things the effect our judgment

[Athena]

Occasionally dealing with mods, leads to me becoming very aware of things that effect our judgment, especially because over many years and in several different forums, the mods always insist they are being impersonal and only following rules. Rules that regulate them and rules they must enforce. Whenever this explanation is given, I remember this quote from a seer in India. I got the quote from a 1917 National Education Association Conference book, where it was used to describe our enemy.

 

"Whatever their efficiency, such great organizations are so impersonal that they bear down on the individual lives of the people like a hydraulic press whose action is completely impersonal and therefore completely effective in crushing out individual liberty and power".

 

Valuing such impersonalness and adherence to rules lead to the killing of many Jews, and I think my closeness to this reality strongly effects my judgment, compared to the young who are so distant from what happened that they are not emotionally aroused as I am, but instead believe being impersonal and efficient and enforcing rules is a good thing. Generations so separate us we are living oceans apart, and I am grieving for something dear that we have lost. We once had a completely different experience of being US citizens, than we have today. I fear terribly what will happen when my generation dies, and that memory of personal liberty and power is lost forever.

 

So what is effecting my judgment is history, and my many years of being a live, and what I have read and understand of what made the US and Germany different. I have the luxury of reading history with many years of life experience and these years of life experience most certainly effect my judgment. I started a thread about Munster that has been ignored, but what happened in Germany in WWII is not the first time Germans commitment such awful acts. The US constitution protecting freedom of religion and speech, made a huge difference between our nation and the one we fought against, and again, I will mention, my closeness to WWII makes this a highly emotional issue for me. As I experience the changes in the US, I am very afraid for future generations. So really, is being impersonal and controlled by rules, something we should value? What effects our judgment of such things?

 

I want to say, often a poster will really piss me off, and then I realize someone I think of as friend has written it, and suddenly my understanding of what was said is totally changed. Has this ever happened to you? Like not only is it easier to come down hard on someone we care nothing about, but also how we understand each other really depends on how well we know each other. Like we can go from intense anger to laughing, when we realize who wrote something, because our understanding of what was said is now also an understanding of the person who wrote it.

 

Sex

Age

life experiences

knowledge of another

values and principles

Edited April 16, 2012 by Athena

[JustinW]

Valuing such impersonalness and adherence to rules lead to the killing of many Jews, and I think my closeness to this reality strongly effects my judgment, compared to the young who are so distant from what happened that they are not emotionally aroused as I am, but instead believe being impersonal and efficient and enforcing rules is a good thing. Generations so separate us we are living oceans apart, and I am grieving for something dear that we have lost. We once had a completely different experience of being US citizens, than we have today. I fear terribly what will happen when my generation dies, and that memory of personal liberty and power is lost forever.

I believe I understand what you are saying here. I have had similar conversations with Rigney about such things. And though I'm still considered young, in my latter 20s, the way I was raised instilled a certain feeling about the way things used to be. A feeling of respect for the way things used to be, and then dispair at the thought that things must change.

 

 

As I experience the changes in the US, I am very afraid for future generations. So really, is being impersonal and controlled by rules, something we should value? What effects our judgment of such things?

At least some rules are necessary and some things should be impersonal. I believe that justice should always be blind(impersonal), and that rules should be made with a certain amount of thought for those that may be effected. I have thought about what effects our judgement and believe that it is something we hit on in the "right vs wrong" thread. I believe that our reasoning is learned from events and people that influence our lives.

 

I was trying to explain how this new liberal movement that we are seeing stems directly from communist/socialist view points. There are those who claim that such views will make us freer, but I would rather choose to learn from history rather than someone's analytical percepetions. If there is one thing that history teaches us well, it is what not to do.

 

I want to say, often a poster will really piss me off, and then I realize someone I think of as friend has written it, and suddenly my understanding of what was said is totally changed. Has this ever happened to you? Like not only is it easier to come down hard on someone we care nothing about, but also how we understand each other really depends on how well we know each other. Like we can go from intense anger to laughing, when we realize who wrote something, because our understanding of what was said is now also an understanding of the person who wrote it.

