|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
WASHINGTON — Since his first homily in 2013, Pope Francis has preached about the need to protect the earth and all of creation as part of a broad message on the environment. It has caused little controversy so far.
But now, as Francis prepares to deliver what is likely to be a highly influential encyclical this summer on environmental degradation and the effects of human-caused climate change on the poor, he is alarming some conservatives in the United States who are loath to see the Catholic Church reposition itself as a mighty voice in a cause they do not believe in.
As part of the effort for the encyclical, top Vatican officials will hold a summit meeting Tuesday to build momentum for a campaign by Francis to urge world leaders to enact a sweeping United Nations climate change accord in Paris in December. The accord would for the first time commit every nation to enact tough new laws to cut the emissions that cause global warming.
The Vatican summit meeting will focus on the links between poverty, economic development and climate change, with speeches and panel discussions by climate scientists and religious leaders, and economists like Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia. The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, who is leading efforts to forge the Paris accord, will deliver the opening address.
Vatican officials, who have spent more than a year helping Francis prepare his message, have convened several meetings already on the topic. Last month, they met with the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Gina McCarthy.
In the United States, the encyclical will be accompanied by a 12-week campaign, now being prepared with the participation of some Catholic bishops, to raise the issue of climate change and environmental stewardship in sermons, homilies, news media interviews and letters to newspaper editors, said Dan Misleh, executive director of the Catholic Climate Covenant in Washington.
But the effort is already angering a number of American conservatives, among them members of the Heartland Institute, a libertarian group partly funded by the Charles G. Koch Foundation, run by the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers, who oppose climate policy.
Source
|
On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that.
I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld.
It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that.
|
On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that.
So what you're saying is that you don't trust juries to not be racist based on skin color but you do trust the government to not provide false testimony? That sounds like a much worse system than what we have now.
|
On April 29 2015 09:31 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. So what you're saying is that you don't trust juries to not be racist based on skin color but you do trust the government to not provide false testimony? That sounds like a much worse system than what we have now.
What new government abuse would this system allow? I'm not seeing any. Unless you're saying the government would make up a bunch of bullshit on the transcript, which wouldn't be hard to prevent. Just have the accused have to sign it before it can be given to the jury.
And this wouldn't just help with racism, it'd help against any prejudice. Ethnicity, wealth, age, I.Q., anything.
|
On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that.
lol I just imagined jurors trying to guess who the accused was based on the composition of the jury.
It would be interesting to see what that did to the racial composition of jurors and how lawyers handled it. Would ethnicity of jurors be important to the lawyers if the jurors and maybe lawyers (prosecutors and public defenders anyway) never saw the accused? It probably couldn't be done in every case (when there is video evidence)
As an aside: I heard someone on television respond to the question "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?"
with
"Because it is individual spontaneous stuff"... Do people actually think that or is that just some crazy person's suggestion?
|
On April 29 2015 09:36 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 09:31 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. So what you're saying is that you don't trust juries to not be racist based on skin color but you do trust the government to not provide false testimony? That sounds like a much worse system than what we have now. What new government abuse would this system allow? I'm not seeing any. And this wouldn't just help with racism, it'd help against any prejudice. Ethnicity, wealth, age, I.Q., anything.
So what you're saying is that you would remove prejudice by making sure that the jurors could be handed a script from law and order with the names scrubbed and not know if its the actual trial or not? And how do you propose the jurors know if the middle aged female Asian suspect is guilty if they can't see the words female middled aged or Asian? You're proposing a system so much worse than the current one that I'm left to assume you're trolling.
|
On April 29 2015 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. lol I just imagined jurors trying to guess who the accused was based on the composition of the jury. It would be interesting to see what that did to the racial composition of jurors and how lawyers handled it. Would ethnicity of jurors be important to the lawyers if the jurors and maybe lawyers (prosecutors and public defenders anyway) never saw the accused? It probably couldn't be done in every case (when there is video evidence) As an aside: I heard someone on television respond to the question "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?" with "Because it is individual spontaneous stuff"... Do people actually think that or is that just some crazy person's suggestion?
Well, yeah?
