Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Penal Enlargement
#31
(11-07-2018, 06:18 PM)crispier taco Wrote: A serious caveat is that you don't need genitals to perform sexual assault.

I have heard rape is often more about power and asserting dominance, rather than sexual need.


(11-07-2018, 06:18 PM)crispier taco Wrote: Perhaps taking a restorative justice approach to these issues, where both sides discuss at length the nature of the crime and work towards finding the appropriate sentence. The judge (or the law) decides maximum and minimum sentences for a guilty verdict and have final say in sentencing.

The primary promise of restorative justice is the hope it will help offenders see the harm caused and feel empathy and remorse, hopefully influencing their future actions, but it may also help tease out if anyone is bullshitting in a dispute?

I think this idea is pleasant, but perhaps difficult in practice. While I believe empathy is an incredibly important cognitive ability, one that should be applied when looking at both the victims AND the perpetrators points of view to arrive at a just sentence, it seems to be somewhat lacking in so many people. People (on average) seem to be terrible at seeing things from others points of view. It is one thing to imagine having a bad thing happen to you, or imagine yourself doing a bad thing to someone else, but that is not empathy. Empathy is to feel what another person feels from their own perspective, not how you would feel in their situation. And I do not believe the average person is capable of doing that. With that said, I am not convinced a jury of average joes would be capable of properly discussing both sides, nor finding an appropriate sentence.

How would you feel about abolishing the jury of peers concept in favour of one that makes use of experts?
Reply
#32
(11-07-2018, 06:34 PM)Kalazarc Wrote: How would you feel about abolishing the jury of peers concept in favour of one that makes use of experts?

serious doubts on 'technocratic' juries, but as it stands I think the jury in it's current state is terrible and out of date. I intuitively reckon juries should be made of lawyers or judges or forensic analysts... but it seems about as messy as the current systems of jury selection, where lawyers can veto anyone who comes across as unsympathetic to their angle

... so, I'd choose a technocratic jury over the status quo, but remain nervous
Reply
#33
(11-07-2018, 06:34 PM)Kalazarc Wrote: I think this idea is pleasant, but perhaps difficult in practice. While I believe empathy is an incredibly important cognitive ability, one that should be applied when looking at both the victims AND the perpetrators points of view to arrive at a just sentence, it seems to be somewhat lacking in so many people. People (on average) seem to be terrible at seeing things from others points of view. It is one thing to imagine having a bad thing happen to you, or imagine yourself doing a bad thing to someone else, but that is not empathy. Empathy is to feel what another person feels from their own perspective, not how you would feel in their situation. And I do not believe the average person is capable of doing that. With that said, I am not convinced a jury of average joes would be capable of properly discussing both sides, nor finding an appropriate sentence.

How would you feel about abolishing the jury of peers concept in favour of one that makes use of experts?

Isn't someone incapable of empathy literally a psychopath? The average person is a psychopath?
IMO, If anything I'd say you're less likely to find an empathetic person the more you lean towards 'experts'. Can't Mr Average Joe sympathise more towards hoodlums than some scientist autismo? 


Quote:crispier taco

serious doubts on 'technocratic' juries, but as it stands I think the jury in it's current state is terrible and out of date. I intuitively reckon juries should be made of lawyers or judges or forensic analysts... but it seems about as messy as the current systems of jury selection, where lawyers can veto anyone who comes across as unsympathetic to their angle

... so, I'd choose a technocratic jury over the status quo, but remain nervous

Do you disagree with the power to veto jury members? Both the prosecution and the defense can veto right? It culls the extremes off both ends.
Reply
#34
(15-07-2018, 06:29 PM)████ Wrote: Isn't someone incapable of empathy literally a psychopath? The average person is a psychopath?

Sympathy is easy for most people. Empathy (or at least true empathy) takes a lot of mental effort. People are sympathetic towards the victim, but almost never empathetic towards the perpetrator. A lack of empathy is one of the traits of a psychopath (according to wikipedia), but I still doubt most people are capable of it without putting a lot of mental into it. And in my experience, most people are lazy (just look at the prevalence of bias in all things, the human brain has evolved to jump to conclusions quickly, and society has trained us not to questions them). Or at least I know I have to really try before I go from feeling sympathy to feeling empathy. But then, maybe I am just a psychopath.

(15-07-2018, 06:29 PM)████ Wrote: IMO, If anything I'd say you're less likely to find an empathetic person the more you lean towards 'experts'.

Why do you think that? I think there is a higher chance of finding physcopaths in high stress environments, such as CEO positions. But a higher probability of a low probability is still a low probability (which I would assume to be insignificant, especially given trial bias. The percentage of CEOs tested for mental disorders is almost definitely much higher than the general public, so the results are likely skewed). But I don't know if that relationship even holds for scientists.

(15-07-2018, 06:29 PM)████ Wrote: Can't Mr Average Joe sympathise more towards hoodlums than some scientist autismo?

Sure, Mr Average Joe can probable sympathise more easily. There might be a smaller perceived gap between his position and the accused position. So maybe he could imaging himself having to resort to crime. Maybe? But even so, that is sympathy. Not empathy.

In many respects, sympathy is a dangerous thing for a jury to have. It might make them vote "not guilty" for someone who they believe to be "guilty" because the relate to or feel sorry for the accused. But that is not what we want at all, it would be a miscarriage of justice. But we do want them to empathise with both sides so that they can fully understand the situation. It is possible to empathise without feeling sorry for them.
Reply
#35
(11-07-2018, 08:12 PM)crispier taco Wrote: ... so, I'd choose a technocratic jury over the status quo, but remain nervous
Id like to give this ago to see the results.

(15-07-2018, 06:29 PM)████ Wrote: than some scientist autismo?
Jesus, man you are knocking it outta the park with these posts. Laughed hard at this one dawg, it's a yes from me.

(15-07-2018, 10:06 PM)Kalazarc Wrote: A lack of empathy is one of the traits of a psychopath (according to wikipedia)
[citation needed]

(15-07-2018, 10:06 PM)Kalazarc Wrote: Empathy (or at least true empathy) takes a lot of mental effort.
This is true.

(15-07-2018, 10:06 PM)Kalazarc Wrote: the human brain has evolved to jump to conclusions quickly
This is true. Why though?

Yeah empathy is pretty important. Hard to do for sure, especially in a highly emotional case where you feel very sympathetic. Emotions and clear decisive thoughts are hard to master and hard to get working together...
Liams Wrote:make a car out of scrap metal from genie lamps
Reply
#36
(16-07-2018, 01:38 PM)AdminGG Wrote:
(15-07-2018, 10:06 PM)Kalazarc Wrote: the human brain has evolved to jump to conclusions quickly
This is true. Why though?

It is mostly because it takes a lot of resources to think about things with the cognitive part of your brain. I am not sure on the exact numbers, but I think your brain uses around 20% of your body's total energy use. It also takes a fair bit of time. So when you are going through your day to day life, your brain takes shortcuts. The subconscious makes leaps and makes it sound like your conscious came up with it. This is really advantageous for 90% of your life, especially things that require snap decisions. But it also leads to a huge amount of bias, examples being things that don't feel intuitive in physics, or survival bias (big example is successful people tell you how to get to were they are, but they forget for every successful person there are 1000 failures. Sure hard work and talent helps, but it is mostly luck), or the big one, racism. It is advantageous to see outsiders as dangerous as you don't know if they are safe.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)