US Bashing

[ravingdave]

I think both you and the jury already had a bias against the police, and in that regard I believe it's just as dangerous to justice as a bias against a particular race.

Police misconduct earned them the mistrust. I don't consider that bias.

The police knew about the miscreants in their ranks. In fact their lack of veracity is known nationwide. So much so that there is a word for it: testilying. And you know except in the most extreme cases I have never heard of a judge calling them out on it.


Now maybe the jury was "tainted" by familiarity with testilying.

Once the justice system is corrupted destruction of the nation is at hand.

And one might note that Dershowitz was on the defense team. He knew how to play that angle to a receptive jury.

So how do you fix it? Police must be scrupulously honest. Above reproach. We are a long way from that. Worse. Judges and prosecutors cover for them.

So I guess your answer is that since the cops are liars, everybody goes free ?

Really ?

Really ?




David

[ravingdave]

But the police (even the judges) aren't always worthy of trust.

Anyway, Simon, were you using the proxy when you got the no content voice?

Sorry about that, people. I just didn't realize that the crazy geographic restrictions worked in the Canada -> US direction too. I've always understood them to be implemented by the CRTC, in an effort to make sure that we're stuck with lots of 'canadian' television.

Actually, here's another one from last year.

I have little trust of Judges or Cops, or witnesses for that matter. That's why evidence is so important. Evidence has the ability to stand on it's own merits regardless of lies told by cops.

I'll repeat something I said earlier. It is quite likely that there has never been a case in history with more evidence than the OJ Simpson case. Unfakeable evidence. Who cares what the cops say or do ? The evidence speaks for it's self.

David

[BSPhysics]

"Deterence.
Deterence works. ALL laws are based on the concept of Deterence.

And if you're religious

Karma or Punishment.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but it dam*n sure makes it equal !

On the "Bubba" thing, I have long felt that the state should not tolerate nor be instrumental in the commission of a crime. The state has an OBLIGATION to people put in it's custody."

David


David, I agree with you whole-heartedly on all of your statements. Please, don't view my points from the typical dissent on this issue. Capital punishment IS morally acceptable and does deter crime in at least a small way. Even if it doesn't, it's still justice. I just hate that it costs so much.

On the "Bubba" thing, I also agree that prisons should not condone nor allow rape inside the walls. But, can you honestly tell me that it can be prevented without enormous cost? I don't think it can be. The reality is that it will always occur and it was never my intention to imply that prison authorities should look the other way. The intention of my post is to state that prison life without parole is more intolerable than death itself.

America does have too many prisoners but that is a trait of culture itself, not on the failures of the prisons. I could open a whole can of worms as to why we have so many felons but suffice it to say that it is not the justice department's fault.


BS

[BSPhysics]

I changed my mind, I'm opening the can of worms. It keeps with the spirit of the thread topic anyway.

Drugs are the scurge of America. I read a biography on The Allman Brothers entitled, "Midnight Riders" and a part of the book stood out to me. In Daytona Beach, FL, Duane Allman was one of the first teenagers in the early 60's to be doing drugs. Imagine American culture where teenagers do not have access nor even think to injest drugs. We forget and settle too easily over years of desensitizing ourselves to the horrors of drug addiction and overdose. I sometimes lean toward a more libertarian viewpoint of freedom on the issue until I see one of my students suffering because either they or their parents have abused drugs. This scurge must end or the American Soul will be empty.

Ending drug use and abuse is only a piece of reducing felonies in America and it has many other root causes and implications. But, it is a large piece of the pie.


BS

[TallDave]

Imagine American culture where teenagers do not have access nor even think to injest drugs.

Why not outlaw cigarettes and alcohol while we're at it? I've noticed rock-n-roll has a detrimental effect on some people, too. And video games are definitely out.

Just remember to lock the door on your new Utopia, because everyone is going to want to leave...

Most of the problems caused by drugs are actually caused more by our misguided attempt to treat a medical problem as a criminal justice problem. It's just the wrong tool for the job; it is literally doing brain surgery with a gun.

