• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Laws Are Foolish Attempts to Micro-Manage Future Judgments

joe1776

Well-Known Member
That means you advocate a system of arbitrary arrest. Really?
Laws are based on the conscience of the legislators, mostly long dead, who never witnessed the act for which a person is arrested. How is that less arbitrary than being arrested based on the conscience of the police? Please explain.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Laws are based on the conscience of the legislators, mostly long dead, who never witnessed the act for which a person is arrested. How is that less arbitrary than being arrested based on the conscience of the police? Please explain.

When a person is arrested, the police have to tell him the grounds for doing so, i.e. the law or laws that the police have reason to believe may have been broken. This is a key element of justice, as the police then have to justify the grounds for arrest by charging him with an offence under the law, within 24hrs, or 96 for very serious crime, or else release the prisoner (habeas corpus). This is to prevent arbitrary arrest and detention by corrupt, prejudiced or politically motivated police, all of which there is ample evidence for in most countries. Police are not very well paid, not always very well educated, and suffer from just the same weaknesses as any other citizen. They need rules.

If you have laws, then the police have a non-arbitrary yardstick by which they, or any lawyer or magistrate considering a challenge to a police action, can determine whether it is justified. Without that, the police can just make it up as they go along, based on personal prejudice and individual ideas of what is right and wrong that vary from policeman to policeman and may not be shared by large parts of the society they are policing. The scope for bribery and extortion is also obvious, as there are no rules governing their behaviour.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
When a person is arrested, the police have to tell him the grounds for doing so, i.e. the law or laws that the police have reason to believe may have been broken. This is a key element of justice, as the police then have to justify the grounds for arrest by charging him with an offence under the law, within 24hrs, or 96 for very serious crime, or else release the prisoner (habeas corpus). This is to prevent arbitrary arrest and detention by corrupt, prejudiced or politically motivated police, all of which there is ample evidence for in most countries. Police are not very well paid, not always very well educated, and suffer from just the same weaknesses as any other citizen. They need rules.

If you have laws, then the police have a non-arbitrary yardstick by which they, or any lawyer or magistrate considering a challenge to a police action, can determine whether it is justified. Without that, the police can just make it up as they go along, based on personal prejudice and individual ideas of what is right and wrong that vary from policeman to policeman and may not be shared by large parts of the society they are policing. The scope for bribery and extortion is also obvious, as there are no rules governing their behaviour.
Conscience (moral intuition) isn't connected to intelligence. Thus, there is no reason to suspect that a policeman isn't just as qualified as a legislator to judge whether an act is morally wrong.

If the police are biased for some reason, they can arrest people unfairly regardless of the system they represent. However, in my plan, there is no prosecutor whose reputation is made on convictions. Once an arrest is made, the case would go immediately to an impartial expert panel which would immediately reject arbitrary arrests. Moreover, the police with a pattern of making arbitrary arrests could be identified and disciplined.

In the current system, laws don't prevent abuse by the police. In the system I propose, police would have a harder time getting away with abuse because, unlike the current system, cases would be going quickly to an impartial expert panel with no allegiance to law enforcement.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Conscience (moral intuition) isn't connected to intelligence. Thus, there is no reason to suspect that a policeman isn't just as qualified as a legislator to judge whether an act is morally wrong.

If the police are biased for some reason, they can arrest people unfairly regardless of the system they represent. However, in my plan, there is no prosecutor whose reputation is made on convictions. Once an arrest is made, the case would go immediately to an impartial expert panel which would immediately reject arbitrary arrests. Moreover, the police with a pattern of making arbitrary arrests could be identified and disciplined.

In the current system, laws don't prevent abuse by the police. In the system I propose, police would have a harder time getting away with abuse because, unlike the current system, cases would be going quickly to an impartial expert panel with no allegiance to law enforcement.
This is quite mad. I am not going to pursue it with you any longer.
 
Thus, there is no reason to suspect that a policeman isn't just as qualified as a legislator to judge whether an act is morally wrong.

No reason whatsoever to doubt the integrity of some police officers, and no reason whatsoever to be concerned about such people being limited in their behaviour only by 'use your conscience' :D

Hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers operating across diverse geographic, political and cultural boundaries with minimal standardisation and very fuzzy boundaries dividing acceptable/unacceptable behaviour, whatever could go wrong?

Once an arrest is made, the case would go immediately to an impartial expert panel

"immediately" - how many of them are going to be on standby? You need 3 minimum to do 1 case and those 3 can't do more than a handful of cases a day if that, particularly as they are going to have to document their process for public scrutiny. Government agencies tend not to have plentiful budgets to cover the necessary overstaffing it would require to handle cases in a timely manner.

