Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

After all, it has been built up over many decades based on widely held ideas of morality and justice.

I don't mean to suggest that it's bad to try to set precedent, to standardize punishments based on consistent criteria, etc. etc.

I think all of that is a very good idea.

On the other hand, life and wisdom are all about balance. Just as you don't want to have a totally arbitrary legal system, fully subject to the whim of a judge, you also don't want to be so hidebound with rules and precedent that nobody can make any judgements anymore.

It seems to me that we've gone a little past the mark towards the latter case. Nothing terrible, but just a bit too far.

I also think that the idea of a "jury of one's peers" while a nice concept, ends up being a very bad system. I'm not sure how one would structure it better, but it should really be a "jury of skilled, experienced and objective judges." As it stands, it's not really a "jury of one's peers" so much as "a bunch of lunatic edge conditions carefully selected by the defense team to get a hung jury."

I'm sure it's different in other places, but you get a lot of that in the US.

And yes, I realize that a lot of trials don't go to a jury, and actually are judged by a panel of people qualified to do the job, but to have both that and jury trials at the same time strikes me as critically inconsistant.

For me, it all comes down to proof. More and more so because of the technology we possess. If it can be PROVEN scientifically that somebody is guilty, that should be more important than the crime. In my opinion we should tighten our standards for proving guilt, and increase the severity of our punishments.

I'm an organ donor. So should we all be.

I'll be happy to have the rest of me buried or burned. The more of me that can go to help others the better.

Mannahnin wrote:I'm an organ donor. So should we all be.

I'll be happy to have the rest of me buried or burned. The more of me that can go to help others the better.

what is giving organs is against ones belief(cant think of one but i know there are some)
Me i want to become a donar. The reason why is i see value in all life. I wouldnt care at all when i die if my liver goes to a murderer of a john doe. I believe all life is sacred and should be protected at all cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:

I also think that the idea of a "jury of one's peers" while a nice concept, ends up being a very bad system. I'm not sure how one would structure it better, but it should really be a "jury of skilled, experienced and objective judges." As it stands, it's not really a "jury of one's peers" so much as "a bunch of lunatic edge conditions carefully selected by the defense team to get a hung jury."

I remember a movie called runaway jury. a Jury consultant says "you think an average jury member understands "product liability" No. they are roofers who want to go home and let cable tv wash over them." but your idea can also produce Biased people. Like "i have seen it all before. It is always the husband that kills the wife" Both have there flaws.

garret wrote:The reason why is i see value in all life. I wouldnt care at all when i die if my liver goes to a murderer of a john doe. I believe all life is sacred and should be protected at all cost.

So you'd save someone so he can go on to kill that which you think is sacred? Good job there.

Soladrin wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Soladrin wrote:I'm not a donor because I really have no compassion for people I dont know (shortsighted, egoistical etc. etc. I know, heard it all before, don't give a crap)..

Ironic that such a quality is one of the main characteristics of anti-social behavior and an indicator for the potential to be a serial killer...

Who knows, maybe the next thread like this might be about you...

Yes, because not caring about people I don't know, and wanting to kill people is the same thing.

Wanting to kill people isn't the same as being a serial killer. Soldiers legitimately want to kill their enemies, while having compassion for them.

Serial killers by and large are psychopaths. They don't view people as people, merely as moving objects like a kind of biological robot. They have no empathy with them.

Having no compassion for people you don't know is a sign of lack of empathy.

Alrighty then.

Like "i have seen it all before. It is always the husband that kills the wife" Both have there flaws.

There's also issues of bribery and intimidation that come up when you've got people in positions of judgement like that.

So, yes, nothing is perfect. But the fact that OJ got off is not a very good representation of our legal system. It basically says that people can have DNA explained to them, and then decide it's just voodoo, and ignore it. That's NOT good.

If we do want to use a "peer" based legal system, then it needs to be more realistic. None of this filtering they have now. It should be (for example) take 15 people entirely at random, no screening, and then if 12 of them can agree on a verdict, that's the verdict. That lets you filter out lunatics, but still have a high degree of agreement.

DNA can be wrong.

I suspect the OJ verdict was as much a protest at racism in the LAPD as anything.

Kilkrazy wrote:DNA can be wrong.

Sure. DNA can also be misleading. That doesn't mean that either of these were valid complaints in the OJ case.