I think another problem is the written word itself. We miss out on meanings that can be expressed by gestures and tone of voice. There has been many a time I've pissed someone off by typing something I thought of as funny. Edited April 16, 2012 by JustinW

[Athena]

I live for thoughtful discussions, and you have made this possible, by giving a thoughtful reply. I also often want to be proven wrong. Really when one thinks we are going to hell in a hand basket, it is really nice to be proven wrong. So your youth and your sensitive gives me hope. Thank you.

 

I hope you return to answer some questions. The bible and the Hebrews seem to be the foundation of our trail by peers. Why peers? Jesus said, don't run to Roman authorities with your accusations of the wrongs done by another, but find someone to go with you and go talk with this person. Why do you think justice should be impersonal and blind?

 

For sure our facial expressions and tone of voice add information to our communications. And sometimes they can really mess up our message. I prefer written communications, because the process of writing puts me in a more analytical mode, and have I have more control over my communication. But yeah, we have all said or written things, been shocked by how someone interprets our communication. No matter how well we control our words, we can not control how someone interprets them.

 

Something came up since I began this thread. My granddaughter was arrested because she lost her composure with a police officer. I am anxious to know how the trial goes. Being emotional, especially when it is a mother trying to protect her child, should not lead to a criminal record, but this was an event connected with Occupy, and Occupy foolishly did things that lead to a bad reputation, so now the police target Occupy people, and the public assumes police action is justified, making loosing ones composure with a police officer, a possible jail sentence, and criminal record that be an employment and housing problem. I am really afraid for her and her son.

 

I have been told the police officer was suspended and the police department is embarrassed by his actions, and that the charges maybe dropped. Also, this happened one year after a mentally ill woman killed a police officer and I think that played an important part in the what happened, because the police officers was close to the one who was killed, and on the anniversary of the death of a fellow officer his judgment wasn't so good. Kind of like the soldier who went crazy and killed several Afghan citizens. His judgment was bad, my granddaughter reacted badly, and really hurt herself by getting upset and "resisting arrest", but she was in a park with her child, and what happens to the child when Mom is taken to jail, Crazy! Makes me question the sanity of having a law against arrest. It was all an emotionally charge drama that had nothing to do with criminal activity, but can lead to long term employment and housing problems, because we now keep files on people and judge them what is in a file. She can be denied housing and jobs, simply because of having a charge in her file, and no one is obligated to ask her for an explanation. If 25 people apply for a job, and one has a police file, it is a no brainer to throw that application in the waste basket. She doesn't have the skills and years of work experience to be that competitive, and things could easily go from bad to worse. Our society was not like this. We had laws protecting our privacy and we had good reason for that. Just as there is good reason for keeping files on people and judging them by what is in a file.

What kind of society do we want?

Edited May 6, 2012 by Athena

[imatfaal]

I live for thoughtful discussions, and you have made this possible, by giving a thoughtful reply. I also often want to be proven wrong. Really when one thinks we are going to hell in a hand basket, it is really nice to be proven wrong. So your youth and your sensitive gives me hope. Thank you.

I hope you return to answer some questions. The bible and the Hebrews seem to be the foundation of our trail by peers. Why peers? Jesus said, don't run to Roman authorities with your accusations of the wrongs done by another, but find someone to go with you and go talk with this person. Why do you think justice should be impersonal and blind?

The jury trial is normally considered to have it's foundations in pagan society - the Greeks and the Romans both used this system and many years later the Scandinavians/Vikings also had a form of judgment by the community at large or a small group of one's peers.

 

For sure our facial expressions and tone of voice add information to our communications. And sometimes they can really mess up our message. I prefer written communications, because the process of writing puts me in a more analytical mode, and have I have more control over my communication. But yeah, we have all said or written things, been shocked by how someone interprets our communication. No matter how well we control our words, we can not control how someone interprets them.