"impartial" - the mythical impartial human, particularly the mythical impartial human overworked and underfunded government bureaucrat operating in a very subjective dimension massively impacted by prior culture and political orientation and beholden to the whims of the political establishment.

In the system I propose

It's basically a tribal system of justice where offenders are brought before the tribal elders (experts) to be judged for their crimes.

The problem is you are wanting to expand it in scale by about 100,000,000% and scale changes things fundamentally.

Communism can work very well in a small community built on trust, mutual benefits, and personal ties and commitments. Abstract the idea to a massive nation state under the control of political functionaries and you turn it into a tyranny as what legitimised the system on a small scale can never exist on a macro scale.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
This is quite mad. I am not going to pursue it with you any longer.
The inspiration for my concept came from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's use of what he called a brain trust. It was a collection of the best minds he could find to advise him on how to pull the nation out of the Depression.

FDR used the brain trust idea again to advise on strategy during WW2. After the war, that brain trust formed the Rand Corporation, the think tank employed to advise the US on many matters.
 
The inspiration for my concept came from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's use of what he called a brain trust. It was a collection of the best minds he could find to advise him on how to pull the nation out of the Depression.

Which underlines that you don't get the importance of scale.

The logic that "this works on a small scale, therefore it will work on a massive scale" is woefully flawed.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
No reason whatsoever to doubt the integrity of some police officers, and no reason...
Quote me. What did I write that made you think that?

Hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers operating across diverse geographic, political and cultural boundaries with minimal standardisation and very fuzzy boundaries dividing acceptable/unacceptable behaviour, whatever could go wrong?
Please explain why you think police officers would not recognize that a murder was wrongful unless educated on the law that covers it. If not murder, choose any crime.

"immediately" - how many of them are going to be on standby? You need 3 minimum to do 1 case and those 3 can't do more than a handful of cases a day if that, particularly as they are going to have to document their process for public scrutiny. Government agencies tend not to have plentiful budgets to cover the necessary overstaffing it would require to handle cases in a timely manner.
Millions of lawyers will be put out of work by expert panels in the future. These bright people could be among the expert panel members. Panel members might live anywhere in the world so some would be available 24/7. Moreover, the time spent on each case would be a small fraction of what is spent now in our ancient, cumbersome court processes.

"impartial" - the mythical impartial human
You seem unaware that those who judge cases must only be impartial on the relevant case. It's a concept understood all over the world. It makes justice possible.

It's basically a tribal system of justice where offenders are brought before the tribal elders (experts) to be judged for their crimes.
It's not at all like tribal justice because the elders aren't experts.

Communism can work very well in a small community built on trust, mutual benefits, and personal ties and commitments. Abstract the idea to a massive nation state under the control of political functionaries and you turn it into a tyranny as what legitimised the system on a small scale can never exist on a macro scale.
What does this statement have to do with our topic?
 
Last edited:

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Which underlines that you don't get the importance of scale.

The logic that "this works on a small scale, therefore it will work on a massive scale" is woefully flawed.
If you have a reason to think that it won't work because of scale, let's hear it.

What I'm suggesting is a different decision-making model that could be tested in classrooms using decisions where the correct answer is known such as a math exam. The majority opinion of a 33-member class trained in Math 104 will always give the correct answer whereas even the brightest student will err now and then.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
The inspiration for my concept came from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's use of what he called a brain trust. It was a collection of the best minds he could find to advise him on how to pull the nation out of the Depression.

FDR used the brain trust idea again to advise on strategy during WW2. After the war, that brain trust formed the Rand Corporation, the think tank employed to advise the US on many matters.
That is a totally different way of using experts, in effect as one-off consultants on policy. It has no relevance at all to running a day-to-day nationwide system of public order and justice.
 
Quote me. What did I write that made you think that?

Already have. Your system puts even greater emphasis on the integrity and ethical behaviour of police


Please explain why you think police officers would not recognize that a murder was wrongful unless educated on the law that covers it. If not murder, choose any crime.

Statutory rape involving a teenager. Age of consent varies greatly across legal systems, usually somewhere between 13-18. You can't have a system where age of consent is dependent on the whims of whichever police officer and expert happens to be involved in your case.

Millions of lawyers will be put out of work by expert panels in the future. These bright people could be among the expert panel members. Panel members might live anywhere in the world so some would be available 24/7. Moreover, the time spent on each case would be a small fraction of what is spent now in our ancient, cumbersome court processes.

And these drag on over years, and only a small % of arrests go to court.

