[HN Gopher] The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale
___________________________________________________________________
The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale
Author : notgloating
Score : 115 points
Date : 2023-12-17 06:40 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (daviddfriedman.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (daviddfriedman.substack.com)
| refurb wrote:
| _The modern version, a plea bargain, is motivated by the threat
| of a much more severe sentence if the defendant insists on a
| trial and is convicted._
|
| This is looking at it backwards. It's not a threat of a "more
| severe sentence", it's a threat of a default sentence (the same
| sentence the accused would get if plea bargaining didn't exist at
| all). The plea bargain is an offer of a lesser sentence.
|
| That distinction makes a difference.
|
| The way the author looks at it is like how the government look at
| spending cuts. "Last year my budget went up 20% and this year
| it's only 10%, so you're _cutting my spending by 10%_ next year??
| ".
| LightHugger wrote:
| It makes a difference in that one way is a useful psychological
| manipulation and one is not.
|
| There is no difference in the way you seem to suggest.
| refurb wrote:
| How is offering a lesser punishment "manipulation"? As a
| defendant, it's simply a choice - "Do I think I can beat this
| case?".
|
| If you don't think you can, then you take the lesser
| punishment.
|
| If you think you can beat it, you decline it because the
| better choice is "no punishment at all".
| emmelaich wrote:
| Because it encourages the threat of a far greater
| punishment.
| KingMob wrote:
| > How is offering a lesser punishment "manipulation"?
|
| It's part of a larger manipulative pattern.
|
| Since you can increase the penalties for jury convictions
| to absurd levels, like the USA has done, even a "lesser"
| plea bargain punishment can still be more punitive than
| most nations' jury conviction punishments.
|
| Plus, as the length of a jury conviction punishment
| increases, the threshold at which one's willing to risk a
| jury trial has to go up, thus pressuring people into taking
| plea bargains they might not under another country's
| judicial system.
| refurb wrote:
| > Since you can increase the penalties for jury
| convictions to absurd levels
|
| What? Juries follow the law and the prescribed
| punishments. Maybe you're thinking of civil penalties?
| watwut wrote:
| Juries do not decide punishments. They are often times
| NOT allowed to even know what punishments are (the
| thinking is that they would be more likely to acquit when
| those punishments would feel too hard for them).
| southerntofu wrote:
| It's not just "can i beat this case"? It's also, "how much
| will it cost me?" and "how long will i stay imprisoned for
| before i'm found not guilty?".
|
| Of course, there's the chance you're found guilty although
| noone would dare say you committed the crime (Leonard
| Peltier), or the chance that you'll submit to much harsher
| punishment than what was decided by the judge (Georges
| Ibrahim Abdallah). But even when you're white and you're
| not facing a political repression case, there's a good
| chance pleading guilty for a fine and a suspended sentence
| looks better than spending a whole year in jail awaiting
| the trial that will exonerate you.
|
| There's plenty of research in that area, feel free to look
| it up.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-
| crim...
| dcminter wrote:
| Would you prefer a 10% chance of a death penalty or a 100%
| chance of a 1 year prison sentence? Exaggerated, but it
| makes the point clear.
| ajb wrote:
| Given that 97% of convictions are based on plea bargains, why
| would you imagine that sentencing is calibrated based on the 3%
| jury trials? There are obvious political incentives for this
| not to be the case, given how much voters are annoyed by
| convicts getting off lightly.
|
| Also, the main point is that confessions based on threats are
| much poorer evidence of guilt than a proper trial.
| refurb wrote:
| > Given that 97% of convictions are based on plea bargains,
| why would you imagine that sentencing is calibrated based on
| the 3% jury trials?
|
| Because that's not how you measure options.
|
| If I'm collecting a debt of $1,000 from you, and I come to
| you and say "hey, if you pay it this week, I'll settle for
| only $700", would you say "This person is stealing $300 from
| me!"?
|
| Of course not. You always owed $1,000. This is an offer to
| pay _less_.
|
| Just like those charged with a crime always faced a specific
| punishment. If you offer a _lesser punishment_ , it's not a
| threat of a harsher punishment because _you always faced it_
| , even if plea bargains never existed.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| This isn't related to your earlier comment.
|
| You originally claimed this:
|
| > It's not a threat of a "more severe sentence", it's a
| threat of a default sentence _(the same sentence the
| accused would get if plea bargaining didn 't exist at
| all)_. The plea bargain is an offer of a lesser sentence.
|
| The plea bargain is an offer of a "lesser" sentence, where
| "lesser" refers to a comparison to the trial sentence.
|
| It is not a comparison to the trial sentence from a
| counterfactual world in which plea bargains don't exist.
|
| As ajb points out, given that all US sentences derive from
| plea bargains, the sentence associated with a plea bargain
| already is the sentence that is felt to be appropriate for
| the crime. In the counterfactual word, you'd expect the
| counterfactual trial sentence to be about equal to the
| real-world plea bargain sentence.
| refurb wrote:
| > the sentence associated with a plea bargain already is
| the sentence that is felt to be appropriate for the crime
|
| That's not true. Plea bargains can be incredibly minor
| punishments versus the crime. Plea bargains are the flip
| side of the prosecutions options. If the prosecutor
| thinks it's a slam dunk, they have little incentive to
| offer a plea bargain at all - if they do, it may be a
| very severe sentence. If the prosecution thinks their
| odds of a win are low, they may offer a very lenient
| sentence, even for very serious crimes.
|
| But who goes to trial comparing their outcome to other
| trials? A individual is looking at a specific situation -
| their own trial. They have no idea about the
| circumstances of other trials - whether defendants were
| truly innocent, or how much evidence the prosecution had.
| You may be charged with murder, and another defendant got
| a plea bargain of only 1 year in prison for manslaughter.
| But the prosecution has a rock solid case so your plea
| bargain is life in prison.
|
| It's a singular decision of the defendant, usually with
| input from their lawyer. They'll need to determine their
| own likelihood of being found "not guilty" and decide if
| the risk is worth it versus the reduced sentence being
| offered.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > If the prosecutor thinks it's a slam dunk, they have
| little incentive to offer a plea bargain at all - if they
| do, it may be a very severe sentence.
|
| You have no idea how prosecutors act. Slam dunk cases are
| pled. Most cases are slam dunks.
|
| With plea bargains determining the sentence in 97% of
| cases, it isn't possible for those sentences to be felt
| to be lighter than appropriate. That would cause a
| political crisis.