Why didn't you stop all the deaths caused by people?
is that cuz you're not a good dood stopping the bad doods?
|
On April 29 2015 08:52 GreenHorizons wrote: That being said as for solutions I think mili's are a good start. Another thing I have suggested at least a month ago was Investigating more departments and making recommendations for them to fix their problems. I'd like to see criminal officers and departments actually face jail time as a result of their crimes but correcting the behavior is more important than punishing the ones who did it so focusing on that part first makes sense. Implicit bias education would be nice too, then the cop from earlier could of at least said that he knew drug use was similar across races but that his experience made him feel otherwise, as opposed to being surprised by what is a commonly known fact among many people with far less responsibility and/or authority around such stuff.
Forcing departments to keep and report better records regarding people they kill would be important too. There are plenty more but those are the ones that seem like we should all be in agreement on and I can't think of a good reason why they aren't done already or getting support from any presidential candidates?
How do you think we should do this though? The problem as I see it is that all the police departments for better or for worse are all isolated organizationally at the smallest of levels that they can be. We could have the FBI do investigations into police departments weighted randomly by their size and rate of complaints logged against them.
The problem with that is expecting even more of a national level governmental agency and having it meddle directly into city and country level governments.
|
On April 29 2015 09:50 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. lol I just imagined jurors trying to guess who the accused was based on the composition of the jury. It would be interesting to see what that did to the racial composition of jurors and how lawyers handled it. Would ethnicity of jurors be important to the lawyers if the jurors and maybe lawyers (prosecutors and public defenders anyway) never saw the accused? It probably couldn't be done in every case (when there is video evidence) As an aside: I heard someone on television respond to the question "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?" with "Because it is individual spontaneous stuff"... Do people actually think that or is that just some crazy person's suggestion? Well, yeah? Why didn't you stop all the deaths caused by people? is that cuz you're not a good dood stopping the bad doods?
So yes, people do believe that nonsense.
You know, it's funny none of my coworkers have killed anyone? And definitely not an unarmed person on the job while I watched. Cops can't say that. Of course we're not just talking about deaths though, we're talking about all interactions where crimes are committed by the police.
So if the question is why don't I try to stop every criminal? Because it's not my job duh! I have other shit to do. Stopping criminals is precisely their job, the problem is how they stop doing their job so often when it's their buddy/partner/coworker that is the criminal.
|
On April 29 2015 09:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 09:36 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 09:31 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. So what you're saying is that you don't trust juries to not be racist based on skin color but you do trust the government to not provide false testimony? That sounds like a much worse system than what we have now. What new government abuse would this system allow? I'm not seeing any. And this wouldn't just help with racism, it'd help against any prejudice. Ethnicity, wealth, age, I.Q., anything. So what you're saying is that you would remove prejudice by making sure that the jurors could be handed a script from law and order with the names scrubbed and not know if its the actual trial or not? And how do you propose the jurors know if the middle aged female Asian suspect is guilty if they can't see the words female middled aged or Asian? You're proposing a system so much worse than the current one that I'm left to assume you're trolling.
This seems very rude of you Jasper, to assume the system is entirely nonviable and nonsense without asking about ways it might be made to work.
|
On April 29 2015 09:57 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 09:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:36 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 09:31 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. So what you're saying is that you don't trust juries to not be racist based on skin color but you do trust the government to not provide false testimony? That sounds like a much worse system than what we have now. What new government abuse would this system allow? I'm not seeing any. And this wouldn't just help with racism, it'd help against any prejudice. Ethnicity, wealth, age, I.Q., anything. So what you're saying is that you would remove prejudice by making sure that the jurors could be handed a script from law and order with the names scrubbed and not know if its the actual trial or not? And how do you propose the jurors know if the middle aged female Asian suspect is guilty if they can't see the words female middled aged or Asian? You're proposing a system so much worse than the current one that I'm left to assume you're trolling. This seems very rude of you Jasper, to assume the system is entirely nonviable and nonsense without asking about ways it might be made to work.
So how could it work? How can you get a witness statement about who a witness saw throwing the brick through a window with out saying that he saw the very tall elderly white man throw the brick? There is no possible way this could do any thing other than overly complicate the legal process for no possible benefit.
|
On April 29 2015 09:56 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 08:52 GreenHorizons wrote: That being said as for solutions I think mili's are a good start. Another thing I have suggested at least a month ago was Investigating more departments and making recommendations for them to fix their problems. I'd like to see criminal officers and departments actually face jail time as a result of their crimes but correcting the behavior is more important than punishing the ones who did it so focusing on that part first makes sense. Implicit bias education would be nice too, then the cop from earlier could of at least said that he knew drug use was similar across races but that his experience made him feel otherwise, as opposed to being surprised by what is a commonly known fact among many people with far less responsibility and/or authority around such stuff.