I suspect the OJ verdict was as much a protest at racism in the LAPD as anything.

In which case they let a murderer walk free just because he was black. You might call that racism, too.

We can't know what was in the jurors' minds.

Perhaps the jurors were influenced in their thinking by the recent case of Rodney King, when the police officers were found innocent.

This may have led them to disbelieve the white LAPD officers' testimony.

It isn't racism if you decide a group are liars because they have a proven record of lying about their interactions with black people. It's racism if you think all white people are liars because they are white.

It isn't racism if you decide a group are liars because they have a proven record of lying about their interactions with black people. It's racism if you think all white people are liars because they are white.

Meh, kinda. It depends on the size of the group.

It could be argued that white people have a history of lying to American Indians. But if an American Indian said white people are liars, I think most people would call that racism.

To assume that the California law enforcement community is a bunch of liars isn't exactly racism, it's more like "profession-ism," but I don't think anybody views things that specifically. It's race vs race in most people's minds. White cops are just enforcing the white man's worldview.

Phryxis has the right of it.

This may be the first time I've agreed with him without reservation.

This may be the first time I've agreed with him without reservation.

Yikes, don't say something like that, you'll send Shuma into a depression.

garret wrote:
what is giving organs is against ones belief(cant think of one but i know there are some)

Its mainly Jews and Moslems. In fact they cause huge queues with the coroners office. You see Jews and Moslems both must be buried within 24 hours, so they get automatic priority. Others just have to wait, this can mean families waiting two weeks for the body to be returned due to cycling reprioritising.

Jews and Moslems also do not like autopsys, cutting up the body before burial is bad doctrine. This is overridden only in cases of criminal investigation. For similar reasons they normally also dont become organ donors.

Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses also have restrictions on organ donation, but not on autopsy as far as I am aware. The issue here is blood mixing.

The only practical rather than doctrinal reason for donor or autopsy refusal in relgion is if a ressurrection is being attempted. The current record for raising of the dead is 26 persons from a mortutary attendent in Argentina. These claims are difficult to verify, however some are odd enough to silence all but the most recalcitrant sceptics. The man raised from the dead who I met was dead for 80 minutes, long enough to guarantee he would be thoroughly cabbaged due to oxygen loss to the brain, but he came back ok. Charismatic Christians do believe in resurrection prayer, I myself do, but there are practical limits. Having your chest cut open and the organs detached and examined is a bit of a downer. Still while the beliefs of Jews and Moslems are respected (they are essentially the same thing but on a future timescale) Christian beleifs are not respected and the standard procedure of administering an autopsy is often practiced in the Uk against the wishes of the family of deceased Charismatic Christians.

Hrm. Isn't there a religious objection to usury? Can I get an interest free mortgage?

Modern economics overrules the Koran. Unless it relates to women, of course.

Phryxis wrote:If we do want to use a "peer" based legal system, then it needs to be more realistic. None of this filtering they have now. It should be (for example) take 15 people entirely at random, no screening, and then if 12 of them can agree on a verdict, that's the verdict. That lets you filter out lunatics, but still have a high degree of agreement.

No filtering system == Lunatics are filtered out of the system.

Okay!

Phryxis wrote:

It isn't racism if you decide a group are liars because they have a proven record of lying about their interactions with black people. It's racism if you think all white people are liars because they are white.

Meh, kinda. It depends on the size of the group.

It could be argued that white people have a history of lying to American Indians. But if an American Indian said white people are liars, I think most people would call that racism.

To assume that the California law enforcement community is a bunch of liars isn't exactly racism, it's more like "profession-ism," but I don't think anybody views things that specifically. It's race vs race in most people's minds. White cops are just enforcing the white man's worldview.

I don't know whether black people think all white dentists are racist, or all white baseball referees, or all white taxi drivers.

Phryxis wrote:

It could be argued that white people have a history of lying to American Indians. But if an American Indian said white people are liars, I think most people would call that racism.

No, most white people would laugh, call them a drunk and do a fake rain dance to mock them. Then 99% of the other whites present would laugh. And that would be the racist part of said interaction.

Orlanth wrote:Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses also have restrictions on organ donation, but not on autopsy as far as I am aware. The issue here is blood mixing.

