Abortion Debate - Role of Government

[Grinkle]

Innocent until proven guilty is supposedly the norm

I understand from documentaries that the biggest issue with forcing the government to prove a case is the hugely increased risk taken at sentencing. If you take a case all the way to verdict, your sentence will be much harsher than if you take a plea deal. Not to mention the expense / stress etc. Most indictments are not capital murder where I think an innocent person is much more likely to fight the charge - if you are charged with some crime that carries a 5-10 year sentence and offered a deal of 1 year supervised probation to plead guilty to a lesser charge, even if innocent, it must be a difficult thing to throw the dice.

 

[dlu]

I understand from documentaries that the biggest issue with forcing the government to prove a case is the hugely increased risk taken at sentencing. If you take a case all the way to verdict, your sentence will be much harsher than if you take a plea deal. Not to mention the expense / stress etc. Most indictments are not capital murder where I think an innocent person is much more likely to fight the charge - if you are charged with some crime that carries a 5-10 year sentence and offered a deal of 1 year supervised probation to plead guilty to a lesser charge, even if innocent, it must be a difficult thing to throw the dice.

And that does show one glaring big problem with the justice system - ability to pay.
And the other, the problem of plea deals - kind of a squishy mentality. If the lessor charge is OK on plea, then that is what the indictment should state, no more, not multiple charges with greater penalties with the coercive effect to more or less ensure conviction. The plea deal should be for the trial, not for the accused to decide on whether to plead guilty/not guilty.
A guilty plea involves little, or no recourse for appeal.

The criminal justice system, supposedly built upon with logic and justice in mind is anything but. A lot of paper shuffling where the system feeds itself.
It sucks.

 

[MindlessPieces]

I understand from documentaries that the biggest issue with forcing the government to prove a case is the hugely increased risk taken at sentencing. If you take a case all the way to verdict, your sentence will be much harsher than if you take a plea deal. Not to mention the expense / stress etc. Most indictments are not capital murder where I think an innocent person is much more likely to fight the charge - if you are charged with some crime that carries a 5-10 year sentence and offered a deal of 1 year supervised probation to plead guilty to a lesser charge, even if innocent, it must be a difficult thing to throw the dice.

I know of people that have pled guilty to allegations in order to avoid paying large legal fees to defend themselves. The law system is built for rich people.

 

[Grinkle]

I am moving some comments specific to gun laws and gun control to this thread.

Civil Rights Thread 'American gun laws and attitudes towards gun ownership'

Apr 23, 2025

I think a weekly poll would be great! Do we have any volunteers or ideas for initial poll questions?

There is a question that has been driving me for a while now. What are the actual opinions about US-American gun laws among the population, and how are specific points of view distributed? I can only read about the standard extreme positions here that give me the impression that the USA is a country of irresponsible gun fanatics. I like to call the 2nd as the right to murder each other. However, there are many possible positions in between, as countries like Australia, Canada, and...

• fresh_42
• Replies: 42
• Forum: American Domestic Politics

• 

 

[jack action]

What other penalties do you have in mind

I remember hearing a (fictional?) story about someone killing someone else of a different religion (hate crime) and condemned to raised their victim's child in their victim's religion. Whether true or fictional, I find this an interesting way to repair damages done.

Who enforces whatever it is?

I predict behavior would be Hobbesian, not co-operative.

In a society where everyone is about self-preservation and egocentrism, who is reliable enough to make laws and enforce them? So no matter what flaws you can find in an assumed cooperative society, it is even worse in an assumed competing one.

Do you have any historical society in mind that you can use as an example of where this approach has the outcomes you want?

I really like the approach of Amish communities. They do have laws and I'm not talking about their particular beliefs or traditions they are supporting, but how they managed their group.

Nobody is forced or manipulated to stay. They even encourage their young adults to explore the life outside their community and to return only if they really choose their way of life.

How do they enforce whatever policy they apply? People they don't want are just rejected by the whole community, they have no choice but to go away. There is no police to escort them out or threaten them, but when people don't want to play with you anymore, you have no choice but go away.