| mrkeen wrote:
| > If the prosecutor thinks it's a slam dunk, they have
| little incentive to offer a plea bargain at all
|
| > 97% of convictions are based on plea bargains
|
| Taken together, these mean prosecutors generally don't
| have good enough evidence to put people away, which is
| the thrust of the article: it's easier to threaten
| someone into a confession than to have a proper trial.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Taken together, these mean prosecutors generally don't
| have good enough evidence to put people away
|
| Note that while you're correct about what those
| statements would mean in combination, refurb's statement
| is false. There is very little point in examining what
| _would_ follow from the invented claims of someone with
| no idea what he 's talking about.
| refurb wrote:
| > Taken together, these mean prosecutors generally don't
| have good enough evidence to put people away, which is
| the thrust of the article: it's easier to threaten
| someone into a confession than to have a proper trial.
|
| Generally? No. Sometimes? Sure.
|
| And yes, you could view it as a threat. That's the nature
| of a adversarial justic system. The same way that police
| will tell you they'll arrest you for standing on a
| sidewalk. It's often an empty threat.
|
| It's why we provide legal services to defendants. So you
| can have a trained lawyer look at the evidence and tell
| you what you chances are of a not guilty verdict. Then
| the defendant can decide if a chance at not guilty is
| worth turning down a plea bargain.
| watwut wrote:
| > The same way that police will tell you they'll arrest
| you for standing on a sidewalk.
|
| That is police abuse tho. In a sane controlled police
| system, no they can not threaten you with arrest for
| standing on a sidewalk.
|
| > It's why we provide legal services to defendants
|
| Public defenders are notoriously overburdened and have
| massively limited resources. They are less likely to get
| you bail and you are much easier to be coerced when you
| wait in jail for months.
| daedrdev wrote:
| Or it means they don't have enough resources to run a
| trial for every case they believe they will win. , and so
| give out plea bargins to reduce the number of trials
| rambambram wrote:
| And now you are going from criminal law to civil disputes.
| Hardly comparable.
| impossiblefork wrote:
| Here in Sweden a confession is evidence, but is not on its
| own enough to secure a conviction.
|
| I think this is the right way to do treat it-- after all,
| people lie about all sorts of things.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| > It's not a threat of a "more severe sentence", it's a threat
| of a default sentence
|
| The "default" is updated when you learn about plea bargain...
| You are now comparing options relative to plea sentence. If the
| best option "walk free" is uncertain even if you're not guilty
| (what if the other guy has a better lawyer or something) then
| plea sentence is the best certain option.
| eviks wrote:
| The default sentence depends on the charges, charges depend on
| the persecutor, which are motivated to increase those to get
| the easier deal of a plea bargain, so it is exactly the much
| higher cost of a trial and a higher risk of a more severe
| sentence that is the selling point for the accused if you don't
| look at it backwards
| refurb wrote:
| But the prosecutor _doesn 't decide the sentence_. The judge
| or jury do.
|
| And prosecutors need to be careful. If they go for a more
| serious charge, but can't prove it, the defendant may be
| found not guilty when they would have been found guilty of a
| lesser charge (this happened to me on a jury - we found them
| not guilty of 1st degree murder, but likely would have found
| them guilty of manslaughter, but that wasn't an option).
| eviks wrote:
| Not really, there are mandatory minimums and various
| sentencing guidelines, so the judge is not doing completely
| random stuff independent of the charges the prosecutor
| brings.
|
| And you example is a bit backwards: the trial happened
| after the plea bargain failed, so this has little effect on
| the threat to bring more (or more serious) charges, but
| even if it does: the "careful" sub-range is still measured
| in multiples/years, so a huge risk
| southerntofu wrote:
| I feel like you are looking at it backwards. When the
| prosecutor proposes a plea bargain, it's usually because they
| don't have enough proof to get a proper conviction through a
| juge/jury, or at least it is so here in France.
|
| A plea bargain is used to convict innocent people, by giving
| them a choice between a plea punishment, and the punishment of
| having to go through pre-trial detention and various forms of
| abuses before being able to prove their innocence. That the
| entire police-justice system works by treating you as guilty
| until proven innocent is crazy and is in itself a very strong
| sentence. That is, unless you are rich of course in which case
| pre-trial detention is likely non-existent and you can commit
| most crimes and get away with it.
| watwut wrote:
| Majority of cases are settled by plea bargain 96% or
| something like that. It is used whether there is evidence or
| not, because it is fast and cheap.
| rambambram wrote:
| There is - at least on paper - a big distinction between a
| prosecutor and a judge. It's called 'trias politica'. Maybe you
| should look it up.
| isnifailed wrote:
| And then there was Guantanamo, which proves all this stuff in the
| article is far from being universally accepted.
| acdha wrote:
| This is somewhat true but it's a reminder of how far out it
| was: the Bush administration had to invent a new theory of
| executive privilege to authorize it, did it outside of the
| country because they knew it wouldn't be accept by a real
| court, and then they still felt the need to "accidentally"
| delete the tapes.
| verisimi wrote:
| Yes. What nonsense the whole of the legal system is. And
| people think it is about justice. If justice occurs on
| account of the legal system, its a happy accident, not by
| design!
| wolverine876 wrote:
| This attitude prevents real progress, and results in
| additional injustice. The legal system is imperfect, and
| very flawed in some respects. The way forward is to
| understand the mechanism, and improve it, relentlessly. In
| the end it's a human institution and will be flawed, but
| that's all we have - humans all the way down.
|
| The people on the sideline saying it's all pointless are
| not only obstructing those doing actual work, they benefit
| from the legal system - the work of all these people and
| generations working toward justice - without contributing
| their share.
| verisimi wrote:
| You say its pointless standing on the sideline
| obstructing, whereas I think trying to save a system that
| cannot deliver justice by design is a waste of effort.
|
| Let me know when your relentless effort yields
| improvement.
| infotainment wrote:
| This seems like a really shallow take masquerading as a deep one.
|
| The core assertion that offering a lesser punishment in exchange
| for cooperation is a form of "torture" strikes me as an extreme
| exaggeration.
| mrkeen wrote:
| The writer didn't say that.
|
| > The American legal system found a less expensive alternative.
| Like its medieval predecessor, it substituted confession for
| trial. The medieval confession was motivated by the threat of
| torture. The modern version, a plea bargain, is motivated by
| the threat of a much more severe sentence if the defendant
| insists on a trial and is convicted.
