The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
We live in a society where we agree a set of boundary conditions is needed for human behavior, these are our laws. We established a process for determining whether a violation of those conditions occurred and we, as a society, agree to be bound by the results of that process. When society asserts that someone knowingly violated the law they are adjudicated by that process. The process performs that adjudication based on what the law is at that moment and conviction means society has determined that person guilty of the violating the rules we all agreed to live by. So the fact the we evolve morally to no longer consider a particular boundary condition necessary doesn’t mean that a person previously convicted under it didn’t knowingly break the agreed up laws. So it’s not any particular law that matters, but respect for the existence of law and jurisprudence within society itself
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47012 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
Bi_3 wrote:
Hard to do on phone, but I’ll try.
We live in a society where we agree a set of boundary conditions is need for human behavior, these are our laws. We established a process for determining whether a violation of those conditions occurred and we, as a society, agree to be bound by the results of that process. When society asserts that someone knowingly violated the law they are adjudicated by that process. The process performs that adjudication based on what the law is at that moment and conviction means society has determined that person guilty of the violating the rules we all agreed to live by. So the fact the we evolve morally to no longer consider a particular boundary condition necessary doesn’t mean that a person previously convicted under it didn’t knowingly break the agreed up laws. So it’s not any particular law that matters, but respect for the existence of law and jurisprudence within society itself
But this falls apart when the adjudications are given out in a systemic discriminatory manner, and when financial interests begin to tip the moral playing field towards the have-nots.
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm Posts: 39762 Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
We live in a society where we agree a set of boundary conditions is need for human behavior, these are our laws. We established a process for determining whether a violation of those conditions occurred and we, as a society, agree to be bound by the results of that process. When society asserts that someone knowingly violated the law they are adjudicated by that process. The process performs that adjudication based on what the law is at that moment and conviction means society has determined that person guilty of the violating the rules we all agreed to live by. So the fact the we evolve morally to no longer consider a particular boundary condition necessary doesn’t mean that a person previously convicted under it didn’t knowingly break the agreed up laws. So it’s not any particular law that matters, but respect for the existence of law and jurisprudence within society itself
But this falls apart when the adjudications are given out in a systemic discriminatory manner, and when financial interests begin to tip the moral playing field towards the have-nots.
Do you mean disparate impact? If so, then if it rises to the point of making the law unconstitutional, then obviously convictions could be vacated. If you are saying the laws aren’t just because rich people don’t get convicted as often, I would call that immaterial since it doesn’t change the fact a person knowingly violated the law which is the crutch of the point.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47012 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
Bi_3 wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:
Bi_3 wrote:
Hard to do on phone, but I’ll try.
We live in a society where we agree a set of boundary conditions is need for human behavior, these are our laws. We established a process for determining whether a violation of those conditions occurred and we, as a society, agree to be bound by the results of that process. When society asserts that someone knowingly violated the law they are adjudicated by that process.The process performs that adjudication based on what the law is at that moment and conviction means society has determined that person guilty of the violating the rules we all agreed to live by. So the fact the we evolve morally to no longer consider a particular boundary condition necessary doesn’t mean that a person previously convicted under it didn’t knowingly break the agreed up laws. So it’s not any particular law that matters, but respect for the existence of law and jurisprudence within society itself
But this falls apart when the adjudications are given out in a systemic discriminatory manner, and when financial interests begin to tip the moral playing field towards the have-nots.
Do you mean disparate impact? If so, then if it rises to the point of making the law unconstitutional, then obviously convictions could be vacated. If you are saying the laws aren’t just because rich people don’t get convicted as often, I would call that immaterial since it doesn’t change the fact a person knowingly violated the law which is the crutch of the point.
I mean it only as an indictment of the lynchpin concept bolded above. The adjudication process is theoretically fair if all other aspects of the adjudication process are equal, which of course they are not.
We live in a society where we agree a set of boundary conditions is need for human behavior, these are our laws. We established a process for determining whether a violation of those conditions occurred and we, as a society, agree to be bound by the results of that process. When society asserts that someone knowingly violated the law they are adjudicated by that process.The process performs that adjudication based on what the law is at that moment and conviction means society has determined that person guilty of the violating the rules we all agreed to live by. So the fact the we evolve morally to no longer consider a particular boundary condition necessary doesn’t mean that a person previously convicted under it didn’t knowingly break the agreed up laws. So it’s not any particular law that matters, but respect for the existence of law and jurisprudence within society itself
But this falls apart when the adjudications are given out in a systemic discriminatory manner, and when financial interests begin to tip the moral playing field towards the have-nots.
Do you mean disparate impact? If so, then if it rises to the point of making the law unconstitutional, then obviously convictions could be vacated. If you are saying the laws aren’t just because rich people don’t get convicted as often, I would call that immaterial since it doesn’t change the fact a person knowingly violated the law which is the crutch of the point.
I mean it only as an indictment of the lynchpin concept bolded above. The adjudication process is theoretically fair if all other aspects of the adjudication process are equal, which of course they are not.