The best way to be sure that you, the juror, is in receipt of someone's honest thoughts and testimony is to watch him or her deliver it. Sure, we can still be fooled - but it is easier to lie in writing, or even on tape than it is to tell untruths or half-truths live in court. Some people do have the knack of hoodwinking juries (other than lawyers) - but most people do not.

 

 

Something came up since I began this thread. My granddaughter was arrested because she lost her composure with a police officer. I am anxious to know how the trial goes. Being emotional, especially when it is a mother trying to protect her child, should not lead to a criminal record, but this was an event connected with Occupy, and Occupy foolishly did things that lead to a bad reputation, so now the police target Occupy people, and the public assumes police action is justified, making loosing ones composure with a police officer, a possible jail sentence, and criminal record that be an employment and housing problem. I am really afraid for her and her son.

Public order offences can be very poorly used by the police - especially in political situations. I have been arrested a few times in similar circumstance - but yet to (and hopefully never will) face trial. I hope your g-daughter comes out of it ok

 

I have been told the police officer was suspended and the police department is embarrassed by his actions, and that the charges maybe dropped. Also, this happened one year after a mentally ill woman killed a police officer and I think that played an important part in the what happened, because the police officers was close to the one who was killed, and on the anniversary of the death of a fellow officer his judgment wasn't so good. Kind of like the soldier who went crazy and killed several Afghan citizens. His judgment was bad, my granddaughter reacted badly, and really hurt herself by getting upset and "resisting arrest", but she was in a park with her child, and what happens to the child when Mom is taken to jail, Crazy! Makes me question the sanity of having a law against arrest.

Policemen should be allowedd to have bad days like the rest of us - but there must be safeguards to stop injustice due to a situation of abnormal stress on a police office. From a legal point of view - as long as the reasons that allow a police officer to make an arrest are constrained and well understood; then there must be protection for the officer making that arrest - therefore the offence of resisting arrest. However, far to many systems give the police officer far too much scope for making the arrest in the first place.

 

It was all an emotionally charge drama that had nothing to do with criminal activity, but can lead to long term employment and housing problems, because we now keep files on people and judge them what is in a file. She can be denied housing and jobs, simply because of having a charge in her file, and no one is obligated to ask her for an explanation. If 25 people apply for a job, and one has a police file, it is a no brainer to throw that application in the waste basket. She doesn't have the skills and years of work experience to be that competitive, and things could easily go from bad to worse. Our society was not like this. We had laws protecting our privacy and we had good reason for that. Just as there is good reason for keeping files on people and judging them by what is in a file.

Firstly it might never come to trial and charges might be dropped, secondly trials do have two outcomes, and finally I would hope the jurisdiction your gdaughter is in will have a system in which criminal records are only released to those with a legitimate right to view them, and that they are time-limited (especially if your Gdaughter is still young) ie expunged after a certain amount of time

 

What kind of society do we want?

Even though I do have many run-ins with the police over political activities - and the UK is becoming increasingly authoritarian (worse in some ways than the states, better in others); I do still want to live in a state that has the rule of law. Arbitrary justice is a terrible thing - and the law is the best restraint on the exercise of power by those in control

[JustinW]

Athena,

 

I live for thoughtful discussions, and you have made this possible, by giving a thoughtful reply.

I too enjoy thoughtful discussion. In fact, I believe, it has made me who I am today. Though I'm FARRRR from perfect, I can remember the exact moment that a thoughtful discussion put my life on a path towards making something more of myself. I can truthfully say that without that discussion, at that time in my life, I would have ended up without the thirst for knowledge and understanding that I have today. I should take that further to say, that I would have been among the dreggs of society, as I see them today. I find it amazing how 1 simple conversation can influence a person's entire way of thinking in a way that changes them for the better.

 

 

Jesus said, don't run to Roman authorities with your accusations of the wrongs done by another, but find someone to go with you and go talk with this person. Why do you think justice should be impersonal and blind?

Truthfully I think it is because of the times, rather than historically. In the time of Jesus, if someone did you wrong, the following confrontation would have been more personal. This is why He said, "bring someone with you to confront this person." The 3rd person is the one who will see the problem logically. This is one reason I say blind/impersonal justice. Someone to look at the problem that has nothing to gain by the outcome of the argument. Too many times have we seen someone judged based upon their stature within society, rather than their actions as an equal citizen. Therefore, to my way of thinking, justice should be blind.