| southerntofu wrote:
| Have you ever faced custody and pre-trial detention? It's hard
| to imagine until you've gone through this. But yes, offering a
| definitely innocent person that was abused by the System the
| choice between two forms of punishment is some form of
| "torture".
|
| Being manipulated by the cops into a fake testimony is torture.
| Having the cops fake evidence and their testimonies to harass
| you is torture. Remaining days in a room with lights on all
| day, shit all over the walls in a freezing cold or hammering
| hot, without access to a shower or better clothes, that's
| torture.
|
| And that's when you're lucky. The less lucky ones have months
| or years of pre-trial detention, sometimes in isolation (which
| is a well-studied form of torture) before they can even defend
| themselves.
| lelanthran wrote:
| > Have you ever faced custody and pre-trial detention?
|
| Yes.
|
| > ut yes, offering a definitely innocent person that was
| abused by the System the choice between two forms of
| punishment is some form of "torture".
|
| If you classify everything you don't like as " some form of
| torture", then sure you have a point.
|
| But we don't do that. We don't _know for sure_ that someone
| is innocent. All we can do is go through the process that we
| have.
|
| It's beyond hyperbole to suggest that any and all you lements
| of the justice system is a form of torture.
| andrepd wrote:
| >But we don't do that. We don't know for sure that someone
| is innocent.
|
| A basic principle of any civilised society is "innocent
| until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt". I will not
| waste time explaining why this is important.
| lelanthran wrote:
| I am not presupposing guilt, I am seriously wondering how
| you would have a working justice system that never
| arrests suspects.
|
| Complaining that all elements of a justice system is a
| form of torture is like unironically using the term
| "stare rape": you're trivialising the real term in
| pursuit of winning points in an argument.
| Geisterde wrote:
| Define torture if you are so inclined. Regardless, the plea
| bargain system has been repeatedly abused to compel false
| testimoney from people otherwise helpless to defend
| themselves from a lengthy and costly legal proceeding that
| will leave them ruined. Its a violation of their human
| rights, its prohibited by the constitution, and empirically
| has ruined millions of people. Crimes that do not involve
| violence against another person or person or their property
| (which are logically synonymous) should not be crimes, that
| would lower the judicial load.
| lelanthran wrote:
| I agree with everything you said, and still disagree that
| Golding suspects until an appearance in court is the same
| as waterboarding them or pulling their fingernails.
|
| Just because I pointed out that such a practice is not,
| in fact, any form of torture does not mean that the
| practice is not unduly burdensome and unfair.
| Geisterde wrote:
| I appreciate that view, but thats not a qualitative
| analysis of torture. Im not sure that it could be
| appropriately defined in a way that distinguishes torture
| from other types of violence, so maybe the word is really
| only useful in creating an emotional effect.
| tgv wrote:
| Pre-trail detention isn't torture. If it were, it would be
| forbidden in many jurisdictions. Hard isolation is different;
| at the very least, it is a step in the direction of torture.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| He didn't mention that the plea deal doesn't care if you are
| innocent and even if you are innocence and are found innocent you
| might do 3 years in jail awaiting trial (bail is for wealthy
| people)
| draugadrotten wrote:
| There are even people waiting 10+ years for a trial.
| https://reason.com/2023/07/26/he-spent-10-years-behind-bars-...
|
| This is clearly the best justice. Believe me. We have triumphed
| over evil like nobody has seen before. I believe it's a rough
| situation over there. There's no question about it. The past
| does not have to define the future. It's idealistic, it's
| wonderful, it's a beautiful thing.
| hulitu wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_cam.
| ..
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| For us mere peasants, there is a term "preventive detention"
| such they say is NOT an arrest so you do not have rich things
| like habeas corpus or bail.
|
| Plus, this is usually pre-crime detention so there is no crime,
| no case, no enquiry, no courts.
|
| Its fun
|
| https://www.legalservicesindia.com/law/article/5001/5/Preven...
|
| Another nice thing
|
| t was held that the law of preventive detention is not
| unconstitutional since it has no objective criterion for
| ordering preventive detention, and instead relies on the
| executive's subjective judgment. This viewpoint is based on the
| fact that preventive detention is not punitive, but rather
| preventative, and is used to prevent a person from engaging in
| actions that are seen to be harmful to specific goals that the
| law of preventive detention aims to regulate. As a result,
| preventive detention is based on suspicion or expectation
| rather than proof.
|
| https://blog.ipleaders.in/extending-protections-accused-ligh...
| alephnerd wrote:
| For American commentators, this is a Commonwealth holdover
| from British Colonial jurisprudence (Australia, NZ, India,
| Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa).
|
| Should be done away with, but it most likely won't be as long
| as Indian Law and Order concentrates more on "Order" and less
| on "Law".
|
| Also the chronic lack of Judges in India is a major issue
| impacting bail.
| k__ wrote:
| _" In the history of Western culture no legal system has ever
| made a more valiant effort to perfect its safeguards and thereby
| to exclude completely the possibility of mistaken conviction"_
|
| Reminds me of a law that was repealed recently in Germany.
|
| They wanted to "reopen" cases where people were already found not
| guilty, when new technology would find new evidence.
|
| In one case, a murderer was found not guilty, and later they had
| DNA analysis that would have proven his guilt. The new law would
| have put him behind bars.
|
| However, the federal constitutional court repealed the law, as
| the constitution forbids to convict someone two times for the
| same crime. They said legal certainty was more important than
| finding the truth.
| Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote:
| Although my first reaction is to support the idea of being able
| to retry cases when new evidence emerges, I can see the
| pitfalls if this were applied in a real-world justice system.
| There would have to be some pretty big barriers to overcome to
| prevent abuse (on the usual suspects, the poor and/or people
| the police/politicians just don't like) and then more rules to
| make sure those barriers themselves aren't used as loopholes by
| the truly guilty. I think it could be done, but its just as
| likely they do it in such a way to maximize state power without
| checks or balances.
| k__ wrote:
| I totally understand where they coming from.
|
| Nevertheless, this loophole gives guilty people plausible
| deniability, since the system can never be sure to find the
| truth.
| tgv wrote:
| Isn't it common to be able to re-open court cases? That
| (technically, legally) sidesteps ne bis in idem (aka double
| jeopardy), but it requires that substantial new evidence is
| brought. So basically it adds that barrier, and the barrier
| becomes higher for every new attempt.