Addicts can function quite well if they aren't forced to pay incredibly inflated profit margins to criminals; see Dr. John Halsted, for instance. All we're doing with out drug laws is making drug dealers rich. Prohibition didn't work in the old days and it doesn't now.

[Nanos]

> Addicts can function quite well if they aren't forced to pay
> incredibly inflated profit margins to criminals

I suppose one might say, maybe it depends on the drug, if you take alcohol, the effects in the UK at least of cheap booze is it helps fuel an awful lot of crime.

Sure people aren't going out to rob others to pay for their booze habit, but the violence side effects cause a problem all of their own..


I've thought a lot about the drugs issue, having worked for charities that try to help addicts to living next door to a drug dealer, to having an ex who was an addict, the only thing I haven't done is become one myself.

Having visited religious communes where there are no drugs or drink, I notice a difference with the people, maybe its the religion, maybe its not...

I reckon Prohibition could work if you threw enough resources at it, so if I created my own commune, and had plenty of security guards, drug tests, searches with sniffer dogs, then you could actually keep the stuff outside.

Would anyone live there though...

Well, I know plenty of people who don't drink or do drugs, and are sick of living in a society which does and all the fallout from that.

Sure it would be nice if drugs was cheap, then people wouldn't need to rob to pay for their habit, but until that happens..

[Skipjack]

It seems to me like both the US and England have no drinking culture.
The following mistakes I have noticed:
You dont educate your kids on how to drink correctly. This seems to be a general issue nowadays, getting worse here too. I dont quite know why. Still better here, than elsewhere.
At least in the US it might in part be, because drinking alcohol is something most people there do, but everyone seems to be to eager to admit that it is something bad and so you dont talk about it.
Well for those that are interested here are the rules:

1. Dont drink to get drunk. It is a reason to be ashamed of yourself when you are drunk. You drink just enough and never to much. When you notice that you have to slow down, you drink some water, or an alcohol free drink. That is no shame!
This is something one has to learn to get right! Yes learning by doing, since there is not receipe for this. It is different for everyone and also depends on how much and what you ate, etc. Your judgement might also start to suffer the more you drink.
This means you will get drunk more than a couple of times before you get it right. Best to do that when you are still young (age 18 to 25), since your body can deal with it a little better then.

2. You dont ever drink allone. Alcohol is a social thing. Drinking allone is the first step to alcoholism. It comes even before drinking to much and to often!

3. If you drink alcohol, you drink when you are celebrating and having fun. The fun comes first, then the alcohol...
Dont ever drink when you are depressed! NEVER drink because "you need something to make you feel better". Another alcoholism step.

4. What do you drink when? Beer you can drink more often (some have it with their lunch), since it contains rather little alcohol. Wine during special occasions, large dinners and celebrations. Some doctors also recommend one(!) small(!) glass of red wine in the evening as a good way to prevent hearth desease. After a very, very big dinner, you can have one(!) small(!) sipp of schnaps (the 1/16th of a litre glasses). This helps with the digestion.
If you have a big party you might occasionally(!) have a long drink. A long drink as the name says is something you drink slowly. So you only drink one of them at one event. You do not gulp them down like there is no tomorrow. That is bad manners anyway.
Dont drink to much hard alcohol. I dont know why, but especially in the US it seems to be soooo "en vogue" to have some brandy or whiskey in the afternoon and in a business situation. Hollyweird kinda seems to promote that too. I dont know anyone here who does that. Must be an anglo- american thing.

5. Many higher class people here "never drink before sundown". This is anoher good rule, but I know people that like the beer with the steak for lunch and are not alcoholics either. I guess this depends a lot on the personality. I also see this getting broken frequently during large celebrations like big birthdays and weddings. I guess this is where the 3d rule comes into play though.

Anyway, if you follow these rules you have a very, very low chance of becoming an alcoholic.

[Brandon]

Well, it's easy to pick apart a lot of things wrong with pretty much any country in the world these days, not just the US. You can easily pick apart Canada just by looking at its politics lol, just take a five minute look into the houses of parliament and I can pretty much assure you of a childish shouting match. At least you guys have Obama now, great international appeal breaking away from the 'fundamentalist' Christian view a lot of the world had of the Republican control; it'll be interesting to see how his 'transparent government' scheme works out, could stop some serious stuff such as surprise government planes which end up not being used, costing Canadian taxpayers millions...or those ancient, **LEAKING** 1000BC submarines our government purchased pretty much without thinking lol .