Forcing departments to keep and report better records regarding people they kill would be important too. There are plenty more but those are the ones that seem like we should all be in agreement on and I can't think of a good reason why they aren't done already or getting support from any presidential candidates? How do you think we should do this though? The problem as I see it is that all the police departments for better or for worse are all isolated organizationally at the smallest of levels that they can be. We could have the FBI do investigations into police departments weighted randomly by their size and rate of complaints logged against them. The problem with that is expecting even more of a national level governmental agency and having it meddle directly into city and country level governments.
Using a weighted system of complaints, lawsuits, size etc... seems like a rational way to tackle the issues. When it's your rights being trampled you don't really care who it is that comes to stop it (within reason). I'd love for "the good cops" to just do their job and report/arrest the criminals in their department but that simply isn't happening. As such there are not really any other possible remedies other than the feds coming in when a state and/or municipality goes rogue.
For instance Baltimore settled ~100 cases in 4 years. Those are just the ones that had enough evidence (keep in mind absence of evidence isn't absence of wrong doing) they would of at least made it to trial. That would be a flag to anyone paying attention that maybe BPD needed a closer inspection.
Nobody with power was doing anything about Ferguson PD before Mike Brown. It's been shown that they were corrupt as hell and no one did anything in Ferguson or the state at large. Doing nothing certainly doesn't resolve that problem. So we might not want the feds involved but something has to be done about Americans having their constitutional rights denied, I can't imagine how anyone could oppose that.
|
On April 29 2015 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 09:50 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. lol I just imagined jurors trying to guess who the accused was based on the composition of the jury. It would be interesting to see what that did to the racial composition of jurors and how lawyers handled it. Would ethnicity of jurors be important to the lawyers if the jurors and maybe lawyers (prosecutors and public defenders anyway) never saw the accused? It probably couldn't be done in every case (when there is video evidence) As an aside: I heard someone on television respond to the question "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?" with "Because it is individual spontaneous stuff"... Do people actually think that or is that just some crazy person's suggestion? Well, yeah? Why didn't you stop all the deaths caused by people? is that cuz you're not a good dood stopping the bad doods? So yes, people do believe that nonsense. You know, it's funny none of my coworkers have killed anyone? And definitely not an unarmed person on the job while I watched. Cops can't say that. Of course we're not just talking about deaths though, we're talking about all interactions where crimes are committed by the police. So if the question is why don't I try to stop every criminal? Because it's not my job duh! I have other shit to do. Stopping criminals is precisely their job, the problem is how they stop doing their job so often when it's their buddy/partner/coworker that is the criminal.
lololol, til GH seriously believe every "good" police officer could prevent every murder from happening, but the only reason this doesn't happen is because "good" police officers don't exists.
|
On April 29 2015 09:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 09:36 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 09:31 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. So what you're saying is that you don't trust juries to not be racist based on skin color but you do trust the government to not provide false testimony? That sounds like a much worse system than what we have now. What new government abuse would this system allow? I'm not seeing any. And this wouldn't just help with racism, it'd help against any prejudice. Ethnicity, wealth, age, I.Q., anything. So what you're saying is that you would remove prejudice by making sure that the jurors could be handed a script from law and order with the names scrubbed and not know if its the actual trial or not? And how do you propose the jurors know if the middle aged female Asian suspect is guilty if they can't see the words female middled aged or Asian? You're proposing a system so much worse than the current one that I'm left to assume you're trolling.
What does the suspect being middle-aged, female, or Asian have to do with guilt? Do you really believe any of that information is relevant in any real case?
|
On April 29 2015 10:00 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 09:57 zlefin wrote:On April 29 2015 09:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:36 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 09:31 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. So what you're saying is that you don't trust juries to not be racist based on skin color but you do trust the government to not provide false testimony? That sounds like a much worse system than what we have now. What new government abuse would this system allow? I'm not seeing any. And this wouldn't just help with racism, it'd help against any prejudice. Ethnicity, wealth, age, I.Q., anything. So what you're saying is that you would remove prejudice by making sure that the jurors could be handed a script from law and order with the names scrubbed and not know if its the actual trial or not? And how do you propose the jurors know if the middle aged female Asian suspect is guilty if they can't see the words female middled aged or Asian? You're proposing a system so much worse than the current one that I'm left to assume you're trolling. This seems very rude of you Jasper, to assume the system is entirely nonviable and nonsense without asking about ways it might be made to work. So how could it work? How can you get a witness statement about who a witness saw throwing the brick through a window with out saying that he saw the very tall elderly white man throw the brick? There is no possible way this could do any thing other than overly complicate the legal process for no possible benefit.
you are now outright lying, so you are 100% trolling, so I will speak to you no longer.