| SamBam wrote:
| No, it's not common to reopen court cases if the jury finds
| a person innocent. You can certainly reopen court cases
| where someone was found guilty, but that's not double
| jeopardy.
| bagels wrote:
| Juries make guilty/not guilty findings, not innocence.
| PebblesRox wrote:
| What's the technical distinction between "not guilty" and
| "innocent?"
| jurgenaut23 wrote:
| You're a statistician, aren't you?
| retrac wrote:
| That is called "double jeopardy". It is explicitly prohibited
| in most legal systems. Even where it isn't explicitly
| prohibited, it's generally assumed as a basic principle (like
| innocent until proven guilty).
|
| It's basic: if someone can be retried because of new evidence,
| the prosecution will introduce a little bit more evidence
| (probably evidence they intentionally held back!) after each
| acquittal, and try them again.
|
| The Americans in particular take it much further than some do;
| here in Canada the prosecution can appeal from an acquittal due
| to legal error in the decision; the prohibition on double
| jeopardy only applies to the entire process as a whole, after a
| final verdict including appeals. In the USA, a verdict issued
| by a jury, even at the first trial, is generally final and
| cannot be appealed even for reasons of legal error, while a
| guilty verdict can be appealed. American pluricentric power
| does create an odd circumstance where you can be tried twice in
| practice, though. If the federal government prosecutes someone
| for a crime, and fails to convict, if it was illegal under
| state law, the state government can try again under state law,
| or vice versa.
| graphe wrote:
| Innocent until proven guilty isn't generally assumed. Look at
| India.
| mrangle wrote:
| Or even at France, if memory serves.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| Is this what you are referring to?
|
| https://www.france24.com/en/20170830-france-reacts-
| dutertes-...
| watwut wrote:
| There is that "factual innocence is not a reason to let the
| convict goes, because somehow magically knowing an innocent
| person is in prison makes justice system more trustworthy"
| supreme court gem.
|
| There should be obvious difference between "minor new
| development" and "major new finding". Likewise, there should
| be obvious difference between "potentially innocent person is
| in prison" and "prosecutor wants new attempt situations.
| SamBam wrote:
| I'm not sure precisely what supreme court gem you're
| referring to, but just to be clear, double jeopardy only
| applies when a jury finds a person innocent. People who are
| found guilty _can_ potentially have a new trial if new
| evidence comes to light.
| gumby wrote:
| In 2020 or January 2021 the federal Supreme Court
| affirmed the execution of a convict when it was
| demonstrated that their court appointed attorney had
| ignored exculpatory evidence that the accused had been
| elsewhere at the time of the crime. The process was
| considered more important than the result.
|
| There was a lot in the headlines at the time and though
| this made the news other things quickly drove it "off the
| front page" (don't know what metaphor we should use for
| that expression these days).
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _There is that "factual innocence is not a reason to let
| the convict goes, because somehow magically knowing an
| innocent person is in prison makes justice system more
| trustworthy" supreme court gem._
|
| Is that for real? It sounds positively Cardassian.
|
| Dukat: "On Cardassia, the verdict is always known before
| the trial begins. And it's always the same."
|
| Sisko: "In that case, why bother with a trial at all?"
|
| Dukat: "Because the people demand it. They enjoy watching
| justice triumph over evil every time. They find it
| comforting."
| hn_acker wrote:
| The case you're referring to is Herrera v. Collins, 506
| U.S. 390 (1993). The relevant excerpt is in Justice Antonin
| Scalia's concurrence [1]:
|
| > There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in
| contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in
| the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration
| of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward
| after conviction.
|
| ...
|
| > With any luck, we shall avoid ever having to face this
| embarrassing question again, since it is improbable that
| evidence of innocence as convincing as today's opinion
| requires would fail to produce an executive pardon.
|
| Note: In the excerpt above from source [1], Snopes removed
| a page break and inserted a comma (mistake?). Keep that in
| mind when using ctrl-F in source [2].
|
| The Supreme Court's ruling (6-3) was that someone who was
| already convicted for a crime but later makes a claim of
| new evidence of innocence is not entitled for a new
| judicial trial [2]. In simple terms, there's no guarantee
| to a new trial after the fact, and the burden on the courts
| would be too much anyway. Scalia's concurrence went further
| and asserted that executing someone who was convicted in a
| procedurally proper trial but was actually innocent is not
| "cruel and unusual punishment" (by the standards of the
| past 200+ years of US history, which supposedly involved
| plenty of executions of innocent people convicted in proper
| trials) and is not a violation of due process.
|
| The majority (including Scalia) weren't in favor of
| executing an innocent person, they were just arguing that
| the convict making the new claim of innocence can't count
| on the _judicial system_. The majority, including Scalia,
| points to the only option being seeking _executive_
| clemency /pardon, i.e. request the governor/president to
| evaluate the new evidence of supposed innocence and hope
| that the governor/president agrees - or at least reduces
| the sentence [2]. A request for clemency is outside of the
| scope of due process.
|
| > Herrera is not left without a forum to raise his actual
| innocence claim. He may file a request for clemency under
| Texas law, which contains specific guidelines for pardons
| on the ground of innocence. History shows that executive
| clemency is the traditional "fail safe" remedy
|
| [page break]
|
| > for claims of innocence based on new evidence, discovered
| too late in the day to file a new trial motion.
|
| From the convict's perspective, "no new trial, but you can
| ask for a pardon" is cold comfort, but not necessarily a
| dead end.
|
| [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scalia-death-penalty-
| quote...
|
| [2] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/390/ ht
| tps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/390/case.pdf
| kmeisthax wrote:
| It's hard not to read SCOTUS's argument as selfish. The
| zeroeth amendment of every legal system is "the people
| shall not waste the judge's time", and apparently it
| comes even before "we let 10 guilty men go free to save 1
| innocent man".
| smnrchrds wrote:
| > _Four months after the Court 's ruling, Herrera was
| executed. His last words were: "I am innocent, innocent,
| innocent. . . . I am an innocent man, and something very
| wrong is taking place tonight."_
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrera_v._Collins#Subseque
| nt_...
| epicureanideal wrote:
| Seems like if they believed he was innocent they
| should've contacted the executive themselves to request a
| pardon.
| User23 wrote:
| Clemency is a wonderful tradition, but I get the
| impression that those who hold that power tend to view it
| as purely prerogative with no moral obligation. Which is
| too bad, because it certainly is meant to be justice's
| last resort.
| nradov wrote:
| The USA still has a form of double jeopardy. Under our dual
| sovereignty system, federal and state authorities can both
| prosecute a defendant for the same underlying crime.
