Raj Feridun wrote:

> Please excuse me but I don't want to debate the death penalty.

The issue is not the death penalty itself, but the system that allows it if you claim it is
wrong. Note the US is bigger than New Jersey or Hawaii.

> I am the one who's happy with the system. I was referring to a utopian system that would cure
> the human problem.

Our common modern life is utopia compared to what humans of earlier times had with their short
hard lives, but we would never have what we have today, if someone long ago had not imagined it
and tried to put it into practice.

How can there be progress without desire for improvement? This system is better than what the
Founding Fathers were born under or how some were persecuted, but you can hardly believe this is
the best it could be, even in theory. I do not support the US Constitution including all the
same explicitly rights, but note what some Americans were able to do in about a week's time when
creating the Japanese Constitution. Their equivalent of the Bill of Rights makes their people
more free than we are, with explicit freedom of thought, and "no discrimination in political,
economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin."

The Founding Fathers weren't able to include that (if indeed the issues were ever raised), still
dealing with their own issues of racial and gender equality or social inequity.

Doesn't this suggest that the US Constitution or other aspects of the legal system, could be
improved even more than it has been so far?

> >Is your perfect happiness based simply on ignorance? Until I entered university and began to
> >question the validity of parts of "reality" in the US when I read about Socialist
> >revolutionary causes, instead of just believing what the news or my church told me, or what
> >little I knew from my sheltered existence (also before the numerous times I was involved
> >with the law and crime), I used to believe I and most others were "happy" too. It is no
> >wonder many Japanese are so naive living in Japan.
>
> No, it is not nor do I consider myself ignorant.

I know I am ignorant and will never know or understand all that I should. Eighteen years ago I
was so ignorant I was not even aware of my ignorance, as are many Japanese I meet who
don't/can't/refuse to think outside their own existence or simply accept what their society has
told them without much critical thought. Sure they can tell me guns/nukes/war are bad (which I
agree with in theory), but can't really explain why others would ever find fit to disagree or
why they continue to exist.

> It is based on the fact that the system is an excellent one and by far the best one on
> Earth.

Have you ever considered why UN study groups or Amnesty International usually gives top honors
to European governments or systems? Or it is purely political that the US is not on top?

> >> Still, I would be glad that I have the
> >> ability to defend myself rather than being considered guilty until I
> >> prove myself not so.
>
> >Who on this thread would do so? On the contrary, I devoted one entire post explicitly
> >outlining you an improved way to avoid false or mistaken accusation, and you won't even
> >comment on or acknowledge that.
>
> I did comment on it. I said I thought it was preposterous and
> bordering on a police state in separate comments.

Taking practically all imaginable precautions to avoid mistaken or false accusation and
punishment, with almost complete disregard for the rights or feelings of victims of actual
crime, is bordering on a police state?

Damn. I'm criticized for allegedly focusing only on punishing people for crime, even if they are
innocent, and I'm criticized for trying to avoid what would be basically 100% of false or
mistaken accusation and punishment, and legal corruption, even at the cost of an increase in
criminals who were not punished, a la "n" approaches infinity.

> Another reason I didn't address it directly was that I thought you were being
> completely satirical.

Well, no, that particularly system is not something I would ever want. But those who are so
concerned for preventing false or mistaken accusation or punishment might. I am sure that those
at accused.com would like to restrict the ability of people to make unsubstantiated claims of
rape or abuse (despite some being factual) or have the physical evidence to protect themselves
and their clients.

> >> Like Big Brother in Orwell's novel?.
>
> >No, more effective. It would not be random, it actually would be 24 hour. It would protect
> >against crime AND false accusation, because words, actions, and locations could actually be
> >proven. And if there ever could be a system to register thoughts, that would be useful, too.
> >Criminal intent could be proven to punish criminals, and lack of criminal intent proven to
> >protect the innocent.
>
> I will read it again as a courtesy without the taint of perceived
> satire.

I am quite serious, because until God acts on a real time basis to personally guide, protect,
judge and punish as opposed to waiting until death or final judgment, OR humans live and judge
perfectly on their own, such human efforts are the best we will have to know what really
happens.

> >> Do not commit crimes.
>
> >This is the best yet. Don't forget living clean to avoid being caught in compromising
> >positions which could lead to mistaken accusations and also to prevent people from wanting
> >to falsely accuse you of say, sexual assault or harassment.
>
> That last was directed to you personally. ;-)

It is too late for me not to commit crime. The best I would be able to do is try to prevent
others from doing so.

> >How about something we haven't heard of or has never been tried?
>
> Well you have my increased penalties for frivolous/false claimants in
> this thread. But I think what you're really saying is tell me how to
> fix the system that you don't even agree is broken.
>
> This isn't EricWorld

Since people do not understand what I have in mind, you should say this world is not a utopia.

No, this legal system is your imperfect reality, which you cannot perceive a need to improve.