From: Michael M. Butler (mmb@spies.com)
Date: Thu Dec 05 2002 - 15:31:26 MST
>> Damien, can you bring yourself to acknowledge that
>> there are circumstances where (to the degree one can
>> aver that *anything* ever really happened), it is
>> possible for a husband to be as correct that Miscreant X
>> killed his wife as it is possible for a man or woman
>> to be correct that he or she has just cut himself or
>> herself shaving?
>
>Those cases will be rare.
I try to take the long view, past & future. And my point was a rejoinder to Damien's implicit absolutism
(/bar bold rhetoric).
On rarity--time will tell. It is certainly the case that in the aggregate, in our happy Murkin (and
probably EC) society, most of us rarely have such experiences, and this is good. Low-trust societies
might have a different set of statistics; what of our ancestors' ritualized combat-of-champions in front
of two tribes at the river (assuming the reports of such in some groups are not fabricated? What of cases
(in the Pacific rim) where wives throw acid in their husband's mistresses' faces in plain sight of
onlookers who know both parties? Which outlook is skewed, in the long run?
> I find more accurate your signature remark
Ah. So commonality equals accuracy, does it? I must amend my thesaurus. (insert genial grin here)
>> MMB, puzzled by the fact that on the aggregate,
>> circumstantial evidence, witness recall, testimony and
>> juries *all* have error rates that would warrant
>> a _product_ recall if a multinational was caught selling
>> them...
>
>Well, the solution is obvious. Since witness recall
>and the whole justice system is so flawed, let's just
>stop punishing people for crimes altogether. Besides,
>many studies have shown that punishment offers little
>in the way of deterrence anyhow, so is anyone really
>being helped by locking up the bad guys? (Besides
>making certain people feel better?) Besides, it
>greatly inconveniences the criminals who, it must
>not be forgotten, are people too.
>
>Lee, who is back in sarcasm mode for once.
Are we "in violent agreement?" Ahem.
For me, I want "Felony" rolled back to what it was in ancent English times. A couple clear categories
(murder and treason were the classics), a couple clear outcomes (death or banishment). We've gotten rid
of "corruption of blood" for the most part--finish the job and get rid of "Commonwealth of Massachusetts
v. Three Thousand Dollars" asset forfeiture cases.
And oh yeah, if the two (1898?) Supreme Court cases upholding that corporations are persons under the
14th Amendment are going to be upheld, then I want corporations to be liable for felony convictions under
the terms above (only severe things are felonies, death or banishment the only penalties). If that seems
too hard on the shareholders, then make the corporate officers liable, the same way Yamamoto got strung
up for atrocities committed by his subordinates in the Philippines about which all agreed he had no
knowledge.
Hey, fair's fair.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:35 MST