Why justice is bad.

Post Reply New Topic

...

Last edited by Verdandi on 24 Jan 2014, 3:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

I shouldn't have said "evidence disproving" I should have said "evidence against". I'm not sure one way or the other but some of the ideas are very compelling

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8058 ... chine.html
http://sams.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -impulses/

It's a very tough debate, even Einstein and Heisenberg differed on the subject.

I'm pointing out that changing the way someones mind is wired isn't like changing your cloths.

There are also many people looking into neuroscience and criminal justice.

here's one group http://www.lawneuro.org/
some more info http://www.luc.edu/criminaljustice/home ... uium.shtml

You can already look at the insanity plea. Not guilty by reason of insanity is essentially the legal ease for they didn't do it of there own free will. So what if there comes a time where we can look at someones brain and point the broken part that allowed them to commit murder or such?

...

Last edited by Verdandi on 24 Jan 2014, 3:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

A very common propaganda technique is to get a trusted spokesperson to define a groups psychology, so that the patriots and conformists help you marginalise the people who fall outside of your defined limits of belonging. Defining the attributes of the criminal mind seems like the same thing.

I am also weary of what governments and corporations will actually do with the research you mention. It's likely to have less to do with building a just society, and more to do with branding dissenters to dominant power structures as criminal so that they can be more efficiently eliminated. Similarly, it might be to expand profiteering off the criminalised underclass. There's just too much money tied up in the criminal justice system for it to lead to less crime.

I'd be interested to know who is funding the research.

Last edited by Stannis on 24 Jan 2014, 1:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ2cC7LHMxA[/youtube]

Like if you think it makes you clever or insightful to dismiss my views under the false assumption that I have no idea what I am talking about, you really should reconsider, because whatever my personal experience is (which is more than you assumed it was, and more than you're apparently willing to acknowledge now), I am not simply speaking from my own experience, but from information gathered from multiple sources. That's the wonderful thing about a world with writing and videos, that information can be recorded and transmitted to other people.

Anyway, I have never even tried to imply you're delusional, so I would appreciate the same courtesy in return. Or is your argument so weak you need to fall back on personal insults to claim any ground? I mean for someone who takes factually wrong positions and digs your heels in when challenged on them, it doesn't seem like you have a lot to go on.[/quote]

So in other words you are saying that the dog may or may not have taken a preplanned taxi trip uptown to see the guy, he may have planned it all just to go and shoot the s**t and listen to a total stranger talk and been his friend rather than just wanting food? What is it about dogs, exactly, that makes you think they want to hear you talk about anything? I'd just like to know. Cause I could lure a dog away from a Stephen Hawking lecture with a dead raccoon. Dogs have basic needs and being talked to isn't one of them. The dog knew the guy was a mark for food, he came there. That was it. It wasn't a FRIENDSHIP. It's sort of like a meth ho and a cook. She doesn't love him but she's with him anyway. Get it now? Possibly not. Either way. I know about dogs. Probably more than you do.

And why all the bowing up and all upset about personal insults? I didn't personally insult you in any way! I said your arguments are always this way. I did not say that I thought you were a whiney, self involved, crazy ass wannabe redeemer of society and that I thought you were too busy dealing with the problems of other people to deal with your own problems. That would have been a personal insult. I did not say that you were a harpy and would probably just die alone because you don't understand that people have different views and you have to tolerate them, like yours are tolerated. Not at all. That also, would have been a personal insult. I also did not say that the Buffy fandom is about the absoloute bottom of the fandom list and that even us Highlander fans are higher above it, even those of us who have participated in the Buffy/HL crossover! I did not. And I also didn't say that you are just basically a b***h and nobody that I know on here likes you. Know why I didn't say it? Because that would have been a personal insult. Therefore, I didn't say it. Now you have heard it. See the difference?

Probably not.

(Thread moved from Autism discussion to PPR as it seems to be less about autism and more about politics)

... and knock off the name calling / troll accusations.

Final warning, knock off the trollish rhetoric or the thread will be locked and/or warnings given.

The prison system is out to make money.Not to rehabilitate people,they won't come back if they go straight.My bio mom was a correctional officer,they kept an old dying man because if he got out ,he would not be back.All he wanted to do was spend time fishing with his grandkids before he died of cancer.But they would turn the gang bangers back out,because they will be back and more money can be made.And they get people hooked on the coffee in there,supposedly it's really good.
I have acquaintances that have done time there,and one south of the border,not because they are criminals,but because some laws are stupid.

I was in a 51/50 hold once would that make me a criminal?

The U.S. has a larger proportion of its population in prison than any other country and yet we're supposed to be the land of the free. Ha! It's like a bad joke.

One thing I'd like to see reformed is our policy on mug shots. Mug shots are taken before someone is convicted of a crime, but they immediately become public record. So even if you're found Not Guilty or your record is expunged, there are countless websites that charge you money to remove your name and face from their site. Otherwise, potential employers will see it and into the trash your application goes.

I think it is a mistake uncritically to use the word justice to refer solely to the criminal courts system.

To my way of thinking, justice is the fair, impartial and transparent application of the law to a dispute between parties.

But there are a number of elements that start to cloud that idea. Does justice evaluate the reasonableness of law (separate from the issue of legitimacy of law)? Is justice obliged to inquire into the interests of third parties (such as the interests of victims of crime)? Does the imposition of justice upon a criminal matter include control over the relationship between a convicted criminal and the corrections system, or does that relationship give rise to a separate set of justiciable interests?

Too often, it seems to me, overly simplistic politics has overwhelmed careful development of public policy--perhaps nowhere more than in the area of criminal law.