To follow through with that thought... under the current system, how would one determine if a conviction was fair?
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47012 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
Bi_3 wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:
Bi_3 wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:
Bi_3 wrote:
Hard to do on phone, but I’ll try.
We live in a society where we agree a set of boundary conditions is need for human behavior, these are our laws. We established a process for determining whether a violation of those conditions occurred and we, as a society, agree to be bound by the results of that process. When society asserts that someone knowingly violated the law they are adjudicated by that process.The process performs that adjudication based on what the law is at that moment and conviction means society has determined that person guilty of the violating the rules we all agreed to live by. So the fact the we evolve morally to no longer consider a particular boundary condition necessary doesn’t mean that a person previously convicted under it didn’t knowingly break the agreed up laws. So it’s not any particular law that matters, but respect for the existence of law and jurisprudence within society itself
But this falls apart when the adjudications are given out in a systemic discriminatory manner, and when financial interests begin to tip the moral playing field towards the have-nots.
Do you mean disparate impact? If so, then if it rises to the point of making the law unconstitutional, then obviously convictions could be vacated. If you are saying the laws aren’t just because rich people don’t get convicted as often, I would call that immaterial since it doesn’t change the fact a person knowingly violated the law which is the crutch of the point.
I mean it only as an indictment of the lynchpin concept bolded above. The adjudication process is theoretically fair if all other aspects of the adjudication process are equal, which of course they are not.
To follow through with that thought... under the current system, how would one determine if a conviction was fair?
Theoretically? The statutory codes and adjudications process would be written at such a granular level, and the accused would be systemically protected from any sort of bias so as to perfectly validate the "Justice is blind" maxim.
We live in a society where we agree a set of boundary conditions is need for human behavior, these are our laws. We established a process for determining whether a violation of those conditions occurred and we, as a society, agree to be bound by the results of that process. When society asserts that someone knowingly violated the law they are adjudicated by that process.The process performs that adjudication based on what the law is at that moment and conviction means society has determined that person guilty of the violating the rules we all agreed to live by. So the fact the we evolve morally to no longer consider a particular boundary condition necessary doesn’t mean that a person previously convicted under it didn’t knowingly break the agreed up laws. So it’s not any particular law that matters, but respect for the existence of law and jurisprudence within society itself
But this falls apart when the adjudications are given out in a systemic discriminatory manner, and when financial interests begin to tip the moral playing field towards the have-nots.
Do you mean disparate impact? If so, then if it rises to the point of making the law unconstitutional, then obviously convictions could be vacated. If you are saying the laws aren’t just because rich people don’t get convicted as often, I would call that immaterial since it doesn’t change the fact a person knowingly violated the law which is the crutch of the point.
I mean it only as an indictment of the lynchpin concept bolded above. The adjudication process is theoretically fair if all other aspects of the adjudication process are equal, which of course they are not.
To follow through with that thought... under the current system, how would one determine if a conviction was fair?
Theoretically? The statutory codes and adjudications process would be written at such a granular level, and the accused would be systemically protected from any sort of bias so as to perfectly validate the "Justice is blind" maxim.
In the real world.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47012 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
Bi_3 wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:
Bi_3 wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:
Bi_3 wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:
Bi_3 wrote:
Hard to do on phone, but I’ll try.
We live in a society where we agree a set of boundary conditions is need for human behavior, these are our laws. We established a process for determining whether a violation of those conditions occurred and we, as a society, agree to be bound by the results of that process. When society asserts that someone knowingly violated the law they are adjudicated by that process.The process performs that adjudication based on what the law is at that moment and conviction means society has determined that person guilty of the violating the rules we all agreed to live by. So the fact the we evolve morally to no longer consider a particular boundary condition necessary doesn’t mean that a person previously convicted under it didn’t knowingly break the agreed up laws. So it’s not any particular law that matters, but respect for the existence of law and jurisprudence within society itself
But this falls apart when the adjudications are given out in a systemic discriminatory manner, and when financial interests begin to tip the moral playing field towards the have-nots.
Do you mean disparate impact? If so, then if it rises to the point of making the law unconstitutional, then obviously convictions could be vacated. If you are saying the laws aren’t just because rich people don’t get convicted as often, I would call that immaterial since it doesn’t change the fact a person knowingly violated the law which is the crutch of the point.
I mean it only as an indictment of the lynchpin concept bolded above. The adjudication process is theoretically fair if all other aspects of the adjudication process are equal, which of course they are not.
To follow through with that thought... under the current system, how would one determine if a conviction was fair?
Theoretically? The statutory codes and adjudications process would be written at such a granular level, and the accused would be systemically protected from any sort of bias so as to perfectly validate the "Justice is blind" maxim.
In the real world.
I'd wager it's impossible to make that judgment in the real world, on a broad basis. Too many biases from the arresting officer, to the jury box, to the trial judge. It's a deeply flawed system, and I have no idea what a realistic alternative looks like.
Users browsing this forum: FirstMammal and 10 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
