On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 15:13:21 +0900, Eric Takabayashi
<etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:

>> You seem to want a utopian system. That's just not realistic, sorry.

>The issue is you not even TRYING to think of how to improve imperfections even you claim
>to be able to see, being perfectly happy with reality.

Humans aren't perfect. That's the sad fact. There will always be
dishonesty and corruption. That's a different thing than blaming the
system. If you have a BETTER system (more fair) I'm more than happy to
consider it.

>You apparently do not even see the possibility of this "reality" ever involving you, in
>your rural Shikoku, where crime is low, and homeless well cared for. Try to imagine that
>other places cannot claim to be as nice as that.

I was born in New Jersey and lived for the most part as an adult in
Queens, NY riding the subway daily into Manhattan. I have been the
victim of a mugging and have vast experience of encountering homeless
people. I have also been the victim of a mugging. 

Yes, now I live in Shikoku and it is nice. 

>> No, "guilty" does not mean they absolutely committed the crimes.

>Thank you.

You're welcome.

>> As for the death penalty, that's a whole different can of worms. Shall
>> we debate that as well?

>WHAT? Are you suggesting you do not accept the reality of the US legal system despite
>all its protections?

That is NOT the reality of the "US" legal system. It is a statutory
penalty and I never said I supported it nor did I say I did not. One
can defend the US system of justice without necessarily supporting the
death penalty.

>YOU claim to be "perfectly happy". If I must, for some reason, defend my
>dissatisfaction, or better yet, be demanded to produce something "better", why don't YOU
>defend your perfect happiness?

I think I have. I'm sorry if you disagree.

>Let's hear it. Allow us to share in your perfect happiness with reality as it is. Are
>you part of some religious organization?

No.

>Why can't you even imagine a system that would find actual criminals and protect the
>innocent, better than what we have now? Don't give me that "perfectly happy" when even
>you recognize the easily identifiable weaknesses such as simple lack of resources.

Maybe I'm not smart enough. Considering the fact that our own system
is almost 230 years in development by some of the greatest minds that
ever lived I'm not surprised that your nor anyone else is coming up
with any brainstorm fix-alls.

>> >> >If no to the second question, does this mean that the (eg, rape) claimant lied?
>> >> >(Y/N)

>> >> N/A.

>> >I mistyped, by the way. It should be "If yes".

>> Yes, the claimant lied in that case.

>Being found "not guilty" means the claimant LIED?

No, the claimant lying means the lied.

>Holy shit. Would you care to explain this view?

I would but I forgot the question and you snipped it. Guilty and not
guilty do not equate to dishonesty and honesty. They are the end
results of judicial processes.

>And you would allow this destruction of all the accused and prosecuted "not guilty"'s
>lives, just because you are "perfectly happy" with the current system and do not bother
>to suggest anything better?

I think your suggestion of more funding for the system we have was an
excellent one.

>> If I was falsely accused and was unable to successfully defend myself
>> "I" would obviously not be "perfectly happy" about it.

>Good. You are capable of seeing that the system you would have others live with, means
>something different when you are involved.

It doesn't mean anything different. It just affects me personally
which would not make happy. Still, I would be glad that I have the
ability to defend myself rather than being considered guilty until I
prove myself not so.

>I, on the other hand, would be comfortable living with my system, even if it meant the
>deaths of criminals, including myself who am one, and 24 hour surveillance.

Like Big Brother in Orwell's novel?.

>> I'll roll the dice on that possibility however WAY before I ever supported a system
>> like the one you've proposed.

>Because you lack the imagination or are to lazy to suggest something to improve the
>imperfect reality we have now. It's easier to ridicule people who do.

I didn't ridicule you. I said I wasn't going to support your system.
But now that you mention it I did find it preposterous. I'm talking
about your system not you personally.

The system we have is not the problem.

>> I've been involved with the law. I do count my blessings that I've not
>> been involved for some years now.

>You don't even care to suggest how to improve your own experience, "perfectly happy" as
>you are?

Increase funding as mentioned. Elect better people to government. Do
not commit crimes. Any of these suggestions sound good to you?