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/supreme-court-
| double...
| teknico wrote:
| No such safeguard in Italy: people are regularly tried from
| three to up to five times.
|
| It's not rare for someone to be found guilty after having been
| found not guilty once, and sometimes even twice.
|
| https://www.nicolaporro.it/uccise-il-padre-per-difendere-la-...
| aquafox wrote:
| > the constitution forbids to convict someone two times for the
| same crime He wasn't convicted, which means the reason he isn't
| convicted for the first time now is because he is not allowed
| to be convicted twice. That doesn't make sense to me.
| james-bcn wrote:
| >In 1215 the fourth Lateran council rejected the religious
| legitimacy of judicial ordeals and banned priests from
| participating in them. Over the next few decades most European
| countries abandoned their use.
|
| I'm not sure if this is true. There was definitely trial by
| ordeal in the 16th and 17th century.
| jessriedel wrote:
| Wikipedia suggests that although they still sometime occurred,
| they had become quite rare in Europe, which seems consistent
| with the blog post. The fact that they were forbidden by the
| Catholic church certainly supports this.
|
| > Priestly cooperation in trials by fire and water was
| forbidden by Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council of
| 1215 and replaced by compurgation. Trials by ordeal became
| rarer over the Late Middle Ages, but the practice was not
| discontinued until the 16th century. Certain trials by ordeal
| would continue to be used into the 17th century in witch-hunts.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_ordeal
| Geisterde wrote:
| All of this wonderful game theory people are discussing in these
| comments; "while this particular instance they may have found the
| real criminal, the precedence it would set will likely be
| abused", this is indeed the most sober analysis of something like
| repealing protections against double jeopardy. Dare I say, people
| should engage that part of their brain with everything, the
| problems with mass surveillance tends to be something this board
| is also good at identifying.
|
| What about the monetary system, surely we could all take a step
| back and anaylze the mechanics of a system that plays a 50% role
| in all economic transactions, no ideology, no bias, just the game
| theory of a system where money only exists when its loaned into
| existence by a central bank.
|
| What about gun ownership (oh thats the nerve), its easy to assume
| things will be better when guns are banned, but what is the
| actual game theory in the balance of power between a people and
| their government when the people are stripped of their ability to
| defend themselves from an oppressive government?
| coldtea wrote:
| > _what is the actual game theory in the balance of power
| between a people and their government when the people are
| stripped of their ability to defend themselves from an
| oppressive government?_
|
| What is the actual reality that says now there's a "balance of
| power" between the people and their government in the US?
|
| How did people or groups challenging it with their guns (or
| even peacefully) because they thought of it as an "oppressive
| government" fared?
| Geisterde wrote:
| Reasonably well, all things considered. There are something
| like 20+ million ar-15s in america, were american gun owners
| considered an army it would be the largest ever conceived of
| with no close second; perhaps here you will find the reason
| you enjoy more liberties than someone living in china or
| north korea.
|
| And I never said it was fair, I said it was a balance; the
| balance is very clearly biased towards the government, but
| they do not enjoy such power for complete and violent
| subjugation. They rely instead on propaganda, I would argue
| that is the foundation of their power in fact; the creation
| myth of our government, that the public interest is
| represented, keep a critical mass unwittingly subsurvient.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> were american gun owners considered an army
|
| Guns do not make an army. Should 20 million AR-carrying
| Americans rise up, the "government" would be the least
| scared. The day after they stormed all the state houses,
| they would fractionize and turn against one another.
| Geisterde wrote:
| How do you get from 'an armed populace protects against
| government overreach' to 'an armed uprising'? You realize
| thats projection right?
| PhasmaFelis wrote:
| > perhaps here you will find the reason you enjoy more
| liberties than someone living in china or north korea.
|
| False dichotomy. There are plenty of nations that have
| strict gun control laws _and_ plenty of liberty.
| PhasmaFelis wrote:
| > perhaps here you will find the reason you enjoy more
| liberties than someone living in china or north korea.
|
| False dichotomy. There are many nations that have strict
| gun control laws _and_ plenty of liberty.
| Geisterde wrote:
| Right, like Australia, where they put their own citizens
| into internment camps.
| coldtea wrote:
| You mean like the US did Native Americans in early 20th
| century, or the Japanese-Americans in WWII? Or
| seggregation between blacks and whites?
|
| Or like the fact that the US has the largest prison
| population (percentage wise) than any western country, by
| a huge factor? And where over a million people are
| convicted of felony per year?
| Geisterde wrote:
| Yes.
|
| There is nothing logically inconsistent with saying
| disarming the native population was a tactic used to
| further subjugate them, as an example. Racially motivated
| violence has almost unilaterally been the causal result
| of insufficiently armed minorities. Im all for letting
| non violent offenders out of prison.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Reasonably well, all things considered. There are
| something like 20+ million ar-15s in america, were american
| gun owners considered an army it would be the largest ever
| conceived of with no close second;_
|
| And how would those ar-15 bros would fare against an
| organized, professional army, with training, logistics, and
| coordination, not to mention air support, tanks, and the
| state on its side?
|
| Not to mention most of those millions of gun owners would
| need to be on the same side to begin with, to count
| together.
|
| > _perhaps here you will find the reason you enjoy more
| liberties than someone living in china or north korea_
|
| I doubt it, First Amendment aside, European countries are
| freer than the US in more substantial ways (for starters,
| they don't have the kind of kafka-esque over extention of
| the law in the US, or the biggest ratio of prison vs
| general population, SWAT-ized trigger-happy police, and so
| on), and they don't have guns at home, except the
| ocassional shooting rifle.
| toast0 wrote:
| > And how would those ar-15 bros would fare against an
| organized, professional army, with training, logistics,
| and coordination, not to mention air support, tanks, and
| the state on its side?
|
| Depends on the terms of engagement and the makeup of the
| professional army.
|
| Are ar-15 bros going to effectively take and hold
| territory? Maybe on a temporary basis, there's a lot of
| potential objectives that are regularly barely defended.
| But it's pretty easy to roll out the national guard or
| whoever to flush people out if desired.