 

 

What kind of society do we want?

Some of the simplest of questions are among the hardest to answer.

I can see where society is becoming too impersonal, in that a person's character cannot be displayed on a sheet of paper, one misdeed should not define a person's life, and a signature should not outweigh a handshake. These are just some examples of where I think society has lost it's feel for personhood. I think this is a reason that I reclude myself to smaller communities. Almost every interaction made is more of a personal one and I think the community and the people in that community are stronger because of it.

 

But I don't think that there is any one right answer to what kind of society we want. The bigger a society becomes the less personal it seems to be. The time it would take to personalize every decision made would far exceed one's life span. So we can only do what we can and hope that the human condition still reflects our decision making.

 

 

I am really afraid for her and her son.

 

Never you fear. We've got a saying down here that you may have already heard, but I feel it bears repeating. "It'll all come out in the wash" After it's all said and done with, things usually aren't as bad as they seem at first. Although any criminal offense looks bad on a report, this risisting arrest is only a misdemeanor that will probably be overlooked by most employers. And if the employer is the type that doesn't take the personal aspect of a situation into account, then she probably doesn't want to work for the weasley S.O.B. anyway.

[Athena]

The jury trial is normally considered to have it's foundations in pagan society - the Greeks and the Romans both used this system and many years later the Scandinavians/Vikings also had a form of judgment by the community at large or a small group of one's peers.

 

The best way to be sure that you, the juror, is in receipt of someone's honest thoughts and testimony is to watch him or her deliver it. Sure, we can still be fooled - but it is easier to lie in writing, or even on tape than it is to tell untruths or half-truths live in court. Some people do have the knack of hoodwinking juries (other than lawyers) - but most people do not.

 

 

Public order offences can be very poorly used by the police - especially in political situations. I have been arrested a few times in similar circumstance - but yet to (and hopefully never will) face trial. I hope your g-daughter comes out of it ok

 

Policemen should be allowedd to have bad days like the rest of us - but there must be safeguards to stop injustice due to a situation of abnormal stress on a police office. From a legal point of view - as long as the reasons that allow a police officer to make an arrest are constrained and well understood; then there must be protection for the officer making that arrest - therefore the offence of resisting arrest. However, far to many systems give the police officer far too much scope for making the arrest in the first place.

 

Firstly it might never come to trial and charges might be dropped, secondly trials do have two outcomes, and finally I would hope the jurisdiction your gdaughter is in will have a system in which criminal records are only released to those with a legitimate right to view them, and that they are time-limited (especially if your Gdaughter is still young) ie expunged after a certain amount of time

 

Even though I do have many run-ins with the police over political activities - and the UK is becoming increasingly authoritarian (worse in some ways than the states, better in others); I do still want to live in a state that has the rule of law. Arbitrary justice is a terrible thing - and the law is the best restraint on the exercise of power by those in control

 

Whoo, whoo, back up- you questioned the rules of our jurisdiction. Is not universal that any property manager or employer can look at a person's criminal and credit records? We have to report arrest even if they were dropped and explained what happened. It was explained to me by a state employer that failure to do so will automatically result in not being hired, because it would be assumed it was our intention to hide the record. Like maybe I should move? Where I live, it is as though we lost the second world war. And it seems only a few years ago, when an exchange student said how wonderful it is here because we do not marginalize people. Then, I remember questions about our criminal record showing up on job applications and talk of how, by law, we do not have to answer them, and it seems over night, this police state policy totally consumed us, and both employers and property owners rely on these records and we are marginalizing people.

 

Then you add to this, attorneys who do nothing more than argue for a reduced change, and all the people who agree to this, because the original charge could mean a prison sentence. Government is fine with this lack of justice because it is cost effective. I swear I have experienced this through other people's misfortunes, and questioned authority. If things are better somewhere else, where?

