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

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:41:30 -0400, Warp wrote:

> 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.

Maybe, but at the same time, the hate crime enhancement, for example, 
against an African-American, would be easily demonstrated if the 
defendant was a member of an organisation like the KKK.  That would be a 
necessary piece of evidence.

>   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.

Yep.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:43:33 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   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".

I was trying to be nice.  I know enough about the cases in question to 
know that I wouldn't want to have left a kid alone with him, much less 
stay overnight without adult supervision.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/28/09 12:36, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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:

	Inappropriate by a large portion of society. As somebody pointed out 
with the Bashir documentary clip, he even admitted to behavior that many 
people would find inappropriate.

	It isn't, however, illegal. And I suspect it's not even "universally" 
inappropriate (in terms of all of humanity).

	My bottom line is that we're all free to dislike him for those things 
that are quite clear. However, while I might not want my kids around him 
without some reliable adult monitoring, I'm not going to judge other 
parents who let their kids hang around him.

	From all I have seen (and I admit not to looking into it with fervor), 
the only thing I can say about MJ was that he behaved differently. It's 
normal that it makes people be on guard when being around folks who just 
act contrary to social norms, but that's 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 06/28/09 12:36, John VanSickle wrote:
> I did hear of a man who applied for work at a day care center. He was
> regarded as a pervert trolling for victims.

	Let me guess. He was probably single?

	

-- 
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

John VanSickle wrote:
> And let us all learn from it:  Don't be a s**t to your kids (MJ's dad 
> reportedly was), and don't surround yourself with sycophants (which MJ 
> clearly did).

Funny enough, all his actual close friends all thought he was a great, kind, 
funny guy. It's only those who wanted something from him that called him out.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message