Peterkin

Courts of law are not concerned with "the soul". They should, however, be concerned with the aim. Why should we note this? Um... coz it might be relevant to the self-defense plea?

No, it doesn't, at all. Knives, sticks, baseball bats, tire irons can all do damage. But only to one person at a time, and at very close quarters, so that the victim - unless you sneak up on him from behind, has a chance to defend himself and bystanders have a chance to disarm the attacker. The carrying of such weapons may be interpreted as defensive. Projectile weapons kill from a distance, unexpectedly. A pistol may be carried for the purpose of self-defense - plausibly by someone who expects to be robbed or attacked. A rifle is useless at close quarters, or when one fears a possible attack from an unknown direction. A rifle is a hunting weapon; an assault rifle is an attack weapon. The carrying of a long gun can be interpreted as defensive only by the most prejudiced and purblind of judges.

That's the only part I disagree with. Owning an assault rifle is illegal. Carrying it is illegal. Both are indictable offenses, but neither, by itself, constitutes intent to kill or wound a person. Interpreting law is more about context than any other single factor. Bringing a gun to the annual deer-slaughter is fine; if getting into an altercation with another hunter results in one of them shooting the other, the charge may only be manslaughter (mandatory 7 years), while shooting an unarmed householder on whose land they were trespassing would be a lot more serious. Bringing it to a protest or political rally in a city would be a very bad idea.... for now. There are those here who would have more like there. https://ipolitics.ca/2020/09/10/dont-bring-your-guns-marchers-warned-before-hill-protest-against-firearm-ban/

It would make him guilty of carrying a gun. The kind of gun, whether he had a permit for it, and where and how he was carrying it would determine what else he might or might not be guilty of. The kind of gun he had is automatically subject to criminal proceedings: no civilian is allowed to walk around with them, period. (Seems reasonable to me.) What he did with it would put him away for fourteen years, minimum. I don't think the self defence bs would hold up for thirty seconds in a Canadian court. But then, judges are not by popular choice, and juries really are the peers of both accused and victim. The second part, I know from personal experience of jury duty.

Moral standards are socially determined; moral guidance is given to the young by their elders in every kind of social organization. It's not only not restricted to god-fearing people, or people who have some kind of shared supernatural/spiritual belief - it's not even restricted to humans. Catholics have a moral system; atheists have one; Vikings had one; the Khoikhoi of precolonial Africa had one. Parents, grandparents, elders, preachers and teachers pass the principles of their society's standard of behaviour on to the young - through lessons, example, punishment, assignment, reward, songs, exercises - but mostly stories. Moral systems are not made by science or religion; religions and sciences are guided and informed by the moral systems in which they operate.

Yesterday, I noticed that a big full moon is directly across from my bedroom window at 4am. I expected to watch the eclipse from bed. Today I discovered that I cannot see through a thick layer of snow-cloud and don't care enough about eclipses to get up and watch it on the computer.

Yes.

Only because I see little hope of changing what we have for what we ought to have.

Some aspects of society were better during the cold war era, and some aspects were worse. Show us yours first.

Be careful about that! While hindsight is said to be 20/20, it's also coloured by corrective lenses.

I believe I addressed some of your suggestions on or about Page 1, and I dislike repetition. Okay, that's an issue, rather than an anecdote. You have a problem with the criminal justice system. So do I, particularly parole boards, and for a number or reasons. I'm also aware of some of the difficulties in the way of reform. 1. Sympathy is not essential to rehabilitation: counselling, job-training, supervision and gradual reintegration are. If done well, even with limited resources, it is successful to some degree. Not trying is 100% guaranteed to fail. 2. I can't see a net gain in treating all violators of every law harshly. That's how we got people clogging up the prisons for 5 or 10 years, because they were caught with a baggie of marijuana (or had it planted on them by police, which is not unheard-of) or resisted having their heads busted by police in a protest. This caused a severe strain on the prison system, and various half-assed efforts to abbreviate sentences for property crime, or make alternative to custodial arrangements for non-violent first offenders, etc. Some of those efforts were successful; some failed; a few backfired. Several factors must be considered when investigating the reason. One reason for different outcomes was the way sentencing was mandated and the protocol whereby decisions were made, and even, I'm sorry to say, magistrates' prejudices and self-interest. Another factor is the community's reaction to having a delinquent in its midst. A good deal of the difference in outcomes is uneven resource distribution. At the center of every situation are two major factors: social attitude and money. 3. By thrown back into the face, you mean a criminal goes on being criminal despite efforts to rehabilitate him or her. Fair enough; recidivism is a fact. So is a percent of intractable psychopathy and sociopathy, that goes unrecognized. This is true of prison populations as well as the population at large. You have, several times, advocated "lock them up and throw away the key." The problem with that 'solution' is you can't just throw away the key, unless it's to a crypt. In a prison, the key is entrusted to human beings, who are tasked with protecting society from the inmates, the inmates from another, the inmates from society, themselves and their families from the inmates, and their friends and families. They spend their working shifts inside a prison, in the same atmosphere as their charges. What’s the psychological cost of that work? What toll does it take on the custodians’ home and social life? They’re fallible human beings, capable of forming personal attachments, falling under influences, losing control of their tempers, enacting private agendas and exercising favouritism, being tempted by bribes or intimidated by threats. It’s a fragile system, at best; the more complicated, the more subject to unforeseen stress and error. Enlarging it is fraught with hazard. Privatization is courting disaster. As things stand, a large percentage of American citizens are already living the half-life of ex convicts – never fully a citizen again – which is one major factor in recidivism and disaffection. To me, it seems the wrong direction. Whatever reforms of the penal system might yield better results than past or current practice, the penal mentality seems as incorrigible as hardened career felons. If prevention is not a made priority and given the forethought, social organization, early intervention and resources it requires, then reform is the best you can hope for. Toughening, relaxing, amending, tweaking, plugging – not entirely useless, but not very effective, either. If you want a 100% reassurance that a lawbreaker will never re-offend, bring back hanging for petty theft from age 8 up - kill 'em before they can do any real harm. If you want a better justice system, keep trying one idea after another, developing and refining methods that work, dropping the ones that fail and trying something else. Harping endlessly on failure does nobody any good – it certainly does not help past victims or protect potential future victims.