 

And arbitrary justice, I have ponder this. Of course if a police officer is dealing with a thug and it is a criminal situation, the police officer needs protection, but mothers and children playing in a park? I heard the officer ticketed them for allowing the children to play among the bushes. This was without question targeted, because it would never happen to a family stopping at the little park, while out shopping. I don't want to get personal in what needs to be an open public discussion, but shouldn't there be some discrimination between normal citizens and criminals? Like it isn't just the police who can exercise arbitrary justice, but the public bus service hired a security service that also does security in a war zone, and it is not citizen friendly! A security officer can ban someone from using the bus, for any reason he can think of. All this goes with our exclusion zone that prevents people who have been charged by any authority, from entering the down town area. Words can not describe how this makes me feel. I remember this area as a beautiful and friendly mall with fountains and parks and people playing checkers, and now it is an exclusion zone for people who can afford the privately owned Athletic Club. I wish I had taken pictures of the mall when it was a wonderful place to be. I wish I had no memory of German, which I have gotten from books and pictures.

[imatfaal]

Whoo, whoo, back up- you questioned the rules of our jurisdiction. Is not universal that any property manager or employer can look at a person's criminal and credit records? We have to report arrest even if they were dropped and explained what happened. It was explained to me by a state employer that failure to do so will automatically result in not being hired, because it would be assumed it was our intention to hide the record. Like maybe I should move? Where I live, it is as though we lost the second world war. And it seems only a few years ago, when an exchange student said how wonderful it is here because we do not marginalize people. Then, I remember questions about our criminal record showing up on job applications and talk of how, by law, we do not have to answer them, and it seems over night, this police state policy totally consumed us, and both employers and property owners rely on these records and we are marginalizing people.

No it is not universal. And I would be surprised that you were required to report an arrest that did not lead to charge, or an arrest/charging that did not result in a conviction (perhaps apart from the time between arrest and trial). I am not an employment lawyer - and I did not train on US law; but I believe in EU that discriminating against applicants for these sorts of reasons might lead to a claim. Do you have Citizen's Advice Bureau in the the USA - they are superb at this sort of thing?

 

Then you add to this, attorneys who do nothing more than argue for a reduced change, and all the people who agree to this, because the original charge could mean a prison sentence. Government is fine with this lack of justice because it is cost effective. I swear I have experienced this through other people's misfortunes, and questioned authority. If things are better somewhere else, where?

This is a real problem in criminal justice - too many young and poor defendants are persuaded to make a plea when the evidence is lacking.

 

And arbitrary justice, I have ponder this. Of course if a police officer is dealing with a thug and it is a criminal situation, the police officer needs protection, but mothers and children playing in a park? I heard the officer ticketed them for allowing the children to play among the bushes. This was without question targeted, because it would never happen to a family stopping at the little park, while out shopping. I don't want to get personal in what needs to be an open public discussion, but shouldn't there be some discrimination between normal citizens and criminals?

No - the police must treat everyone as an innocent civilian until they have reasonable suspicion that they are not.

 

Like it isn't just the police who can exercise arbitrary justice, but the public bus service hired a security service that also does security in a war zone, and it is not citizen friendly! A security officer can ban someone from using the bus, for any reason he can think of. All this goes with our exclusion zone that prevents people who have been charged by any authority, from entering the down town area. Words can not describe how this makes me feel. I remember this area as a beautiful and friendly mall with fountains and parks and people playing checkers, and now it is an exclusion zone for people who can afford the privately owned Athletic Club. I wish I had taken pictures of the mall when it was a wonderful place to be. I wish I had no memory of German, which I have gotten from books and pictures.

 

There are some great papers that talk about the privatisation of previously public spaces - that allows the new private owner to enact very strict rules. There is a whole sector of the community that relies on public spaces - and by making these subject to a different set of rules these people can be excluded. Let me know if you are interested and I will dig them out from my files.