Another important thing to remember as well is that not everyone slaps a stereotype on Americans; I always have a great time going on vacations to places like Florida and the Caribbean where there are lots more Americans than Canadians. Even when I was a child in Scouts, our troop frequently met up with a Pensylvanian troop and had a blast. Stereotypes are sad, and all it takes is an open mind to prove 'em wrong.

[MSimon]

I think both you and the jury already had a bias against the police, and in that regard I believe it's just as dangerous to justice as a bias against a particular race.

Police misconduct earned them the mistrust. I don't consider that bias.

The police knew about the miscreants in their ranks. In fact their lack of veracity is known nationwide. So much so that there is a word for it: testilying. And you know except in the most extreme cases I have never heard of a judge calling them out on it.


Now maybe the jury was "tainted" by familiarity with testilying.

Once the justice system is corrupted destruction of the nation is at hand.

And one might note that Dershowitz was on the defense team. He knew how to play that angle to a receptive jury.

So how do you fix it? Police must be scrupulously honest. Above reproach. We are a long way from that. Worse. Judges and prosecutors cover for them.

So I guess your answer is that since the cops are liars, everybody goes free ?

Really ?

Really ?

David

And I guess your point is: Cops are liars. Pay no attention. Let them make up anything they they want and put away whoever they want. Because totalitarian justice is better than no justice.

Makes sense to me. Because the pain of getting closer to real justice would just be too great.

I am so proud to see people standing up for the American ideal. You know that old Truth, Justice, and the American way deal. Does a feller proud.

After all corrupt police are nothing to worry about. Look at how such police have improved Mexico:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... exico.html

*

Spelling error corrected.

[Nanos]

Often the, people need education answer is suggested, but I really do reckon now that after many decades of education that people, even kids do really know most of the time what they are doing when it comes to drinking, smoking, drugs, you name it, people tend to do it for some reason, but education tends to be the last reason why anyone decides not to.

One might guess that many poor people drink to get drunk so they can forget about their lives and enjoy themselves.


> look into the houses of parliament and I can pretty much assure
> you of a childish shouting match

I think thats the world over when it comes to politicans

Mind you, it doesn't get much better at times in forums


> it'll be interesting to see how his 'transparent government'
> scheme works out

I'm quite in favour of that approach, only the trouble is, people then are not transparent about anything they could get in trouble for, so things still get talked about, only behind closed doors and not via email..

[ravingdave]

So I guess your answer is that since the cops are liars, everybody goes free ?

Really ?

Really ?

David

And I guess your point is: Cops are liars. Pay no attention. Let them make up anything they they want and put away whoever they want. Because totalitarian justice is better than no justice.

Makes sense to me. Because the pain of getting closer to real justice would just be too great.

I am so proud to see people standing up for the American ideal. You know that old Truth, Justice, and the American way deal. Does a feller proud.

After all corrupt police are nothing to worry about. Look at how such police have improved Mexico:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... exico.html

*

Spelling error corrected.

No MSimon, you advocate one extreme, I do not advocate it's opposite.

I do not believe the police should be completely trusted, nor do I believe they should be completely distrusted. I believe we should excersize reasonable judgement.



David

[Mike Holmes]

Well, Dave, you were the one who made the extreme supposition (argumentum ad absurdum). That, in fact, MSimon was advocating that we ignore justice because there are bad cops. And now you claim that he is making the abusurd case? You went there first.

Point to M.

The debate should be whether or not the evidence in the OJ Simpson case was overlooked by the jury. Did they have reason to have a reasonable doubt? If not, what's your argument specifically? Which bit of evidence was incontrovertibly true?

Face it, the prosecution did a bad job in presenting their evidence, and the police did a bad job at handling it. Whether or not it was planted or not, if they had taken more care, then things would have been different.