I don't know what restrictions Jehova's Witnesses have against donating organs, but there's no doctrine in the Mormon church I know of that is against it. I know people that have recieved transplants that are Mormon, and they are pretty devout followers. As far as blood mixing goes, there are blood drives all the time announced in the Mormon chapel I attend looking for donars.

Relapse wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses also have restrictions on organ donation, but not on autopsy as far as I am aware. The issue here is blood mixing.

I don't know what restrictions Jehova's Witnesses have against donating organs, but there's no doctrine in the Mormon church I know of that is against it. I know people that have recieved transplants that are Mormon, and they are pretty devout followers. As far as blood mixing goes, there are blood drives all the time announced in the Mormon chapel I attend looking for donars.

I can accept that, it mighht be just the JW's. I pointed out I wasnt certainon that point, hence the AFAIK.

CT GAMER wrote:
No, most white people would laugh, call them a drunk and do a fake rain dance to mock them. Then 99% of the other whites present would laugh. And that would be the racist part of said interaction.

Assigning any characteristic to any person on the sole basis of race is racism. It would indeed be racist to conclude that a white person is a liar because he is white. One can be racist against the accepted majority; stop reading Christopher Doob.

No filtering system == Lunatics are filtered out of the system.

That's the thing, typical jury screening is done with the intention of INCLUDING lunatics. If the defendant is black, they're trying to get as many black nationalists on the jury as possible. Etc. etc.

When the goal of jury selection is to include lunatics, the baseline level of lunacy is the best you're going to do.

I don't know whether black people think all white dentists are racist, or all white baseball referees, or all white taxi drivers.

Well, "black people" think lots of different things. But among those that do think in terms of white racism, and consider it a real problem in their world, I think their tendency will be to consider all white people to be racist, regardless of profession.

That's generally how racism works. You generalize a whole race. And, hall-of-mirrors as it is, assuming that a whole race is racist is also racist. Generally by the time somebody is casual enough to make such rampant generalizations, they're happy enough to apply it to the whole race. But that's just in general, generally speaking.

And that would be the racist part of said interaction.

I'm not sure I track the point. That white people are the only racists in any given situation?

Speaking of American Indians, ever been to Foxwoods?

Soladrin wrote:

garret wrote:The reason why is i see value in all life. I wouldnt care at all when i die if my liver goes to a murderer of a john doe. I believe all life is sacred and should be protected at all cost.

So you'd save someone so he can go on to kill that which you think is sacred? Good job there.

Who said he will be allowed back in the general population? He would just be allowed to go on living. And again if i think all life is sacred i even have to think the life is sacred for people who dont.

Relapse wrote:I don't mean to come off as harsh as this sounds, because I can understand your view. For me though, after my sister's experience,I will never donate anything unless I knew it would go to someone like my sister and not some alcoholic or drug using bastard that is trying to avoid the consequences of his idiocy.

I really don't understand your view. I feel sorry for you and your sister, that must have been horrible to go through, but the problem, surely, could be fixed by having more organ donors, not less?

If there was an opt-in system for organ donation, the number of organs available for people like your sister would increase dramatically. While I understand you're angry over what she went through, surely the only thing that really matters is stopping another family suffering as yours did?

Chrysaor686 wrote:I'm actually glad he's getting a transplant, as chances are, if he does, he'll end up getting raped and stabbed in a prison somewhere.

Look on the bright side of things.

Teehee! Anal rape is awesome!

Phryxis wrote:On the other hand, life and wisdom are all about balance. Just as you don't want to have a totally arbitrary legal system, fully subject to the whim of a judge, you also don't want to be so hidebound with rules and precedent that nobody can make any judgements anymore.

Judges have considerable leniancy in sentencing. This is becoming less true with mandatory sentencing, so I'm guessing you're opposed to that recent fad?

I also think that the idea of a "jury of one's peers" while a nice concept, ends up being a very bad system. I'm not sure how one would structure it better, but it should really be a "jury of skilled, experienced and objective judges." As it stands, it's not really a "jury of one's peers" so much as "a bunch of lunatic edge conditions carefully selected by the defense team to get a hung jury."

The thing is, judges tend to come from certain backgrounds, and while they are very learned and considered, there can be an institutional bias. As such it is a useful addition to a court system to have one level in which you can be judged by people drawn from the general population.

