 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/28/09 08:22, somebody wrote:
> Interesting idea indeed. Would you also obfuscate the race and even sex? It
Sure - unless it's relevant to the case.
--
Circular Definition: see Definition, Circular.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> True as the last sentence is, it's not the whole truth. That kind of
> thinking has also ruined guilty people's lives, and lack of that kind of
> thinking has also saved guilty people's lives. Not only that, but that kind
> of thinking on occasion has ruined other innocent people's lives who were
> victimized by a wrongfully acquitted criminal whose identity or risk was not
> revealed to the community he was released into.
I'm sorry, but it's precisely that kind of "punishing innocent people by
mistake is ok as long as guilty people get also (probably) punished along
the way" witch-hunting thinking that I cannot agree with.
One of the most basic principles of the modern western judiciary system
is the principle of the burden of proof: People are assumed innocent until
proven guilty. It's better to free a guilty person than jail an innocent
person.
I'm sorry if I seem like an insensitive jerk, but I do not consider
that children should be in any way more protected than other people in
this regard. Unlike seemingly modern western society, I do not consider
children to be some kind of semi-gods which must be protected at all
costs, even if it means that innocent people are burnt at the stake.
In my opinion the basic principles of the modern judiciary system should
be applied to everybody in the same way. Reverse burden of proof is an
abomination and a complete judiciary farce. It's a step back to burning
witches.
I also find it completely hypocritical that there's a world-wide witch
hunt against people who abuse children sexually, but no witch-hunt of
any kind against people who abuse them mentally. Is mental abuse of a child
somehow more acceptable? Less of a horrible crime? Seemingly it is.
> That said, I do believe there
> are major biological/hormonal/evolutionary...etc differences between the
> sexes regarding feelings towards children: Put a baby in a stroller in a
> shopping mall, and you'll instantly have a swarm of adoring females. You
> won't see any similar flocking behaviour from men (unless the mom happens to
> have certain prized qualities). If there are men with those women, a blind
> man can read from their faces that they are merely feigning interest not to
> come across as a jerk. Men don't ordinarily relate to children, let alone
> "passionately love them in a completely and absolutely non-sexual way". Are
> there exceptions? Maybe, one in a million. But I don't see a emotionally
> balanced (which I don't think MJ was) grown man prefrerring the company of
> children, over, say, even a dog's, and finding intellectual fulfillment from
> that.
Or as I said: Men have no right to love children in modern society.
Equal rights go to hell.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Thus, Warp's implied suggestion that we should base our judgement only on
> the legal outcome is rather, well, naive.
I did not say that we should base our judgement on the legal outcome.
I said that we have no right to judge anybody without proof. The fact that
he was aquitted might not be definite proof of anything, but at least it
strongly implies lack of proof of guilt.
We should not judge people based on prejudice.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> But I also hold the opinion (based on what was
> reported, so arguably not a very solid foundation) that he had problems
> as regards kids and that the jury let the "star factor" get in the way of
> an objective verdict in his case, just like happened with OJ's trial.
One interesting aspect is that even if he *did* like kids in the wrong
way, that's actually not illegal. You can't punish people for how they
think (not yet, at least; we are still not that Orwellian), only for what
they *do*. Even if you could prove that someone has such a problem (which
in itself can be rather difficult), there's no law against it. There can't
be law against it because mental problems cannot be illegal. So the only
thing you can punish someone for is if he actually *does* something.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The Shadow <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> One less child molester in the world
> not gone soon enough for some poor little kids
> doing his little dances in hell now
Yeah, sure. You know *for sure* that he was guilty. You were there
watching the whole thing, which is why you know.
Can we apply this "accusation = proof of guilt" to every crime?
If I accuse *you* of molesting a child, can I automatically assume
that you are guilty? Using the same logic.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:48:51 -0400, Warp wrote:
> We should not judge people based on prejudice.
I agree with this, but at the same time, it's highly possible the jury
judged him not guilty due to prejudice rather than any actual facts heard
in court.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 07:22:14 -0600, somebody wrote:
> Interesting idea indeed. Would you also obfuscate the race and even sex?
I think it might depend on the case - for example, a murder or assault
that has a "hate crime enhancement" would be difficult to prosecute if
you didn't know the victim's race or the racial idiosyncrasies of the
defendant.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:58:47 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> But I also hold the opinion (based on what was reported, so arguably
>> not a very solid foundation) that he had problems as regards kids and
>> that the jury let the "star factor" get in the way of an objective
>> verdict in his case, just like happened with OJ's trial.
>
> One interesting aspect is that even if he *did* like kids in the wrong
> way, that's actually not illegal.
He was accused of actual inappropriate behaviour, and from the little I
read, it seemed there was evidence of such inappropriate behaviour. I
agree with this:
> You can't punish people for how they
> think (not yet, at least; we are still not that Orwellian), only for
> what they *do*.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It also goes to show how twisted modern western society is. It seems
> that the right to love children (in a completely non-sexual way) is more
> or less reserved to women, and men have no right to it, or at the very
> least they have *less* right to it and to show it then women have. If a
> man truely and passionately loves children (again, in a completely and
> absolutely non-sexual way) and acts accordingly, he will usually be
> considered creepy and suspicious. The exact same behavior from a woman
> will be completely ok, though.
I did hear of a man who applied for work at a day care center. He was
regarded as a pervert trolling for victims.
This is an unfortunate artifact of society's expectations of men (he was
pursuing a non-traditional career), the fact that men are
over-represented on the rolls of convicted child molesters, and the fact
that child molesters seek out situations in which they are in a position
of trust with children.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:48:51 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > We should not judge people based on prejudice.
> I agree with this, but at the same time, it's highly possible the jury
> judged him not guilty due to prejudice rather than any actual facts heard
> in court.
Well, *everything* is possible. But unless we know better, we cannot go
judging people on what could have *possibly* happened.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