The possible benefit was already clearly established: eliminating racial bias because the jury literally would not know the race of the accused. That you say for no possible benefit when it was so recently and clearly specified establishes your trolling.
|
On April 29 2015 10:08 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 09:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:36 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 09:31 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. So what you're saying is that you don't trust juries to not be racist based on skin color but you do trust the government to not provide false testimony? That sounds like a much worse system than what we have now. What new government abuse would this system allow? I'm not seeing any. And this wouldn't just help with racism, it'd help against any prejudice. Ethnicity, wealth, age, I.Q., anything. So what you're saying is that you would remove prejudice by making sure that the jurors could be handed a script from law and order with the names scrubbed and not know if its the actual trial or not? And how do you propose the jurors know if the middle aged female Asian suspect is guilty if they can't see the words female middled aged or Asian? You're proposing a system so much worse than the current one that I'm left to assume you're trolling. What does the suspect being middle-aged, female, or Asian have to do with guilt? Do you really believe any of that information is relevant in any real case?
Yes because other wise how do you identify the defendant? Or how does the defense prove that the witness is identifying the wrong person? How does a witness describe how they saw any thing involving any person, criminal victim police officer or other wise with out using words that would provide details?
On April 29 2015 10:10 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 10:00 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:57 zlefin wrote:On April 29 2015 09:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:36 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 09:31 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. So what you're saying is that you don't trust juries to not be racist based on skin color but you do trust the government to not provide false testimony? That sounds like a much worse system than what we have now. What new government abuse would this system allow? I'm not seeing any. And this wouldn't just help with racism, it'd help against any prejudice. Ethnicity, wealth, age, I.Q., anything. So what you're saying is that you would remove prejudice by making sure that the jurors could be handed a script from law and order with the names scrubbed and not know if its the actual trial or not? And how do you propose the jurors know if the middle aged female Asian suspect is guilty if they can't see the words female middled aged or Asian? You're proposing a system so much worse than the current one that I'm left to assume you're trolling. This seems very rude of you Jasper, to assume the system is entirely nonviable and nonsense without asking about ways it might be made to work. So how could it work? How can you get a witness statement about who a witness saw throwing the brick through a window with out saying that he saw the very tall elderly white man throw the brick? There is no possible way this could do any thing other than overly complicate the legal process for no possible benefit. you are now outright lying, so you are 100% trolling, so I will speak to you no longer. The possible benefit was already clearly established: eliminating racial bias because the jury literally would not know the race of the accused. That you say for no possible benefit when it was so recently and clearly specified establishes your trolling.
The fact is that by the way trials work, those details will need to be given to a jury via witness statements if nothing else. You guys are working so hard to achieve a worthy goal that you're completely ignoring the fact that the way trials work it wouldn't do anything beside add unnecessary complexity. It won't work, thus there is no possible benefit.
|
On April 29 2015 10:08 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:50 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. lol I just imagined jurors trying to guess who the accused was based on the composition of the jury. It would be interesting to see what that did to the racial composition of jurors and how lawyers handled it. Would ethnicity of jurors be important to the lawyers if the jurors and maybe lawyers (prosecutors and public defenders anyway) never saw the accused? It probably couldn't be done in every case (when there is video evidence) As an aside: I heard someone on television respond to the question "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?" with "Because it is individual spontaneous stuff"... Do people actually think that or is that just some crazy person's suggestion? Well, yeah? Why didn't you stop all the deaths caused by people? is that cuz you're not a good dood stopping the bad doods? So yes, people do believe that nonsense. You know, it's funny none of my coworkers have killed anyone? And definitely not an unarmed person on the job while I watched. Cops can't say that. Of course we're not just talking about deaths though, we're talking about all interactions where crimes are committed by the police. So if the question is why don't I try to stop every criminal? Because it's not my job duh! I have other shit to do. Stopping criminals is precisely their job, the problem is how they stop doing their job so often when it's their buddy/partner/coworker that is the criminal. lololol, til GH seriously believe every "good" police officer could prevent every murder from happening, but the only reason this doesn't happen is because "good" police officers don't exists.