Does this place an impossible standard on police? Well, the question is whether or not you want them to catch 100% of criminals. That's the unreasonable standard. It would be nice, but we simply have to admit that it's impossible and that sometimes the bad guys will get away with their crimes.

When you find some perfect people, let me know, and I'll rethink my argument.

Note that they did a good enough job that OJ at least lost the civil case. Which means that at least some small amount of justice was done (assuming he actually committed the crime).

People find it easy to judge on these issues. It's easy to act like you were there, especially in the OJ case where the media covered it so thoroughly. But you weren't in that jury, and watching it on TV is NOT the same thing. Don't be so sure that you wouldn't have decided the same way, not having been there.

Mike

[seedload]

I changed my mind, I'm opening the can of worms. It keeps with the spirit of the thread topic anyway.

Drugs are the scurge of America. I read a biography on The Allman Brothers entitled, "Midnight Riders" and a part of the book stood out to me. In Daytona Beach, FL, Duane Allman was one of the first teenagers in the early 60's to be doing drugs. Imagine American culture where teenagers do not have access nor even think to injest drugs. We forget and settle too easily over years of desensitizing ourselves to the horrors of drug addiction and overdose. I sometimes lean toward a more libertarian viewpoint of freedom on the issue until I see one of my students suffering because either they or their parents have abused drugs. This scurge must end or the American Soul will be empty.

Ending drug use and abuse is only a piece of reducing felonies in America and it has many other root causes and implications. But, it is a large piece of the pie.


BS

I had a conversation with a hippy at a party one night. I basically blamed all of our modern problems on the 60's, free love, and drug use. It is actually pretty easy to blame just about everything on hippies. High crime rates, terrible adictions to heroin/crack/etc., gang violence, poverty, and aids. You can even make the case that the sex and drug culture that emerged out of the 'freedom' of the 60's has actually perpetuated racial inequality and hindered the civil rights movement from making even greater strides.

We used to be a society with an abundance of hard working poor people of all races. Today, a good and growing percentage of our poor people are not hard working any more. Mainly, IMHO, because of our drug culture and the fact that lots of inner city people are using, selling, battling over, or hiding from the drug trade.

Today I believe that it is probably best to give up, legalize drugs and spend the money that currently goes into the black hole of policing and imprisoning on educating and treating instead. But, I guarantee you that I will change my mind on this one a few more times before I die. Addiction sucks.

[MSimon]

The debate should be whether or not the evidence in the OJ Simpson case was overlooked by the jury. Did they have reason to have a reasonable doubt? If not, what's your argument specifically? Which bit of evidence was incontrovertibly true?

If it looks like evidence tampering is going on then you can't trust any of the forensic evidence the police handled.

That put a very big hole in the case. Enough to leave room for reasonable doubt. Especially if you start thinking along the lines of: "if the police had such a solid case why did they have to tamper with the evidence?"

I watched the whole case on TV - that was the conclusion I came to. And a juror interviewed after the verdict alluded to that.

Note that it is so bad re: corruption in Mexico that people do not report crimes. We are quite a ways from that here in the USA. Sadly we are headed in that direction.

[MSimon]

Making drugs illegal was a radical innovation. Sadly it hasn't worked out. We should do the conservative thing and return to the old system of leaving people alone.

BTW the 60s wasn't our first contact with free love in America. It was in the 20s that all that started.

And here is some data that explains why it happens. It is pretty independent of hippies or anything else. It has to do with demographics:

http://www.issues.org/13.2/courtw.htm

http://www.slate.com/id/2182089/entry/2182090/nav/tap3/

Since the high incarceration rates of young black men mean young black women are less likely to marry, a college degree and a job look like a rational investment for a single girl who can't rely on a partner as a source of income. What's more, the likelihood of young black women not marrying is greatly exacerbated by another trend: it appears that young black men who are not in prison typically take advantage of their strong bargaining position by not bothering to marry at all.

http://www.whyboysfail.com/2008/07/21/h ... ial-scene/

Hippies get a bad name for the genius moves of social conservatives trying out a bunch of radical stuff in the hopes of using government to direct culture. It has blown up in their faces. As I like to say: Cultural Socialism doesn't work any better than Economic Socialism.