|
| Can ar-15 bros be a significant problem for occupying
| forces? Almost certainly yes.
|
| If you wanted or needed to remove this group or their
| weapons from a territory, it's going to be a major
| challenge, and highly disruptive to the other occupants,
| and that's going to inspire more people to take up arms.
| This is insurgency 101.
| Geisterde wrote:
| You are so secretly obsessed with the thought of a civil
| war you have taken to projecting your views on others. I
| never said american gun owners were an army, nor did I
| suggest an armed insurrection. It is merely a bulwark
| against the most extreme forms of government oppression.
| The cost of a more overt version of oppression of the
| american public is too high for the government to
| entertain. Regarding anything the government does, if
| they cant do so quietly, then they must do so through
| propaganda, and if they cant garner enough public support
| then they back off.
|
| The american public has no guns, only the occasional
| shooting rifle. Did I do it right? You do not distinguish
| between freedom and liberty, those liberties are at times
| suspended. Things are definitely not ok in the united
| states, but thats not what guns are there to stop at this
| stage of our political system. The most valuable tools in
| the day to day are encryption and censorship resistant
| systems.
| 2devnull wrote:
| > How did people or groups challenging it with their guns (or
| even peacefully) because they thought of it as an "oppressive
| government" fared?
|
| Well there was an American revolution that gave us our nation
| in the first place. I'd say it fared mightily well.
| flatline wrote:
| Cliven Bundy still walks free as far as I know, which I
| personally find mind-boggling, but there is precedence.
| jfengel wrote:
| At this point, I think it has less to do with a belief in a
| complete gun ban, which seems an absurd thing to even
| contemplate.
|
| It's more that absolutely nothing is done at all. Not even
| Sandy Hook produced any change whatsoever. A prominent argument
| was that the entire thing was a fake for the purpose of banning
| guns, tacitly admitting that reality did merit some kind of
| change.
|
| So at this point it's more of an indicator that politics has
| utterly broken down. We can't meaningfully discuss a limit case
| such as you bring up, because the answer is predetermined.
| Between a Supreme Court composed two-thirds of candidates
| vetted to allow no gun restrictions of any kind ever, and a set
| of checks and balances in the Congress that requires a super
| majority for any legislation, the argument is permanently
| decided in favor of "doing nothing". Not just on this issue but
| on every issue.
|
| Compared to that worrying about Zombie George III reimposing
| the Stamp Acts doesn't seem much like worrying about.
| Geisterde wrote:
| How do I relate this, from your prespective they do nothing
| to fix an obvious issue. From their prespective it has
| nothong to do with guns and are so absolved from
| responsibility, they are only acting in reaction to a threat
| to their lawful rights.
|
| Its unfortunate that you are left with only reactionaries to
| offer alternatives, because by nature they are predisposed to
| telling you to pound sand. We could have a more healthy
| relationship with guns, I think it starts with acknowledging
| the role pharmaceutical drugs and investigating their effects
| more publically. I would also support any kind of community
| work in teaching responsible firearm operation, and more
| generally promoting high ethical standards of conduct in
| everyday life.
|
| That said, the safest place I inhabit is work, with its
| fences, badge readers, and security guards. The second safest
| place is at home, with cameras, alarms and locks. Paying
| administrators over security guards is a gross mismanagement
| of government money.
| a_gnostic wrote:
| The supreme court, stacked or not, has no bearing over gun
| ownership, nor does congress. "Congress shall make no law
| [...] the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."
| supercedes both of them.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> no bearing over gun ownership
|
| Except they have great sway over definitions. They dictate
| what "arms" actually means. They dictate whether that word
| includes entire classes of weapons. The court currently
| protects only guns, but a small reinterpretation of "arms"
| could easily expand it to include bladed or explosive
| weapons, both of which are not currently protected. Does
| the 2nd cover flamethrowers? SCOTUS gets to make that
| decision.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| The current scope of "arms" does include most
| conventional weapons but intersects with other boring
| regulatory considerations, especially at the State level.
| Anyone that can buy a gun can also fill out the paperwork
| to buy or manufacture much heavier weaponry. Most people
| don't because exercising the right is a headache. You
| can't drive a main battle tank on a public street or
| store a surface-to-air missile system in your backyard
| for basic infrastructure, zoning, and safety reasons that
| have nothing to do with the weapons per se. Small arms
| present much less of a practical safety or nuisance risk
| regardless of type, the same as any firearm.
|
| The paperwork required is the trivial part. I have
| friends that, essentially for a laugh, filed for and
| received every Federal approval required to acquire
| basically the entire range of conventional weaponry. It
| had a similar level of scrutiny as applying for Global
| Entry at the airport. If you exercised this, you still
| need to comply with all the industrial regulations that
| apply to non-weapons with similar properties, which is
| expensive and inconvenient.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> The current scope of "arms" does include most
| conventional weapons but intersects with other boring
| regulatory considerations
|
| If those other conventional weapons were covered as
| "arms" under the 2nd, then those other boring regulations
| don't matter. The fact that those regs even exist is
| because so many weapons are specifically not covered as
| arms. I can own an AR-15. I cannot own a switchblade. I
| can own a 9mm semiautomatic, but I cannot own a small pen
| gun. I can own a short shotgun (coachgun) but I cannot
| own a crossbow in New York. Walk into a Nevada store with
| a handgun on your hip or an AR over your shoulder and
| nobody will bat an eye. But carry a sword and you will be
| arrested. It was only a couple years ago that laws
| banning "chain sticks" were struck down. SCOTUS has
| consistently narrowed the 2nd to only protect guns. Most
| ever other weapon is open for whatever reg the government
| wants to enact.
| User23 wrote:
| Amusingly the well regulated militia subordinate clause
| makes it very clear that the 2nd amendment is explicitly
| intended to protect "weapons of war."
|
| Sadly, since the Dick act, Congress has defined "well-
| regulated" as "yeah, whatever." Nevertheless, since that
| was Congressional intent it satisfies the well-regulated
| requirement.
| sterlind wrote:
| Your friends were able to purchase new machine guns? Not
| old ones that were grandfathered in, or modded to become
| semi-auto?
| clankyclanker wrote:
| ...Not in practice? The US has had laws in the books
| regulating gun ownership for almost a century.
|
| https://time.com/5169210/us-gun-control-laws-history-
| timelin...