It's worth noting that you can have opt to not have a trial by jury, and if you appeal it will be heard by a judges.

garret wrote:what is giving organs is against ones belief(cant think of one but i know there are some)
Me i want to become a donar. The reason why is i see value in all life. I wouldnt care at all when i die if my liver goes to a murderer of a john doe. I believe all life is sacred and should be protected at all cost.

As others have said, some Jewish and Muslim groups have religious beliefs about the body after death, so they don't like cremation or organ donation.

Thing is, most people aren't organ donors, and it isn't because of religious convictions, it's just that they don't really want to think about it. Which makes sense, if people spent time thinking about their mortality then they wouldn't buy the motorbike that ends up turning them into a potential organ donor.

So instead of the current system of 'opt in' - where you have to make an effort to become an organ donor, we should take on an 'opt out' system, where everyone is an organ donor by default, and those who don't want to be can elect to do so.

i think he souldnt get it

sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:I don't mean to come off as harsh as this sounds, because I can understand your view. For me though, after my sister's experience,I will never donate anything unless I knew it would go to someone like my sister and not some alcoholic or drug using bastard that is trying to avoid the consequences of his idiocy.

I really don't understand your view. I feel sorry for you and your sister, that must have been horrible to go through, but the problem, surely, could be fixed by having more organ donors, not less?

I had a family member die under similar circumstances, though it wasn't in such a harsh manner as Relapse' experience. I also know a couple of other people that are waiting on the list, and living rather uncomfortable lifestyles without their needs addressed. None of this leads me to conclude that mass opinion should have any direct say over who gets that assistance, and that is awesome. I would not have wanted my family member to face even more bureaucracy, in the hope that their chances could have possibly been increased because one dude who did bad things then tried to kill himself got a liver before them. The guy from the article didn't even get the transplant, and it was ONE DUDE. I don't get it.

If there was an opt-in system for organ donation, the number of organs available for people like your sister would increase dramatically. While I understand you're angry over what she went through, surely the only thing that really matters is stopping another family suffering as yours did?

If it matters, I would certainly support opt-out. The amount of good a system like that could do is really quite amazing. I assume you meant opt-out, not opt-in.

Teehee! Anal rape is awesome!

Indeed.

Thing is, most people aren't organ donors, and it isn't because of religious convictions, it's just that they don't really want to think about it. Which makes sense, if people spent time thinking about their mortality then they wouldn't buy the motorbike that ends up turning them into a potential organ donor.

I wouldn't be surprised if you were right about that, and the majority of people just didn't want to think about it either way. It also seems likely that a very large portion of that majority wouldn't mind if it were opt-out. I don't think most people need to be convinced that more donors would be a good thing, but the conversation you're likely to have with a person that simply won't agree, is probably going to work along the lines of 'organ harvesting' or something. Not to conclude that a conversation of that sort is inherently paranoid, just that it is definitely resolute in it's thinking.

My organs living beyond me is a pretty cool thought, IMO. I kick ass, I am a demi-god among men.

So instead of the current system of 'opt in' - where you have to make an effort to become an organ donor, we should take on an 'opt out' system, where everyone is an organ donor by default, and those who don't want to be can elect to do so.

They still wouldn't have to think about it, even though I feel there are a great deal of reasons besides religion and mortality.

It is a complicated issue and a tough sell to people that have already decided they would take great offense if 'required' to opt-out. I am not sure what the problems really are, besides checking a single box on a form for records. Privacy maybe, not sure I can even understand why one guy who didn't actually get a transplant, would call for pretty crappy system to be left in place.

SilverMK2 wrote:It is kind of like prisoners getting vaccines etc .

It's kind of like criminals getting medical care at all...

JohnHwangDD wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:It is kind of like prisoners getting vaccines etc .

It's kind of like criminals getting medical care at all...

Hell, we should just take them out behind the shed and shoot them.

sebster wrote:where you have to make an effort to become an organ donor

What did you all have to do to become donors? All I had to do was say "yes" when I was getting my driver's license.

Wrexasaur wrote:even though I feel there are a great deal of reasons besides religion and mortality

Ignorance?

RustyKnight wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:It is kind of like prisoners getting vaccines etc .

It's kind of like criminals getting medical care at all...

Hell, we should just take them out behind the shed and shoot them.

Exactly, thank you!