You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
[–]7e62ce85[S]0 points
1 point
1 point
(+1|-0)
ago
Even the most perfect law could be abused if say the judge always ruled a certain way for certain people. For example for Jews "not sufficient evidence, not guilty" and for goys "enough evidence, guilty".
The law would be the same and in this scenario internally consistent, but the system would still be broken.
I don't see a problem with different rules for different people.
For instance, banks take race into account when the lend to clients. A black person with the same credit score as a white person is more likely to default on their loan, so the banks racially discriminate such that whites and blacks have the same rate of default because more blacks are denied loans. This is the system working as intended to minimize bad loans using all available information.
For instance, if prison is not a deterrent for non-white criminals, perhaps we could reintroduce corporal punishment or some other form of rehabilitation. If different people have different outcomes but the end goal remains the same, you must treat different people differently to achieve your goal. If the cost to treat people differently is lower than its return, it's a good investment. The fairness or justice of this system comes from the respect that each person is given to their testimony rather than a summary judgement based on the evidence alone.
We just don't have a graceful way to do this since these differences are racial and sex based in nature, so "discrimination" becomes a shibboleth which to thinking people is a virtue and to runts and losers a sin.
[+]7e62ce850 points0 points0 points
ago
(edited ago)
[–]7e62ce85[S]0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
The private sector can do as they like.
Legal systems must be evidence based ONLY and unbiased. Anything else is insane and evil. If someone did or did not commit a murder it does not matter what his people normally does. If there is or is not sufficient evidence what the accused says or does not say should not matter.
Are you Jewish? You used a very obscure Hebrew word there. (And some very Jewish logic.)
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 7e62ce85 [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Even the most perfect law could be abused if say the judge always ruled a certain way for certain people. For example for Jews "not sufficient evidence, not guilty" and for goys "enough evidence, guilty".
The law would be the same and in this scenario internally consistent, but the system would still be broken.
[–] BlackSheepBrouhaha 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
I don't see a problem with different rules for different people.
For instance, banks take race into account when the lend to clients. A black person with the same credit score as a white person is more likely to default on their loan, so the banks racially discriminate such that whites and blacks have the same rate of default because more blacks are denied loans. This is the system working as intended to minimize bad loans using all available information.
For instance, if prison is not a deterrent for non-white criminals, perhaps we could reintroduce corporal punishment or some other form of rehabilitation. If different people have different outcomes but the end goal remains the same, you must treat different people differently to achieve your goal. If the cost to treat people differently is lower than its return, it's a good investment. The fairness or justice of this system comes from the respect that each person is given to their testimony rather than a summary judgement based on the evidence alone.
We just don't have a graceful way to do this since these differences are racial and sex based in nature, so "discrimination" becomes a shibboleth which to thinking people is a virtue and to runts and losers a sin.
[–] 7e62ce85 [S] ago (edited ago)