Ah, trials... the punchline of the justice system.
On the surface, it seems like a perfectly solid idea.
Prove whether someone is innocent or guilty.
The problem is, trials aren't really about getting to the truth, they're about convincing a bunch of people that a person is innocent or guilty, regardless of whether they're actually innocent or guilty.
It's amazing I even have to explain why this is broken, let alone explain my entirely accurate point a dozen times over to a bunch of AI's on Reddit.
Ideally, a better system would revolve around getting to the absolute truth, or as close as they could to it.
There would be neither a Defense Attorney nor a prosecutor, nor a jury.
Just a group of detectives who'd find out the truth, and judge the individual based on what really happened, not on what they can deceive people into thinking happened.
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
Shadow Joe V. leniency for minors
If you're old enough to understand the nature of the act you're committing, especially regarding murder or rape, you're old enough to face the maximum penalty.
Simple as that.
Simple as that.
Shadow Joe V. Legalized Murder.(Of the innocent or otherwise undeserving.)
Stand your ground, Castle Doctrine... no matter what label you give it, the definition is always the same: License to Kill. More specifically, the license to kill whether it's necessary or not.
These cases here reveal everything that's wrong with this idealogy.
Unarmed men, all of them, one a teenager who wasn't even acting remotely violent.
The other who was drunk and confused and quite clearly had no idea what was going on.
The last one, while clearly no saint certainly didn't deserve to be shot dead like that.
All these cases have another thing in common:
The deaths were not necessary.
Not one of these homeowners had reason to fear their lives were in danger, and still chose to kill people who had done nothing to deserve their fates.
There is no realm of reality where that is right.
Don't get me wrong like the rabid rednecks I've sparred with in the past. I am by no means a soft-hearted liberal, not by a long shot.
If it were up to me, every single monster on this earth who killed an innocent, or tortured an animal, or molested or raped would be rounded up on some man-made island and napalmed straight to hell.
The problem is, those of you who support laws like these are the ones killing innocents.
Well, "people who don't deserve to die", but close enough.
See, I have a very simple stance on the matter:
If you don't fear for your life, or the life of another and you don't know what kind of person you might be killing, don't kill 'em.
Simple as that.
Shadow Joe V. The Age of Consent laws
The age of consent or statutory rape laws are intended to protect people like every other law is. The people in this case being minors.
The rationality behind the law is that a minor, due primarily to hormones, may,(keyword being may) not be capable of the making the best choice regarding sexual acts.
In short, hormones make you hornier, horniness can affect judgement, affected judgement = nonconsent, you get the idea.
Unfortunately, this isn't as cut-and-dry as the lawmakers would have you believe. Nothing about it is.
There are several, serious problems with these laws, such as they are, and I'm here to take the time to explain them.
1.The blatant hypocrisy regarding what constitutes a "minor" and the implications wherein.
As you can see here, the most common age in America is actually 16. Other states have it at 17 or 18.
That right there speaks volumes. How can anyone say "group x is incapable of consent" when the group itself is a variable?
Essentially this law says anyone 18 and above partaking in a sexual relationship with people between those ages is either a law-abiding citizen or a sexual predator depending on what state they were born in.
Hell, some states have it as high as 21. So, those of you who've ever done an 18, 19, or 20 year old at 21 or older would all be called rapists too. If you were born there. If not, you're completely clean.
Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense when I spell it out like this, does it?
2.The dangers of presumption.
The big problem with laws in general is that they don't discriminate.
A man who only stole to feed his hungry family is still a thief, a man who only killed in order to avenge a lost loved one is still a murderer.
Nowhere does the lack of distinction do more harm than in these laws, and it harms both parties involved.
On the minor's side, it tells them in every scenario, no matter how much thought they've given it, no matter how much they love and trust the one they're with, they will be considered incapable of making one simple choice.
Now... Historically speaking, laws that have deprived a person of their right to choose for themselves haven't been looked too fondly on, and haven't lasted, and for good reason.
(Frankly, these laws are about the closest thing to slavery we still have...)
For that matter the adult in question also suffers from the law's presumptuous nature. It doesn't matter to the law if he or she's good or bad. It doesn't matter if the adult would never in a million years do anything to harm the minor, nor, again how much he/she loves them.
If they break this law, they're considered a rapist, and get the same treatment an actual rapist does.
No matter how you slice it, this is simply not logical.
Sex is not an inherently harmful act, and it does not become so merely because one person's draft age and the other isn't.
3.It is not proven fact that having a higher hormone count automatically overrides one's judgement at all times. The facts themselves say the opposite.
Treating every case like that is nothing but misguided presumptuousness, as I said.