| lsy wrote:
| This isn't true under current US jurisprudence: if a law
| that infringes on a fundamental constitutional right can be
| shown to be narrowly tailored to, and the least restrictive
| means of achieving, a compelling state interest, then it
| passes strict scrutiny and is considered constitutional.
| impossiblefork wrote:
| Isn't that for rights though? Surely these explicit
| limits on congressional authority are more fundamental?
| projektfu wrote:
| Why did you start with the first phrase of the first
| amendment, redact the rest of that amendment and the
| beginning of the second, and then misquote the remainder?
|
| "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
| of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
| Arms, shall not be infringed."
|
| Grammarians have been puzzling over this text for many
| years.
| Geisterde wrote:
| Why do we pretend that organizationally we exist in the
| same environment as when they penned the constitution?
| The people were the militia, and a free state implies the
| freedom of the people, not the government.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _Grammarians have been puzzling over this text for many
| years._
|
| It would help if someone could find another phrase in the
| Bill of Rights that refers to, or even alludes to, the
| primacy of the rights of the state (whether "Congress" or
| a collective state-sanctioned "militia") over those of
| the citizenry.
|
| There don't seem to be any such phrases, which lends a
| lot of credence to those who argue that the preface to
| the Second Amendment is just that -- prefatory, with no
| functional or prescriptive aspect whatsoever. The Bill of
| Rights is simply the wrong place to look for rules that
| grant, rather than restrict, governmental authority.
| Terr_ wrote:
| I have a pet theory which tends to annoy both major sides
| (not necessarily a sign of quality, but an interesting
| property) and it rests on three facts:
|
| 1. In the beginning everything in the Federal
| Constitution--and _all_ the amendments--were understood
| to be _only_ a restriction on the Federal government.
|
| 2. Many restrictions on the federal government were
| created out of states' concerns that it would be used
| against them.
|
| 3. The Second Amendment was drafted during the Articles
| of Confederation, at time when every state was _required_
| to support their own state-militia with arms /materiel,
| including guns-on-wheels that could be pulled by a horse,
| and the legislature had to appoint the upper-ranks.
|
| So in combination, I argue the Second Amendment was
| wrongly "incorporated", abusing its original legislative
| intent of preserving a degree of state military autonomy.
| So individual states can impose stronger restrictions if
| they like, but on the other hand the federal government
| can't complain if you tow around a 4-barrel flak-cannon
| behind your truck.
| chx wrote:
| Except for the first two centuries after that was written
| the Supreme Court didn't interpret that section to mean
| anything goes. In particular, in 1939 it upheld a federal
| ban on sawed-off shotguns (United States v. Miller). It was
| not until 2008 when in District of Columbia v. Heller they
| said the Second Amendment protects an individual right to
| possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.
|
| So it's not so clean cut as you'd think.
| Terr_ wrote:
| Under that wildly-expansive theory, people in prison for
| murder _must_ be allowed to carry loaded guns around.
| analog31 wrote:
| Also, what is the game theory when an armed faction of the
| people gain the ability to overthrow a democracy and install a
| king, or at least, can credibly threaten to do so?
| mrangle wrote:
| Or how about overthrow a King and install a democracy?
|
| The game theory is that it is likely that most of the time
| successful Revolutions are backed by powerful opposing States
| or quasi-States. Any others get squashed, but likely most
| often don't get off of the ground to begin with.
| analog31 wrote:
| Perhaps a more interesting study is just to look at things
| more incrementally. For instance is a slightly more heavily
| armed population likely to enjoy slightly more rights, or
| fewer? Should I be optimistic about my rights if I move to
| a more heavily armed state or region?
| mrangle wrote:
| That would be interesting. I think you'd have trouble
| finding enough incrementalism to provide meaningful data.
| But a place to start might be in European nations that
| only allow hunting guns.
| analog31 wrote:
| Indeed, and I think you could get more data by counting
| countries that "allow" guns by default, simply by being
| incapable of regulating them.
| Geisterde wrote:
| Generally speaking armed revolution ends with the
| revolutionaries getting the short end of the stick, they were
| the keys to aquiring some measure of power, but are no longer
| useful for a regime focused on controlling its new territory.
| Following that a constitution and new edicts arise that
| cement state power while providing a thin vernier of
| legitimacy.
|
| As far as an armed group in the united states doing that, I
| think we are a long way off from that. Although I would say
| democracy is structurally flawed, so long as the american
| public believes the foundation myth of their representation
| holds, no such thing is possible. The easiest way then to
| prevent an armed revolution, is to provide better
| transparency to elections. You dont even really need to make
| the elections fair; for instance im pretty sure republican
| voters will go on accepting that their civil and economic
| rights are trampled on; Democratic voters will go on
| accepting disfunctional criminal justice, healthcare, and
| education systems; so long as we arent playing games with who
| and how votes are tallied and what level of transparency we
| have over that process. Breaking that cycle, where the vast
| majority would really rather unwittingly vote away
| prosperity, requires a different type of revolution.
| jMyles wrote:
| You have successfully identified the growing and confusing
| discomfort I have had with HN, without knowing myself its
| basis.
|
| I hope we can evolve into a community that is consistently
| curious and thoughtful about consequences of policy decisions
| in various game-theoretical concepts as you describe.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > What about gun ownership (oh thats the nerve), its easy to
| assume things will be better when guns are banned, but what is
| the actual game theory in the balance of power between a people
| and their government when the people are stripped of their
| ability to defend themselves from an oppressive government?
|
| While this has surface appeal, this theory of "gun ownership as
| bulwark against oppression" falls apart when you examine both
| how the US still manages to exert power over its populace and
| how democracies where guns are much harder to get continue to
| function just fine.
| gosub100 wrote:
| > the US still manages to exert power over its populace
|
| exert power != oppression
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> the US still manages to exert power over its populace
|
| Self-oppression. For all the fearmongering, the US population
| is clearly able to install random people into high office and
| rewrite the rules as they see fit. Both Obama and Trump are
| clear evidence that you don't need to be from established
| political families to gain power. Literally any idiot can be
| elected should the people want them. Many are.
| guyomes wrote:
| Another indicator is the rate of citizen un prisons. The
| laws on gun ownership doesn't prevent the US government to
| have high rate of citizens incarcerated [1]. On the other
| hand, US is a state of law, and in theory, US incarceration
| does not come from oppression but from justice and written
| laws [2]. Now even though gun ownership might be one way to
| garanty that US remains a state of law, it is not obvious
| that it is the only way. If US was not a state of law, I
| would not be comfortable that GAFAM companies gets their
| own armies, as in the funny dystopian novel Jenifer
| Government [3].