[Athena]

Athena,

 

I too enjoy thoughtful discussion. In fact, I believe, it has made me who I am today. Though I'm FARRRR from perfect, I can remember the exact moment that a thoughtful discussion put my life on a path towards making something more of myself. I can truthfully say that without that discussion, at that time in my life, I would have ended up without the thirst for knowledge and understanding that I have today. I should take that further to say, that I would have been among the dreggs of society, as I see them today. I find it amazing how 1 simple conversation can influence a person's entire way of thinking in a way that changes them for the better.

 

 

 

Truthfully I think it is because of the times, rather than historically. In the time of Jesus, if someone did you wrong, the following confrontation would have been more personal. This is why He said, "bring someone with you to confront this person." The 3rd person is the one who will see the problem logically. This is one reason I say blind/impersonal justice. Someone to look at the problem that has nothing to gain by the outcome of the argument. Too many times have we seen someone judged based upon their stature within society, rather than their actions as an equal citizen. Therefore, to my way of thinking, justice should be blind.

 

 

Some of the simplest of questions are among the hardest to answer.

I can see where society is becoming too impersonal, in that a person's character cannot be displayed on a sheet of paper, one misdeed should not define a person's life, and a signature should not outweigh a handshake. These are just some examples of where I think society has lost it's feel for personhood. I think this is a reason that I reclude myself to smaller communities. Almost every interaction made is more of a personal one and I think the community and the people in that community are stronger because of it.

 

But I don't think that there is any one right answer to what kind of society we want. The bigger a society becomes the less personal it seems to be. The time it would take to personalize every decision made would far exceed one's life span. So we can only do what we can and hope that the human condition still reflects our decision making.

 

 

 

Never you fear. We've got a saying down here that you may have already heard, but I feel it bears repeating. "It'll all come out in the wash" After it's all said and done with, things usually aren't as bad as they seem at first. Although any criminal offense looks bad on a report, this risisting arrest is only a misdemeanor that will probably be overlooked by most employers. And if the employer is the type that doesn't take the personal aspect of a situation into account, then she probably doesn't want to work for the weasley S.O.B. anyway.

 

This is mind blowing! Both of you have given such awesome replies. Not all my threads have gone so well. A thread can only be as good as those who post in it. I have wondered if I should even be trying to discuss what concerns me in a science forum, but Justin, what you said about how your life was changed, gives me hope that if I don't give up, something good might happen. Only for me I what to change the direction of a whole society. Thankfully I am not alone, but our numbers are still really small. But then the numbers of those wanting change when Britain tried to rule the colonies was also small, and diverse, and they were united and mobilized.

 

I love your explanation of why justice should be blind. What a prefect example of one truth being opposites. I don't know how to say this? It is really confusing when truth is complex instead of simple. As you explain why justice should be blind, it is absolutely right. On the other hand if blind justice is not also compassionate, then once again it is tyranny and not justice. Like an all white jury judging a young Black man, may not lead to the same justice as he would receive if the jury were Black and from his own neighborhood. I think we need to be able to identify with the person being judged, and have some personal understanding of this person's life? This is the opposite of being blind.

 

I love your phrasing- a loss of personhood. Laugh, our huge corporations have personhood and individuals do not. Now that is a thought to chew one. I have been reading about this shift away from individual liberty and power. This has been processing at least since the beginning of the industrial revolution. My mother, as all workers, was forced to put her job first. She supported two children who were left in a day care over 8 hours a day, feed and put to bed, in less than 2 hours. That is to question, what family life? This was not a "Leave It To Beaver" family. All those families in the text books and on TV were not like my life, and if I had a problem at school, it was school authority that over ruled a concerned mother. We are blaming homosexuals for destroying family values, but from my point of view, family values have been damaged by industrialization, wars, and then our institutions, which increasingly crush individual liberty and power? And in writing this, I can see a child silently raging and an adult who is maladjusted. Is this only personal and of no matter, or might there be social implications?

Edited May 9, 2012 by Athena

[JustinW]

Athena,

 

On the other hand if blind justice is not also compassionate, then once again it is tyranny and not justice.