Such an irresponsibly ignorant post. Are you seriously trying to suggest none of the 'good' officers see or know what is happening in their department? Ferguson for example?
Like the police chief or none of his workers didn't know he was blatantly lying to the press?
Again wtf are you talking about 'every murder' ?
On April 29 2015 10:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 10:08 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 09:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:36 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 09:31 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. So what you're saying is that you don't trust juries to not be racist based on skin color but you do trust the government to not provide false testimony? That sounds like a much worse system than what we have now. What new government abuse would this system allow? I'm not seeing any. And this wouldn't just help with racism, it'd help against any prejudice. Ethnicity, wealth, age, I.Q., anything. So what you're saying is that you would remove prejudice by making sure that the jurors could be handed a script from law and order with the names scrubbed and not know if its the actual trial or not? And how do you propose the jurors know if the middle aged female Asian suspect is guilty if they can't see the words female middled aged or Asian? You're proposing a system so much worse than the current one that I'm left to assume you're trolling. What does the suspect being middle-aged, female, or Asian have to do with guilt? Do you really believe any of that information is relevant in any real case? Yes because other wise how do you identify the defendant? Or how does the defense prove that the witness is identifying the wrong person? How does a witness describe how they saw any thing involving any person, criminal victim police officer or other wise with out using words that would provide details?
Have you never heard of a lineup?
The witness picks the person out of a lineup, then the suspect would be referred to by the witness as "a person I believe to be the defendant". The prosecutor could present that the defendant is the person the witness picked out of a lineup. If they couldn't pick them out of a lineup you refer to the race as "the defendant is of the same/similar race/skin pigmant that the witness described".
EDIT: I should say that I have concerns about such a method but describing suspects isn't one of them.
Kind of hilarious watching Fox news keep trying to say things and then get a protester to confirm it and then the protester says the opposite of what they wanted. Live TV is a little tougher when you don't screen your guests responses lol.
The same reporter has asked several people the leading question of "why are you so angry" to which every single protester has said "I'm not angry". To which without fail he says "yes, but why are you so angry" like give me a fucking break.
|
On April 29 2015 10:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 10:08 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:50 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. lol I just imagined jurors trying to guess who the accused was based on the composition of the jury. It would be interesting to see what that did to the racial composition of jurors and how lawyers handled it. Would ethnicity of jurors be important to the lawyers if the jurors and maybe lawyers (prosecutors and public defenders anyway) never saw the accused? It probably couldn't be done in every case (when there is video evidence) As an aside: I heard someone on television respond to the question "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?" with "Because it is individual spontaneous stuff"... Do people actually think that or is that just some crazy person's suggestion? Well, yeah? Why didn't you stop all the deaths caused by people? is that cuz you're not a good dood stopping the bad doods? So yes, people do believe that nonsense. You know, it's funny none of my coworkers have killed anyone? And definitely not an unarmed person on the job while I watched. Cops can't say that. Of course we're not just talking about deaths though, we're talking about all interactions where crimes are committed by the police. So if the question is why don't I try to stop every criminal? Because it's not my job duh! I have other shit to do. Stopping criminals is precisely their job, the problem is how they stop doing their job so often when it's their buddy/partner/coworker that is the criminal. lololol, til GH seriously believe every "good" police officer could prevent every murder from happening, but the only reason this doesn't happen is because "good" police officers don't exists. Such an irresponsibly ignorant post. Are you seriously trying to suggest none of the 'good' officers see or know what is happening in their department? Ferguson for example? Like the police chief or none of his workers didn't know he was blatantly lying to the press? Again wtf are you talking about 'every murder' ? Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 10:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 10:08 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 09:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:36 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 09:31 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. So what you're saying is that you don't trust juries to not be racist based on skin color but you do trust the government to not provide false testimony? That sounds like a much worse system than what we have now. What new government abuse would this system allow? I'm not seeing any. And this wouldn't just help with racism, it'd help against any prejudice. Ethnicity, wealth, age, I.Q., anything. So what you're saying is that you would remove prejudice by making sure that the jurors could be handed a script from law and order with the names scrubbed and not know if its the actual trial or not? And how do you propose the jurors know if the middle aged female Asian suspect is guilty if they can't see the words female middled aged or Asian? You're proposing a system so much worse than the current one that I'm left to assume you're trolling. What does the suspect being middle-aged, female, or Asian