Raj Feridun wrote:

> Ignorance is a choice one makes.

Ignorance means not to know, as when you are unwilling to read more or concern yourself mainly with
what happens in rural Shikoku, New Jersey or what is written in the US Constitution as opposed to
what is generally true or the severity of what occurs or exists elsewhere.

Simply not knowing is one thing. Deliberately choosing not to know is another.

> >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?
>
> Since when has the UN been pro-American? Amnesty International,
> despite their claims of non-affiliation to any nation or government
> was founded in the UK.

Are you suggesting the slight is merely political, not based on the actual possibility that systems
in other countries or even aspects of them are better?

> >> 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?
>
> Allowing the police to issue justice (especially secret police) is a
> police state.

Even if they were specifically  looking out for the falsely accused?

Damn, you are distrustful of law enforcement. You are even forgetting the fact that police, when
deciding not to pursue an investigation or press charges, are dispensing justice, or lack of it. We
both know they are letting actual criminals go.

> >> 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.
>
> They wouldn't want the loss of rights they would they get as a result.

The "right" to have sexual relations or defame accusers as they please, perhaps to intimidate actual
victims into silence? I'm sure they wouldn't want to lose that. Only the accused should have the
right to privacy, not the accuser.

> For my part I did say I believe that much more severe CRIMINAL
> penalties for those who can be proven to have brought false claims
> would be an excellent deterrent.

And how would we discover these false claims, any better than crimes under the current system, if
you do not have the means or confidence to declare that a verdict of not guilty indicates a false
claim?

> Well if you happen to believe in God then you might believe that
> he/she does his own reckoning for all crimes committed down here
> eventually.

Eventually does not help us now. And upon final judgment, our mortal lives will hardly be relevant.

> I'm not a particularly religious person.

Ones religious beliefs in life will also be irrelevant after death.

> >> This isn't EricWorld
>
> >Since people do not understand what I have in mind, you should say this world is not a utopia.
>
> The description of Ericworld I've heard thus far is a description of
> utopia.

Then you are capable of understanding it better than those who may believe it is the worst
totalitarian system the world has ever seen, worse than Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, with
myself as a self imposed God. No, I just thought of parts of it, and would personally not last long
under it as a criminal.

> If that's a lack of understanding you'll just have to explain it better.

If it is hell, it would be a mighty pleasant hell where some people might become so lazy they forgot
how to look after themselves, so extensive would security and other social services be. The
extensive human system of security could collapse in the future from lack of need or experience.
"Demolition Man" suddenly comes to mind, though surveillance would not be so lax as to allow such a
resistance, or the continued existence of such an extreme criminal.