Trump Reinstates Federal Executions

[Yukaphile]

I do NOT think that, so if you're insinuating that's me, you can shove it up your ass. Sorry, but I won't be kind here if you're talking about me. The so-called "justice" system could try the wrong person by mistake. I agree in the ideals of "innocent till proven guilty," but that said, I find the emotionalism from both right-wingers and left-wingers tiring. Trump has been accused multiple times of rape and other sexual misconduct. It's not surprising given his own words, the way he acts and lives his life, and so on and so forth, yet many people will attack those doing the accusing as if he's on trial because he's being "treated" as if he is, but it's an inherent hypocrisy. He's being treated as if he is, yet others are insisting he shouldn't be because he hasn't been on trial, but this is how powerful men get away with it. Until he is put on trial, you can believe whatever you want. If you're a juror, however, then you have to try to be as close to "objectively impartial" as an emotionally-fueled, primitive-thinking animal like us can ever hope to be. And if Trump were accused and I was sitting on his trial, I would do my best to not only present arguments for the prosecution (that he is guilty of it), but also to play Devil's Advocate. Represent both sides and pick apart the facts. I really love going against the conventional wisdom and that shows in more than a few ways.

[Admiral X]

You still seem to have pre-concluded that he's guilty, though. That's what I'm getting at.

[Riedquat]

It's an imperfect world. Sometimes, the crime is so unjustified and evil, and they never pay for it, you gotta take matters into your own hands.

In some cases the defendant was guilty as hell. Look at OJ. If somebody knocked him off, I wouldn't feel sorry.

Not prejudice. That said, a legit righteous lynch mob in which the courts have failed? I could get behind. It's an imperfect world, like I said, and sometimes you need imperfect solutions.

And once again, how do you know the courts have failed? What you're essentially saying is that "he looks as guilty as hell" is a more reliable approach for determining guilt than a court when it comes to condemning someone to death.

A miscarriage of justice that results in someone guilty going free is far better than one that results in an innocent person being locked away - or worse. Give me a possibly flawed judge and jury and legal system any day over a baying mob.

[Yukaphile]

You can't trust authority in this world until there's a fullproof way for sniffing out crime, and even then those in charge have their own agenda and would abuse it.

An innocent person will always be locked away. That's inevitable. Unless we learn to scan memories.

[Madner Kami]

No, not even then. Eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable and I'd even go so far to say that eye-witness accounts should have the lowest level of recognition from all available evidence in front of a court in general.

[...]

It has long been speculated that mistaken eyewitness identification plays a major role in the wrongful conviction of innocent individuals. A growing body of research now supports this speculation, indicating that mistaken eyewitness identification is responsible for more convictions of the innocent than all other factors combined.[3][4][5] This may be due to the fact that details of unpleasant emotional events are recalled poorly compared to neutral events. States of high emotional arousal, which occur during a stressful or traumatic event, lead to less efficient memory processing.[6] The Innocence Project determined that 75% of the 239 DNA exoneration cases had occurred due to inaccurate eyewitness testimony.

[...]

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_memory[/ul]

The way our memory works, makes it prone to errors. Not helped in the least by the limits of our perception and concious attention. The most honest person can tell you the biggest lie with complete conviction without even being aware of it.

[Yukaphile]

And any kind of "scientific methodology" is just as imprecise. It will never be 100% foolproof. And I'm telling you right now that "false testimony based on memory biases" should be treated the same as any forensic evidence until it is 100% accurate.

[Yukaphile]

I will add one thing here. If I were somehow connected no matter how loosely to a crime, I would absolutely NOT want to get up on the stand because I KNOW true objective impartiality is not something I could do, and yeah, I already admit my memory is imperfect, like everything else in this universe is, so I would be a lousy eyewitness unless it was a public shooting, and in which case, why call on me? This is pretty clear-cut.

[Riedquat]

You can't trust authority in this world until there's a fullproof way for sniffing out crime, and even then those in charge have their own agenda and would abuse it.

How trustworthy authorities are isn't really the point, the point is whether or not there's something more trustworthy. In reasonably civilised countries there isn't.

An innocent person will always be locked away. That's inevitable. Unless we learn to scan memories.

Which is why systems are in place to minimise that risk. What you want will have the opposite effect.

[Yukaphile]

No, it won't. You always keep arguing on the basis of emotionalism, insisting that once somebody is acquitted by the courts, they should not be lynched. "What if they are innocent?" But then, I always keep asking, what if they are clearly guilty? They were dozens of eyewitnesses, and the DNA proves it, and they're still let go? Is it going to be messy and disproportionate? Of course. But that's what happens when the courts fail us. For example, if Adam Lanza had survived, and the courts had somehow let him go, I would absolutely not feel sorry for the baby butcher if somebody tortured and then killed him. I'm sorry, I wouldn't.

[Riedquat]

Don't you see the problem there? How dangerous your absolute belief that you can do a better job than the courts is?

I accept that the courts aren't perfect, but what I don't accept is that the lynch mob will do a better job.

If she weighs the same as a duck she's made out of wood and therefore a witch. Burn her!