have to do with guilt? Do you really believe any of that information is relevant in any real case? Yes because other wise how do you identify the defendant? Or how does the defense prove that the witness is identifying the wrong person? How does a witness describe how they saw any thing involving any person, criminal victim police officer or other wise with out using words that would provide details? Have you never heard of a lineup? The witness picks the person out of a lineup, then the suspect would be referred to by the witness as "a person I believe to be the defendant". The prosecutor could present that the defendant is the person the witness picked out of a lineup. If they couldn't pick them out of a lineup you refer to the race as "the defendant is of the same/similar race/skin pigmant that the witness described". EDIT: I should say that I have concerns about such a method but describing suspects isn't one of them. Kind of hilarious watching Fox news keep trying to say things and then get a protester to confirm it and then the protester says the opposite of what they wanted. Live TV is a little tougher when you don't screen your guests responses lol. The same reporter has asked several people the leading question of "why are you so angry" to which every single protester has said "I'm not angry". To which without fail he says "yes, but why are you so angry" like give me a fucking break.
Sounds like some 4chan bullshit. "lel u mad?" "y u mad tho?"
Pretty funny stuff.
|
On April 29 2015 10:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 10:08 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:50 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. lol I just imagined jurors trying to guess who the accused was based on the composition of the jury. It would be interesting to see what that did to the racial composition of jurors and how lawyers handled it. Would ethnicity of jurors be important to the lawyers if the jurors and maybe lawyers (prosecutors and public defenders anyway) never saw the accused? It probably couldn't be done in every case (when there is video evidence) As an aside: I heard someone on television respond to the question "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?" with "Because it is individual spontaneous stuff"... Do people actually think that or is that just some crazy person's suggestion? Well, yeah? Why didn't you stop all the deaths caused by people? is that cuz you're not a good dood stopping the bad doods? So yes, people do believe that nonsense. You know, it's funny none of my coworkers have killed anyone? And definitely not an unarmed person on the job while I watched. Cops can't say that. Of course we're not just talking about deaths though, we're talking about all interactions where crimes are committed by the police. So if the question is why don't I try to stop every criminal? Because it's not my job duh! I have other shit to do. Stopping criminals is precisely their job, the problem is how they stop doing their job so often when it's their buddy/partner/coworker that is the criminal. lololol, til GH seriously believe every "good" police officer could prevent every murder from happening, but the only reason this doesn't happen is because "good" police officers don't exists. Such an irresponsibly ignorant post. Are you seriously trying to suggest none of the 'good' officers see or know what is happening in their department? Ferguson for example? Like the police chief or none of his workers didn't know he was blatantly lying to the press? Again wtf are you talking about 'every murder' ?
"Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?"
as in, stopping an action taking place.
as in stopping a murder.
you think bad police officers go around looking for someone to shoot up, and that "good" police officers should somehow have this 6th sense as to when this shit happens?
|
On April 29 2015 10:35 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 10:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 10:08 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:50 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. lol I just imagined jurors trying to guess who the accused was based on the composition of the jury. It would be interesting to see what that did to the racial composition of jurors and how lawyers handled it. Would ethnicity of jurors be important to the lawyers if the jurors and maybe lawyers (prosecutors and public defenders anyway) never saw the accused? It probably couldn't be done in every case (when there is video evidence) As an aside: I heard someone on television respond to the question "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?" with "Because it is individual spontaneous stuff"... Do people actually think that or is that just some crazy person's suggestion? Well, yeah? Why didn't you stop all the deaths caused by people? is that cuz you're not a good dood stopping the bad doods? So yes, people do believe that nonsense. You know, it's funny none of my coworkers have killed anyone? And definitely not an unarmed person on the job while I watched. Cops can't say that. Of course we're not just talking about deaths though, we're talking about all interactions where crimes are committed by the police. So if the question is why don't I try to stop every criminal? Because it's not my job duh! I have other shit to do. Stopping criminals is precisely their job, the problem is how they stop doing their job so often when it's their buddy/partner/coworker that is the criminal. lololol, til GH seriously believe every "good" police officer could prevent every murder from happening, but the only reason this doesn't happen is because "good" police officers don't exists. Such an irresponsibly ignorant post. Are you seriously trying to suggest none of the 'good' officers see or know what is happening in their department? Ferguson for example? Like the police chief or none of his workers didn't know he was blatantly lying to the press? Again wtf are you talking about 'every murder' ? as in, stopping an action taking place. as in stopping a murder. you think bad police officers go around looking for someone to shoot up, and that "good" police officers should somehow have this 6th sense as to when this shit happens?
