 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] nospam com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 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.
IMO in cases where the concept of "hate crime" is involved, it would
be specially important to conceal the ethnicities of the involved parties.
People have demonstrably bias on who can commit hate crimes against who.
Of course in practice this would be impossible to conceal. For example
statements made by the accused would need to be presented to the jury,
which would in most cases immediately reveal the ethnicities involved.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> He was accused of actual inappropriate behaviour, and from the little I
> read, it seemed there was evidence of such inappropriate behaviour.
Yes, I know. I was just commenting on your "he had problems as regards
kids", which sounded like "he might have been attracted to them in an
inappropriate way".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/28/09 12:41, Warp wrote:
>> 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.
>
> IMO in cases where the concept of "hate crime" is involved, it would
> be specially important to conceal the ethnicities of the involved parties.
> People have demonstrably bias on who can commit hate crimes against who.
I was about to say something similar.
But to be honest, I don't want to say it definitively. I'd like to say
this (Warp's approach) should be the default, but there should be room
to argue in front of the judge for it *not* to be on a case by case
basis (i.e. if the particular case has some elements where one really
needs to know).
But really, there are probably lots of factors I have not considered.
(Armchair arguments...)
> Of course in practice this would be impossible to conceal. For example
> statements made by the accused would need to be presented to the jury,
> which would in most cases immediately reveal the ethnicities involved.
That too. Come to think of it, in many cases, trying to adhere to this
would be a mess. At times, I'd rather it be openly stated rather than
have juries "figure" it out based on testimony.
--
Mike: I used to think correlation implied causation. Then I took a
statistics class. Now I no longer think that.
Sue: Sounds like the class helped.
Mike: Well...maybe.
(Credit: xkcd comics)
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/28/09 11:58, Warp wrote:
> 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.
Well, you can't punish someone, but can't you get them committed into
an asylum if their mental problems were serious enough? I really don't
know what the law says about this. Do people get committed because
someone's mental problems make them "likely" to be, say, violent - even
though they've never attacked anyone before?
But getting back to what you're saying, I think what somebody and Jim
are trying to say that yes, even if he didn't commit the crime, if it is
*clear* that he had nasty predilections (albeit due to mental issues),
then there is some room for judging him for it.
--
Mike: I used to think correlation implied causation. Then I took a
statistics class. Now I no longer think that.
Sue: Sounds like the class helped.
Mike: Well...maybe.
(Credit: xkcd comics)
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:38:44 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 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.
True, but I make my judgment based on what I know about the case - just
like everyone else. You judge based on what you know, and what I know is
enough to be convinced that if I had small children, I'd have kept them
away from him at all costs.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