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inc
| arcera...
|
| [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat
|
| [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Government
| jostmey wrote:
| I like and appreciate your viewpoint. I push back on your
| stance on gun ownership. How does your view change when
| governments control weapons as powerful as nuclear weapons? How
| does this tilt the balance of power when ordinary citizens only
| have guns? Does this require a rethink?
| a_gnostic wrote:
| As if governments want to bomb the source of their power:
| taxpayers, and their seizeable assets.
|
| They will do so in war as denying it to their enemy, but not
| with M.A.D. So ordinary people having guns has nothing to do
| with war, except as a deterrent.
| Supermancho wrote:
| Guns are not an assurance that you can kill more people than
| someone with bombs to win a slice of land, conceptually. Any
| number groups have an interest in a stable economy and a
| cooperating population. Bombs dont build or maintain
| infrastructure (eg farming). Guns ensure a population can
| manage to disrupt individual police actions. This modern
| guerilla gunplay has never had to become more sophisticated
| because of the efficacy in resisting day to day oppression
| (depending on your definition). The US in Vietnam, everyone
| in Afghanistan, Israel with Palestine. Bullets are dangerous
| enough to influence history, as with nuclear weapons. Same
| but different.
| arzig wrote:
| I consider "but ordinance" a red herring. One need only
| observe the recent history of US military adventurism to show
| that a sufficiently determined insurgency with light arms and
| minimal training can take literally decades to surpress even
| with probably numerical superiority.
|
| The US government is unlikely to carpet bomb its own
| territory even after hypothetically sliding into tyranny
| because it would presumably want territory to rule
| afterwards. What is left is intense urban fighting which
| we've seen in Iraq or wilderness fighting in poor terrain
| like Afghanistan. It doesn't end quickly so the cost is a
| deterrent.
| Geisterde wrote:
| "The cost is a deterrent", well put.
| Geisterde wrote:
| As ive said in other comments, I think the their power is
| foundationally based on propaganda. I think censorship
| resistant methods of communication and other cypherpunk tools
| are probably more relevant in the day to day of fighting
| government overreach; I just think guns are something of a
| prerequisite for that process to work. Yes, there is always
| the possibility that the government starts nuking citizens
| for challenging their power, which is why it is important
| that any revolution takes place peacefully.
|
| I wouldnt suggest anyone willingly enter an armed conflict
| with the government for a variety of reasons. For example,
| you are likely being played, after Maos revolution all the
| revolutionaries got sent to the hills to be worked to death.
| Another one would be your own information horizon being
| manipulated, youve just walked into Gretchen whitmers office
| thinking there is a huge militia ready to follow in your
| footsteps, you only need to light the match! Violence sucks,
| blood calls for more blood and errodes the social fabric;
| there are USSR officials still collecting pensions in
| exchange for getting out of the way. Or we could get nuked.
|
| So yes, it does require some more forethought than "weve got
| guns so we are just going to fight the government", however
| there already exists an understanding of this, evidenced by
| the fact that they are only catching the mentally stunted in
| entrapment schemes.
| jgeada wrote:
| > What about gun ownership (oh thats the nerve), its easy to
| assume things will be better when guns are banned, but what is
| the actual game theory in the balance of power between a people
| and their government when the people are stripped of their
| ability to defend themselves from an oppressive government?
|
| Funny, the French seem to have no trouble standing up against
| their government while the armed US nuts seem ever so
| compliant. Maybe it isn't the guns.
| Geisterde wrote:
| Everything in france is going according to plan, having
| people rioting on the streets isnt necessarily something the
| government is trying to prevent, it gives them the political
| cover to enact totalitarian laws...which is precisely whats
| happened there.
| russdill wrote:
| US history is full of the government oppressing and murdering
| citizens. And yes, there's also many armed rebellions.
| Precisely zero of them have overthrown the US government.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _Dare I say, people should engage that part of their brain
| with everything (...) What about the monetary system, surely we
| could all take a step back and anaylze the mechanics of a
| system that plays a 50% role in all economic transactions_
|
| This is a great way for one to learn about Moloch - the by far
| greatest threat humanity is facing. Moloch is the personified
| generalization of all multiplayer games, where the payoff
| matrix looks like this: | v Reward / Choice >
| | X | Y |
| |------------------------+----------+-----------| | For
| myself, short-term | good | bad | | For all,
| longer-term | very bad | very good |
|
| Problems for which, invariably, approximately everyone chooses
| X, often knowing that they too will suffer the very bad
| consequences with everyone else.
|
| Moloch is the common core of all the big problems humanity is
| facing, problems we seem unable to solve - surveillance
| economy, inequality, climate change, you name it.
|
| Unfortunately, recognizing the presence of the ancient demon's
| namesake, and realizing the gravity of the situation, kind of
| kills the mood - which is why most discourse on those topics is
| rather unsophisticated and dominated by those who don't, as you
| put it, "engage this part of their brain", whether because they
| don't know how to use it, or because it's more fun/profitable
| to not do it.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > problems we seem unable to solve
|
| The biggest problem is people saying this, that we're unable
| to succeed. They are serving our enemies - spreading despair
| is so obviously a bad idea that it's a fundamental of psyops
| (not that the parent is doing psyops; my point is that it's
| what an enemy would do).
|
| And it's false; it's transparently false if we examine the
| evidence for a moment. History is filled with people
| sacrificing themselves, widely, for the greater good. The
| simple example is warfare, but lots of people have low-paying
| or lower-paying jobs because they want to do good, contribute
| to the world.
|
| It's good news - the news is actually good (I know that
| totally violates social norms to say!): The good people far
| outnumber the bad, they have the power, the ability; human
| nature is on _their_ side; they just need to wake up and get
| going - stop sitting around pop-theorizing about despair -
| and many of the worst problems will be solved.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> That raises an obvious question: If they saw the problem with
| torture, why did they continue to employ it?
|
| I was part of a lecture covering a case where US police had
| tortured out a false confession. The prof asked a Canadian
| student if such a thing would happen in Canada. "No. The RCMP
| wouldn't bother. If they need a confession they would just forge
| one. Forgery is much easier than torturing someone."
| afandian wrote:
| Canadian police have form.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatoon_freezing_deaths
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-17 23:02 UTC)