Upon reading this one sentence, my immediate thought was that a tyrant can also be compassionate. As in my signature below, C.S. Lewis said,"Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." I believe we can see this happening today. A government is tyrannical by nature. Without limits, it has no other direction to turn, and this direction is slowly achieved through laws that are passed by playing on people's compassion for one another. People believe that somehow government has a conscience and are willing to give up their liberties for the sake of comfort and security. We see this with certain laws that have been passed recently. Anywhere from healthcare to national security laws, they have all had one thing in common. The deminishing of individual liberties for the sake of comfort and security. Some people claim that we can keep government misdeeds in check if only the population is vigilant enough. I ask, historically, where has that worked? Germany? Russia? China? The Middle East especially. They were not given the opportunity to be vigilant in the way the US has, and now their citizens are being put to slaughter by their own governments because they wish to have the freedom that they lack. I believe that our founders wanted our vigilance to be aimed at the limitation of governments power and control. If we remain vigilant in order to limit government's power and control, their misdeeds will also be limited for that LACK of power and control. I think that people sometimes do not realize that the absence of individual power and freedom only leads to submissive servitude. You were indeed correct in the "trial" thread when you said that if we do not understand history, then it is bound to repeat itself. And where, throughout history, has the loss of individual freedom been good for the wellfare of it's citizens? You can also see an example of this with most nations that have banned it's citizens from arming themselves. The ban is proposed through a conscientious decision based on the fact that people don't want to see others get killed. But the reprecussions of that are normally that the freedom and power to defend ourselves is taken away, and the law abiding citezen is defenseless against a person who didn't follow the law in the first place. All for the sake of comfort and security. I say that our comfort is provided through our fortitude to provide for ourselves as well as our families. And our security resides in our ability to hold onto our individual liberties. The more these things are lost upon us, the more we will submitt ourselves to the servitude of tyranny.Well...enough of my preaching on that subject.

 

 

 

Like an all white jury judging a young Black man, may not lead to the same justice as he would receive if the jury were Black and from his own neighborhood. I think we need to be able to identify with the person being judged, and have some personal understanding of this person's life? This is the opposite of being blind.

Too true. In fact, a lot of states have taken steps to include more diversity in the jury selection prossess to cut down on those types of prejudices. Although when you think about, all humans are automatically predisposed to prejudices. Whether it is something as simple as bad haircut or disconcerting body language. As long as humans are judging other humans, the judgements passed will never be truly blind.

 

Laugh, our huge corporations have personhood and individuals do not.

Phi for all would also find the humor in that I would imagine. We've been in several discussions on that very topic, and I find that I'm still on the fence where that is conscerned.

 

from my point of view, family values have been damaged by industrialization, wars, and then our institutions, which increasingly crush individual liberty and power?

Maybe you could take this statement a little further. I feel that with as general as it is, I could probably carry on about it for two whole pages.

[Joatmon]

I prefer written communications, because the process of writing puts me in a more analytical mode, and have I have more control over my communication. But yeah, we have all said or written things, been shocked by how someone interprets our communication. No matter how well we control our words, we can not control how someone interprets them.

 

I once had it explained to me, and I believe it to be true, that, quite often, in treaties and agreements between countries vagueness is often built in to allow the two parties to interpret the agreement in their own way and so express surprise at the other party's later interpretation! The two interpretations can then form the basis of further negotiations later. The idea being that this "accidental let out" was better than no treaty or agreement at all.

[Athena]

No it is not universal. And I would be surprised that you were required to report an arrest that did not lead to charge, or an arrest/charging that did not result in a conviction (perhaps apart from the time between arrest and trial). I am not an employment lawyer - and I did not train on US law; but I believe in EU that discriminating against applicants for these sorts of reasons might lead to a claim. Do you have Citizen's Advice Bureau in the the USA - they are superb at this sort of thing?

 

This is a real problem in criminal justice - too many young and poor defendants are persuaded to make a plea when the evidence is lacking.

 

No - the police must treat everyone as an innocent civilian until they have reasonable suspicion that they are not.