You can't seem to comprehend at all what I am saying?
On April 29 2015 10:34 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 10:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 10:08 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:50 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. lol I just imagined jurors trying to guess who the accused was based on the composition of the jury. It would be interesting to see what that did to the racial composition of jurors and how lawyers handled it. Would ethnicity of jurors be important to the lawyers if the jurors and maybe lawyers (prosecutors and public defenders anyway) never saw the accused? It probably couldn't be done in every case (when there is video evidence) As an aside: I heard someone on television respond to the question "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?" with "Because it is individual spontaneous stuff"... Do people actually think that or is that just some crazy person's suggestion? Well, yeah? Why didn't you stop all the deaths caused by people? is that cuz you're not a good dood stopping the bad doods? So yes, people do believe that nonsense. You know, it's funny none of my coworkers have killed anyone? And definitely not an unarmed person on the job while I watched. Cops can't say that. Of course we're not just talking about deaths though, we're talking about all interactions where crimes are committed by the police. So if the question is why don't I try to stop every criminal? Because it's not my job duh! I have other shit to do. Stopping criminals is precisely their job, the problem is how they stop doing their job so often when it's their buddy/partner/coworker that is the criminal. lololol, til GH seriously believe every "good" police officer could prevent every murder from happening, but the only reason this doesn't happen is because "good" police officers don't exists. Such an irresponsibly ignorant post. Are you seriously trying to suggest none of the 'good' officers see or know what is happening in their department? Ferguson for example? Like the police chief or none of his workers didn't know he was blatantly lying to the press? Again wtf are you talking about 'every murder' ? On April 29 2015 10:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 10:08 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 09:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:36 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 09:31 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. So what you're saying is that you don't trust juries to not be racist based on skin color but you do trust the government to not provide false testimony? That sounds like a much worse system than what we have now. What new government abuse would this system allow? I'm not seeing any. And this wouldn't just help with racism, it'd help against any prejudice. Ethnicity, wealth, age, I.Q., anything. So what you're saying is that you would remove prejudice by making sure that the jurors could be handed a script from law and order with the names scrubbed and not know if its the actual trial or not? And how do you propose the jurors know if the middle aged female Asian suspect is guilty if they can't see the words female middled aged or Asian? You're proposing a system so much worse than the current one that I'm left to assume you're trolling. What does the suspect being middle-aged, female, or Asian have to do with guilt? Do you really believe any of that information is relevant in any real case? Yes because other wise how do you identify the defendant? Or how does the defense prove that the witness is identifying the wrong person? How does a witness describe how they saw any thing involving any person, criminal victim police officer or other wise with out using words that would provide details? Have you never heard of a lineup? The witness picks the person out of a lineup, then the suspect would be referred to by the witness as "a person I believe to be the defendant". The prosecutor could present that the defendant is the person the witness picked out of a lineup. If they couldn't pick them out of a lineup you refer to the race as "the defendant is of the same/similar race/skin pigmant that the witness described". EDIT: I should say that I have concerns about such a method but describing suspects isn't one of them. Kind of hilarious watching Fox news keep trying to say things and then get a protester to confirm it and then the protester says the opposite of what they wanted. Live TV is a little tougher when you don't screen your guests responses lol. The same reporter has asked several people the leading question of "why are you so angry" to which every single protester has said "I'm not angry". To which without fail he says "yes, but why are you so angry" like give me a fucking break. Sounds like some 4chan bullshit. "lel u mad?" "y u mad tho?" Pretty funny stuff.
Other than the part that it's the most watched cable 'news' channel is kind of tragic, I agree, funny to see 'professionals' act like 4chan kids and expect to be taken seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