Simply being a tad bit hornier than the average joe does not mean one cannot sit down, think, and come to a decision for themselves, it only means, it could, keyword being could have a mild influence, at one time or another.
What so many forget is teenagers are still people, first and foremost. People with brains, standards, and ideas of their own, and therefore are more than capable of making their own choices, yes even choices as huge as deciding to have sex.
If you really think otherwise, if the law thinks otherwise, why do we let teenagers drive?
We put life and death in their hands every day with this incredibly stressful activity.
"It's not that stressful"? you say?
Think again.
You're really going to sit there with a straight face and tell me they can handle all that, but not sex?
Simply put...
By this logic everyone who's ever took an enhancement formula and got busy would be considered a victim of rape as well.
A higher libido is hardly equivalent to being drugged out of your skull or drunk off your ass.
4.The fact that laws themselves are not facts, and therefore are not always right. Likewise, things that are wrong aren't always illegal.
Yeah, that's pretty much it. Laws are not fact. They don't state what is, they state how things will be treated, and they're constantly changing. Some stay, some go, and some are just plain wrong in the first place, not just standing beside justice but opposing it.
Did you know that marital rape wasn't illegal until 1993? Yeah. Slavery was once legal, meth was once legal... in some parts of the world it's still legal to chop a man's hand off for shoplifting, or even to murder someone for their style.
The point is, "legal" and "right" do not, and have never gone, hand-in-hand.
5.These laws do much, much more harm than good, and they do nothing that a better system couldn't.
Ideally, the best system would involve making sure both parties are giving informed consent.
Sex ed would be mandatory, of course, and everyone who had any interest in having sex would be tested.
Tests would determine how mature they are, and determine how much they know about sex and it's potential consequences.
It would also serve to determine their character, making sure they have every intention of being straightforward with their sexual partner.
Oh, and of course, there should indeed be a bare minimum age. Too young is too young. A reasonable amount of physical development is important, too.
Bare minimum... I suppose 15 would be acceptable, if they passed all the above critieria.
Younger than that feels unnatural. I mean, if they were the same age, I suppose it'd be fine.
Once they passed the tests, they'd be given a card, which could be scanned for authenticity.
A "Criteria Card" you could say...
The new and improved system would ensure that neither the minor nor the adult in question would suffer needlessly because of corrupt laws run by dated values.
The minor would not feel powerless and demeaned, the adult would not be wrongfully branded a rapist and treated like one.
Everybody wins! Well, everybody that matters.
Congratulations, America! One of your most controversial and most broken laws now has a replacement that's superior in every way, courtesy of me, the greatest critical mind of all time.
You can thank me when you put it in place. Maybe with a humanitarian award? I want an awesome metal mask like that guy from New York. What was his name? Van Damme?
P.S. No, I am not trolling you dumb motherfuckers... It's called levity. I like to end things on a funny note.
The rationality behind the law is that a minor, due primarily to hormones, may,(keyword being may) not be capable of the making the best choice regarding sexual acts.
In short, hormones make you hornier, horniness can affect judgement, affected judgement = nonconsent, you get the idea.
Unfortunately, this isn't as cut-and-dry as the lawmakers would have you believe. Nothing about it is.
There are several, serious problems with these laws, such as they are, and I'm here to take the time to explain them.
1.The blatant hypocrisy regarding what constitutes a "minor" and the implications wherein.
As you can see here, the most common age in America is actually 16. Other states have it at 17 or 18.
That right there speaks volumes. How can anyone say "group x is incapable of consent" when the group itself is a variable?
Essentially this law says anyone 18 and above partaking in a sexual relationship with people between those ages is either a law-abiding citizen or a sexual predator depending on what state they were born in.
Hell, some states have it as high as 21. So, those of you who've ever done an 18, 19, or 20 year old at 21 or older would all be called rapists too. If you were born there. If not, you're completely clean.
Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense when I spell it out like this, does it?
2.The dangers of presumption.
The big problem with laws in general is that they don't discriminate.
A man who only stole to feed his hungry family is still a thief, a man who only killed in order to avenge a lost loved one is still a murderer.
Nowhere does the lack of distinction do more harm than in these laws, and it harms both parties involved.
On the minor's side, it tells them in every scenario, no matter how much thought they've given it, no matter how much they love and trust the one they're with, they will be considered incapable of making one simple choice.
Now... Historically speaking, laws that have deprived a person of their right to choose for themselves haven't been looked too fondly on, and haven't lasted, and for good reason.
(Frankly, these laws are about the closest thing to slavery we still have...)
For that matter the adult in question also suffers from the law's presumptuous nature. It doesn't matter to the law if he or she's good or bad. It doesn't matter if the adult would never in a million years do anything to harm the minor, nor, again how much he/she loves them.