 

There are some great papers that talk about the privatisation of previously public spaces - that allows the new private owner to enact very strict rules. There is a whole sector of the community that relies on public spaces - and by making these subject to a different set of rules these people can be excluded. Let me know if you are interested and I will dig them out from my files.

 

Wow, I love it if we could sue for that kind of discrimination! On being a good citizen, I know injustice is happening, and I have not a clue as to where to turn. A good citizen should make the effort to get precise information, and then present it to the media and make the effort to mobilize political action to right wrongs. But my god, that takes so much effort, and doing something like that while all alone, is, well, painful and I hate to take on these challenges all alone. I wish I had a good man in my life, who would partner with me on taking these challenges.

 

I know a guy who is slightly retarded and not physically attractive, and he is treated badly by everyone. Attorneys take advantage of him and do not get him justice. Like my experience with attorneys has been so bad, I couldn't serve on a jury. Nuts, huh, I am arguing in favor of public trials by jury, and at the same time see our system as so corrupt, I couldn't be a part of it. I wrote the board of how bad my friend's defense attorney was, and got no satisfaction, than some years later this jerk of an attorney is standing in line at a fast food place, telling his friend who he is an attorney for the money only, and hopes to retire early. We can not have justice when attorneys and judges do not care about justice, but are going through the motions for the money. I am blaming education for technology, with a focus on being technological correct, instead of morally correct for this deterioration of all our institutions.

 

Reasonable suspicion in my granddaughters case was discrimination against Occupy people. People who are not discriminated against, do not become aware of the problem, and are blindly supportive of the police force. Without knowledge of our history and a better understanding of human nature (liberal education), we are being so unrealistic. We expect everyone to do the "right thing", instead of what is natural for humans. We need a forum for zoology, to discuss our human nature. Hum, I think the superstition of religion and talk of us being born in sin, has kind of messed up how we think of such things. The groups we identify with, and the groups we identify as not one of "us" but one of "those people" most certainly effects our judgment. Another way to understand this that we might easily relate to, is labeling someone as a troll. Oh, I am reminded of a paper I saw in a VA office, that listed the negative word used for "those people" and the positive opposite of each word that is used to describe "us". If someone is one of "those people" then there is reasonable suspicion of all the negativity.

 

Oh my goodness, Occupy in Eugene is really about the public domain fight. This was the first issue that a professor presented and he used our constitution to make the point. We are loosing public land and privatizing everything, and policing every inch of the land. Perhaps this is necessary because of the mass of humanity, but I sure don't like the change. And now that you brought it up, I remember I have to call the attorney and question her about the privation of the public fair grounds. There was a law that said if the public used a path through property for something like 7 years, it became public property. Our fair grounds went from public property with open gates to private property and closed gates. If Occupy wants to fight for public domain, perhaps this should be a legal fight instead of street confrontations? However, our down town's history is dark and ugly, with a few property owners stealing public domain and controlling who owns and uses private down town property, as though only they have the right to the down town area. Yes, more information might be nice.

 

I once had it explained to me, and I believe it to be true, that, quite often, in treaties and agreements between countries vagueness is often built in to allow the two parties to interpret the agreement in their own way and so express surprise at the other party's later interpretation! The two interpretations can then form the basis of further negotiations later. The idea being that this "accidental let out" was better than no treaty or agreement at all.

 

Oh my goodness, you have opened a whole new can of worms! This is what lead to the civil war in the US. It was agreed to not discuss slavery for something like 7 years, in favor of uniting everyone with a constitution. The north was settled by colonist who chose to live outside of the king's domain, for philosophical/ political reasons, and the south was settled by aristocrats, and what a be aristocrats who could become large land owners until the land was all bought up. The north used the bible to oppose slavery and the south used the bible to defend slavery. Same religion, different philosophy. The north tried to resolve this difference with public education, but the south caught on to what was happening, and began printing its own text books, bringing the conflict from an intellectual realm to a physical one. This also pitted sovereign state interest against the interest of a strong federal government, and perhaps this whole subject of resolving conflicting interest should have its own thread? It is a hot issue.