminals. Thanks to improved techniques and technology, forensic scientists can solve crimes accurately using the tiniest and most minute pieces of evidence, such as human and animal hair, fibers, or tiny drops of blood. Also, most criminals, particularily violent ones, generally do not act in a random or chaotic fashion-their behavior follows clear patterns, and this is what makes criminal profiling work.

Actually, it may very well be possible to prevent the brain from developing in a way that makes a person violent in the first place. Research has shown that most if not all of violent criminals are made rather than born. Abuse, neglect, and/or trauma that occurs in early life as the brain is developing can cause the brainstem, the part of the brain responsible for aggression, to enlarge, and the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for controlling our impulses and inhibiting our behavior, to fail to develop fully. Later in their childhood, they will show certain traits, in particular a combination of three traits known as the homicidal triad: bedwetting, fire-starting, and cruelty to animals or other children. These traits should serve as a serious warning to parents and members of the community that the child needs serious help and intervention (whether or not they are already too far gone by this point I'm not sure, but it couldn't hurt). This has big implications for our society: we can prevent violent crime, although not necessarily in the ways we might think. Once the person has already become a serious offender, it's too late and they must be kept out of society, so time in jail or at a mental institution isn't going to work to prevent crime any further than doing simply that-that is, it's often not going to rehabilitate them (serious criminals like serial killers and serial rapists, I mean) and it's not going to work as a deterrent. Trying to use the death penalty as a deterrent isn't going to work, because the compulsion to kill is much stronger than any fear of punishment they might have-and this would almost certainly still be the case no matter how swift or sever the punishment was-and some of them believe they would never get caught anyway (these are the types that enjoy playing games with police or the media). But ending the cycle of abuse and neglect and making improvements in child services would. Learning to recognize the warning signs of future violent behavior would. As far as gang violence goes, that could probably be prevented too, by fixing up failing schools, reducing/ending poverty, and creating more opportunities for recreation in areas that don't have many. The use of jail time or the dealth penalty as a deterrent is pretty ineffective here too I think-they're already at very high risk for getting killed on the street, why would they care if they get killed in jail? I honestly can't understand why we are all so obsesssed with punishment rather than prevention. Of course punishment is important, but it's often not going to bring crime rates down and prevent crime, and a lot of the preventative measures would simultaneously solve other serious problems as well, and save quite a bit of money in the long term. It's a win-win situation.

Good one Midge!
Forensic science is really cool, I remember studying it long before the first episode of CSI came out.

Do we still want the poll to remain?
I was wanting to make it into examples of justice (for example: comic book heroes).