If they break this law, they're considered a rapist, and get the same treatment an actual rapist does.
No matter how you slice it, this is simply not logical.
Sex is not an inherently harmful act, and it does not become so merely because one person's draft age and the other isn't.
3.It is not proven fact that having a higher hormone count automatically overrides one's judgement at all times. The facts themselves say the opposite.
Treating every case like that is nothing but misguided presumptuousness, as I said.
Simply being a tad bit hornier than the average joe does not mean one cannot sit down, think, and come to a decision for themselves, it only means, it could, keyword being could have a mild influence, at one time or another.
What so many forget is teenagers are still people, first and foremost. People with brains, standards, and ideas of their own, and therefore are more than capable of making their own choices, yes even choices as huge as deciding to have sex.
If you really think otherwise, if the law thinks otherwise, why do we let teenagers drive?
We put life and death in their hands every day with this incredibly stressful activity.
"It's not that stressful"? you say?
Think again.
You're really going to sit there with a straight face and tell me they can handle all that, but not sex?
Simply put...
By this logic everyone who's ever took an enhancement formula and got busy would be considered a victim of rape as well.
A higher libido is hardly equivalent to being drugged out of your skull or drunk off your ass.
4.The fact that laws themselves are not facts, and therefore are not always right. Likewise, things that are wrong aren't always illegal.
Yeah, that's pretty much it. Laws are not fact. They don't state what is, they state how things will be treated, and they're constantly changing. Some stay, some go, and some are just plain wrong in the first place, not just standing beside justice but opposing it.
Did you know that marital rape wasn't illegal until 1993? Yeah. Slavery was once legal, meth was once legal... in some parts of the world it's still legal to chop a man's hand off for shoplifting, or even to murder someone for their style.
The point is, "legal" and "right" do not, and have never gone, hand-in-hand.
5.These laws do much, much more harm than good, and they do nothing that a better system couldn't.
Ideally, the best system would involve making sure both parties are giving informed consent.
Sex ed would be mandatory, of course, and everyone who had any interest in having sex would be tested.
Tests would determine how mature they are, and determine how much they know about sex and it's potential consequences.
It would also serve to determine their character, making sure they have every intention of being straightforward with their sexual partner.
Oh, and of course, there should indeed be a bare minimum age. Too young is too young. A reasonable amount of physical development is important, too.
Bare minimum... I suppose 15 would be acceptable, if they passed all the above critieria.
Younger than that feels unnatural. I mean, if they were the same age, I suppose it'd be fine.
Once they passed the tests, they'd be given a card, which could be scanned for authenticity.
A "Criteria Card" you could say...
The new and improved system would ensure that neither the minor nor the adult in question would suffer needlessly because of corrupt laws run by dated values.
The minor would not feel powerless and demeaned, the adult would not be wrongfully branded a rapist and treated like one.
Everybody wins! Well, everybody that matters.
Congratulations, America! One of your most controversial and most broken laws now has a replacement that's superior in every way, courtesy of me, the greatest critical mind of all time.
You can thank me when you put it in place. Maybe with a humanitarian award? I want an awesome metal mask like that guy from New York. What was his name? Van Damme?
P.S. No, I am not trolling you dumb motherfuckers... It's called levity. I like to end things on a funny note.
Sunday, January 17, 2016
For starters...
In case there's any confusion, which there often is, we are not against every law there is.
We are not Clerics of Chaos, we're Disciples of Darkness. Not anarchists, but radicals.
We, simply put, are against the very idea of Law.
The very concept that says "you break this rule, you're punished, end of story."
Now, normally, there would(and should) be some sort of balance, some process that evens things out.
In place of that, we have the very idea of a trial.
In short, a gigantic farce, a long, boring show where truth and justice comes second, and good acting and technicalities come first.
We brought our entirely valid and accurate points to Reddit once, only for the armchair pseudo-intellectuals to miss every point we made, and childishly downvote us to oblivion when they couldn't win the argument.
Unfortunately for idiots everywhere, this is our house.
We are not Clerics of Chaos, we're Disciples of Darkness. Not anarchists, but radicals.
We, simply put, are against the very idea of Law.
The very concept that says "you break this rule, you're punished, end of story."
Now, normally, there would(and should) be some sort of balance, some process that evens things out.
In place of that, we have the very idea of a trial.
In short, a gigantic farce, a long, boring show where truth and justice comes second, and good acting and technicalities come first.
We brought our entirely valid and accurate points to Reddit once, only for the armchair pseudo-intellectuals to miss every point we made, and childishly downvote us to oblivion when they couldn't win the argument.
Unfortunately for idiots everywhere, this is our house.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)