Your system relies on every single arrest being dealt with instantly, which would require a massive overstaffing to deal with unpredictable fluctuations in arrest numbers.

Also you can't try people from 'anywhere in the world' due to cultural differences and a lack of local knowledge.

You seem unaware that those who judge cases must only be impartial on the relevant case. It's a concept understood all over the world. It makes justice possible.

If judges are impartial, why is there so much political rancour over US Supreme Court nominations?

It's not at all like tribal justice because the elders aren't experts.

They are the tribal equivalent. Knowledge from experience.

What does this statement have to do with our topic?

Scale matters

If you have a reason to think that it won't work because of scale, let's hear it.

Work on a project with 10 people with no formal rules, then work on a project with 100,000 people with no formal rules and say scale doesn't matter.

Anyway, the burden of proof is on you to explain why scale doesn't matter.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
That is a totally different way of using experts, in effect as one-off consultants on policy. It has no relevance at all to running a day-to-day nationwide system of public order and justice.
I said that the brain trust concept inspired me. I didn't claim that my idea had been done before.

One important similarity is that there are no leaders. This is important because leaders exert too much influence on decisions. Eliminating them reduces the likelihood of bias affecting the decision.

The other important similarity to the brain trust concept is that the panel members are experts. In contrast, the groups you call Parliament and we call Congress are rarely experts in the decisions they make.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I said that the brain trust concept inspired me. I didn't claim that my idea had been done before.

One important similarity is that there are no leaders. This is important because leaders exert too much influence on decisions. Eliminating them reduces the likelihood of bias affecting the decision.

The other important similarity to the brain trust concept is that the panel members are experts. In contrast, the groups you call Parliament and we call Congress are rarely experts in the decisions they make.
You clearly do not understand how lawmaking is done.

This whole discussion is silly. I have had enough of it now.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Already have. Your system puts even greater emphasis on the integrity and ethical behaviour of police
I asked you for a quote. You can't quote anything I wrote that justifies your interpretation.

Statutory rape involving a teenager. Age of consent varies greatly across legal systems, usually somewhere between 13-18. You can't have a system where age of consent is dependent on the whims of whichever police officer and expert happens to be involved in your case.
Since the laws vary, isn't it obvious that they can't all be serving justice? These cases need to be judged independently by an expert panel since the maturity of the individuals involved isn't simply a matter of age.

Your system relies on every single arrest being dealt with instantly, which would require a massive overstaffing to deal with unpredictable fluctuations in arrest numbers.
In the US, every single arrest is now dealt with quickly by the prosecutor's office representing the state. From there, the case goes into the convoluted court system.

Also you can't try people from 'anywhere in the world' due to cultural differences and a lack of local knowledge.
Panel members from one culture are more likely to have a bias affecting the majority vote than panelists from various cultures. For example, the biases associated with nationalism would not affect an expert panel with its members from different countries.

If judges are impartial, why is there so much political rancour over US Supreme Court nominations?
The Court is a poorly conceived expert panel. It would be better if the members were randomly selected by computer from a list of qualified candidates rather than appointed. And nine members is not enough. A panel of say 33 would be far less likely to be ruled by the same bias.

Work on a project with 10 people with no formal rules, then work on a project with 100,000 people with no formal rules and say scale doesn't matter.
This is a nonsense statement because the practicality obviously depends on whether the project needs formal rules, laws in this case. I've argued that laws are less than useless and offered reasons to support my case.

Anyway, the burden of proof is on you to explain why scale doesn't matter.
I didn't claim that scale doesn't matter. I'm claiming that there is no reason to think that it won't work at scale. I can't prove there is no reason because I can't prove the negative. However, you could prove me wrong by offering one good reason that it won't work. Thus far, all you've offered is your claim that it won't..
 
Last edited:
I asked you for a quote. You can't quote anything I wrote that justifies your interpretation.

Giving the police much greater freedom to act greatly increases the degree you rely on their integrity.

As I said, I already quoted it and explained it. If you can't or won't understand the implications of your own ideas then it's on you.

In the US, every single arrest is now dealt with quickly by the prosecutor's office representing the state. From there, the case goes into the convoluted court system.

They are not dealt with 'quickly', most people who commit minor offences are released with a citation to reappear at a a later date.

The Court is a poorly conceived expert panel. It would be better if the members were randomly selected by computer from a list of qualified candidates rather than appointed. And nine members is not enough. A panel of say 33 would be far less likely to be ruled by the same bias.