You will also, quite evidently keep dredging up this one horrific crime on which you seem to be fixated, and I will continue to address the issue, as rather than the case you keep quoting as if it were the only example. If you wanted to discuss the theory and practice of parole as it relates to the dispensation of justice in general, I'm willing to do that. If you just want to keep citing this particular failure of the parole system, without addressing the principle, purpose, board selection and statistical results of parole in various social contexts, go ahead; I have nothing to add to it.

No, I didn't. I said taking advantage of the imperfect prevaling system, whether on the scale of personal crime or a world war, is not justice. No part of justice = it is not an example of the concept or practice of justice.

I didn't forget; I just don't think it's any part of justice. Taking advantage of the system is how drug traffickers get rich enough to build gambling palaces in Los Vegas; how DJ Trump got away with massive tax fraud and became president.

That's right. Wherever in society they are, whatever their rank or station, whether their antisocial acts are on the scale of isolated outbursts of violence, protracted calculated cruelty or genocide, once humans become incorrigible, they cannot be corrected - not even by pretending that 'they' are a different species from 'us'.

Can you define the exact borders of "humanity"? This 4% of the population is too good to be human; that 12% is too emotional; this 1% is intellectually or artistically superhuman; that 27% is criminal.... Or, the lines could be drawn around other criteria: ethnicity, geography, political bias, or anything you want. No. Humanness is biologically determined. It's not a matter of choosing up sides: that's where xenophobia and objectification begin and justice becomes a vacant idea. Humanity comes in a range of temperaments and traits; exists in a variety of conditions and environments. As a social species, we simple have to find ways of dealing with our diversity.

Okay. Google knows everybody. It might be a good idea if you elaborated on the topic in your OP. Otherwise, you might not have much response.

What kind of assignment? What is it supposed to accomplish? Where does the questionnaire come from? Why does it have my email address? I'm none too pleased about that last one BTW. Makes me wonder whether it's safe to open any posted links.

Very, very big of your. Pass. I'm content with my minuscule status.

Please, let us not each tell what the other "really means".

A truth is not The truth. People often get confused about that. Not saying you are - just, you know, unspecified "people".

You know that quote is neither from religion nor science, but fiction. Science is not primarily aimed at eliminating fear. In fact, it very often engenders fear, both rational and irrational The driving motivation to science is curiosity; its central purpose is the solving of practical problems through the understanding of materials and forces, which leads to the ability to manipulate those materials and forces in order to accomplish some pragmatic end desired by humans. The main aim of science is mastery over the natural world. Similarly, religion engenders fear and makes threats (damnation, hellfire, stoning, shunning) as much as it offers comforts and promises of rewards (guidance, healing, forgiveness, eternal life). Its driving motivation is to define man's a relationship with the spirit world, and through communication and appeasement, influence those unseen entities. It's main aim is mastery of the supernatural.

What makes me 'seem' to think that? Totalitarianism wears whatever label gets it into power. Miltarism, xenophobia, rigid class hierarchy and persecution of minorities can exist under any banner, any proclaimed ideology - even if the regime loudly protests its dedication to a democratic or egalitarian ideal, even holds 'elections' with all the trappings, the reality underneath can be quite different. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47492747 Different labels, same methods, same outcomes. They were not and they did not, and nor does any other nation now, afaik, live under any of the current or 20th century versions of communism. Though billions live under "Communist" flags, they are not living in communal arrangements. Ideologies don't kill people. People kill people.

Much of that is due to rivalry for land and resources, for economic and political influence. Very few who enjoys privilege are willing to give any of it up; when power and wealth are shared with others, each share is smaller; if egalitarian democracy prevails, soon all class advantage disappears. There is a large dollop of self-interest involved: those whom we wish to conquer, rob or exploit, we first relegate to a lower form of life than we consider ourselves. They're only savages, barbarians, pagans or whatever, therefore our natural, perhaps even preordained prey. Latterly, there is also an element of guilt such ancient imperialists and monarchists probably did not experience. Philosophical ideas change; the climate in which one's moral sense develops has a strong effect on one's attitude. It's hard to forgive those whom one has wronged - even indirectly through benefit from the wrong done by our forebears. The very existence of our victims is an accusation. And a source of fear, obviously: if we allow them a voice, the accusation becomes explicit - as demonstrated by BLM. If we allow them to wield power, we may be subject to retribution.

They didn't need much convincing; they were getting reinforcement for what they already felt, what was inherent in their history and culture. Very much like Americans today. No need for time-travel. They're right here: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/8/15/16144070/psychology-alt-right-unite-the-right The Vox article is worth reading, btw.