In this case the political battle moves to who decides on the 'qualified candidates'

Panel members from one culture are more likely to have a bias affecting the majority vote than panelists from various cultures. For example, the biases associated with nationalism would not affect an expert panel with its members from different countries.

Your views seem very insular and naive regarding cultural diversity. Different cultures have very different attitudes as to what constitutes justice, and all of the people you cite as supporting moral intuitionism acknowledge the role of culture in moral intuition.

This is a nonsense statement because the practicality obviously depends on whether the project needs formal rules, laws in this case. I've argued that laws are less than useless and offered reasons to support my case.

An organisation that oversees laws and justice and has hundreds of thousands of employees operating in diverse environments obviously requires some level of formal rules as every organisation with hundreds of thousands of employees does.

I didn't claim that scale doesn't matter. I'm claiming that there is no reason to think that it won't work at scale. I can't prove there is no reason because I can't prove the negative. However, you could prove me wrong by offering one good reason that it won't work. Thus far, all you've offered is your claim that it won't..

Look at any organisation/business as scale increases so does formalisation (i.e. written rules and procedures) and standardisation. This is well known in management.

Look it up if you don't believe me and are genuinely interested in finding ways to challenge your own assumptions.

Since the laws vary, isn't it obvious that they can't all be serving justice? These cases need to be judged independently by an expert panel since the maturity of the individuals involved isn't simply a matter of age.

The fact that you think this is workable pretty much says it all.

How are people to work out what constitutes 'mature enough', especially when someone's outward behaviour may be very different from their internal levels of maturity or their physical development may be very different from their mental development?

With zero formalisation of standardisation, involving people from diverse cultures around the world, you would get wildly different interpretations of the law which would make it fundamentally unjust.

Non-experts need to know when they are committing a crime in order for legal systems to be just and a whole load of laws are far more subjective 'grey areas' than murder and theft and the simplistic examples you always rely on.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Giving the police much greater freedom to act greatly increases the degree you rely on their integrity.

As I said, I already quoted it and explained it. If you can't or won't understand the implications of your own ideas then it's on you.



They are not dealt with 'quickly', most people who commit minor offences are released with a citation to reappear at a a later date.



In this case the political battle moves to who decides on the 'qualified candidates'



Your views seem very insular and naive regarding cultural diversity. Different cultures have very different attitudes as to what constitutes justice, and all of the people you cite as supporting moral intuitionism acknowledge the role of culture in moral intuition.



An organisation that oversees laws and justice and has hundreds of thousands of employees operating in diverse environments obviously requires some level of formal rules as every organisation with hundreds of thousands of employees does.



Look at any organisation/business as scale increases so does formalisation (i.e. written rules and procedures) and standardisation. This is well known in management.

Look it up if you don't believe me and are genuinely interested in finding ways to challenge your own assumptions.



The fact that you think this is workable pretty much says it all.

How are people to work out what constitutes 'mature enough', especially when someone's outward behaviour may be very different from their internal levels of maturity or their physical development may be very different from their mental development?

With zero formalisation of standardisation, involving people from diverse cultures around the world, you would get wildly different interpretations of the law which would make it fundamentally unjust.

Non-experts need to know when they are committing a crime in order for legal systems to be just and a whole load of laws are far more subjective 'grey areas' than murder and theft and the simplistic examples you always rely on.
The idea that moral judgments are the product of reason is a popular myth, one that is taught in churches as well as colleges. You are now aware of that moral judgments are intuitive but it seems you are unaware of the implications of your knowledge. One of them is that moral rules and laws aren't simply unnecessary, they are potential biases that can throw justice off course.

In other words, if the law happens to agree with the conscience of an unbiased group, it is coincidentally right, the way a stopped clock is right twice a day. If the law conflicts with the conscience of an unbiased group, it is a potential bias. Thus the law should be ignored. If the law is always ignored when it conflicts with conscience, the law serves no purpose and should be discarded.

The fact that you compare moral judgments to the rules of a large organization, which are the product of reasoning, is evidence that you haven't grasped the significance of your knowledge that moral judgments are intuitive.

The idea that policemen have a comprehensive knowledge of the laws of their state is side-splitting comedy. But, if they are unbiased, they have a conscience which remarkably gives them an immediate judgment in an almost infinite number of situations.

You also seem unaware that since conscience is moral intuition, the idea of a universal conscience is in play. The reason that cultures seem to have different notions of justice is that they are not on the same moral level. For example, in the year 1800, half the world had abolished legal slavery while the other half had not. At that time, it would have seemed like conscience was sending different signals. However, the truth was that the conscience-driven abolition of slavery would take another two hundred years to complete the transition.
 
Last edited:
Top