About responding to terrible acts committed to their community, I like the West Nickel Mines School shooting example:

On October 2, 2006, a shooting occurred at the West Nickel Mines School, an Amish one-room schoolhouse in the Old Order Amish community of Nickel Mines, a village in Bart Township, Pennsylvania. Gunman Charles Carl Roberts IV took hostages and shot ten girls (aged 6–13), killing six (five in the initial incident, and a sixth who succumbed to her injuries in 2024), before dying by suicide in the schoolhouse.

Amish community response​

On the day of the shooting, a grandfather of one of the murdered Amish girls was heard warning some young relatives not to hate the killer, saying, "We must not think evil of this man". Another Amish father noted, "He had a mother and a wife and a soul and now he's standing before a just God". Jack Meyer, a member of the Brethren community living near the Amish in Lancaster County, explained: "I don't think there's anybody here that wants to do anything but forgive and not only reach out to those who have suffered a loss in that way but to reach out to the family of the man who committed these acts".

A Roberts family spokesman said an Amish neighbor comforted the Roberts family hours after the shooting and extended forgiveness to them. Amish community members visited and comforted Roberts' widow, parents and parents-in-law. One Amish man held Roberts' sobbing father in his arms, reportedly for as long as an hour, to comfort him. The Amish also established a charitable fund for the family of the shooter. About 30 members of the Amish community attended Roberts' funeral. Marie Roberts, the widow of the killer, was one of the few outsiders invited to the funeral of one of the victims.

Marie Roberts wrote an open letter to her Amish neighbors, thanking them for their forgiveness, grace, and mercy. She wrote, "Your love for our family has helped to provide the healing we so desperately need. Gifts you've given have touched our hearts in a way no words can describe. Your compassion has reached beyond our family, beyond our community, and is changing our world, and for this we sincerely thank you." The Amish do not normally accept charity; still, because of the extreme nature of the tragedy, donations were accepted. Richie Lauer, director of the Anabaptist Foundation, said the Amish community, whose religious beliefs prohibit them from having health insurance, will likely use the donations to help pay the medical costs of the children who were hospitalized.

 

[jack action]

Most think it is not a good idea.

How does that make them right?

Then some people are afraid that they won't be able to buy guns in the future - because it will be forbidden - and thus they buy a gun, just in case, just not to be left out.

Doubtful.

Yet:

The 2008–2016 United States ammunition shortage was a shortage of civilian small arms ammunition in the United States that started in late 2008, and continued through most or all of 2010, with an additional shortage beginning in December 2012 and continuing throughout 2013.

The 2008 election of President Barack Obama triggered increased sales of both firearms and ammunition. USA Today reported that in Wyoming, the "run on bullets and reloading components" reached such a "frenzy" that a Cheyenne retailer began rationing sales and said she was also selling semiautomatic rifles as fast as she could put them on the shelves.

In December 2012, a new wave of panic buying was driven by the perceived likelihood of new firearm control laws being passed by Congress and state governments in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. This led to a severe shortage of ammunition for most handgun calibers and some rifle calibers, especially the previously easy-to-find and cheaply priced .22 LR.

By August 2013, the rate of consumer purchases of most types of ammunition was receding, but prices continued to be above those found before December 2012 and ammunition for some calibers continued to be difficult to procure.

Reports of crime seem to be the reason people want to have a gun.

Crime involving guns, therefore my statement.

Even you say that the right acceptable thing for one person may not be right (acceptable) to another. How is this addressed?

How is it addressed with laws? It is not, one side imposes their views on the others. how is this better?

There are small groups that do not have written laws but instead depend on culture and tradition. This depends on the individuals' being able to feel that they understand one another's behaviors. Each person is predictable concerning responsibilities, expectations, or accountability, for example.
It seems that this works for groups up to about 150 (Dunbar's Number). This is the number of people a person can reasonably understand the network of relationships in a group.

That's a good point to express what is actually happening with laws: A 150-people group that imposes their way of life on anyone else they don't understand. It works for them, others must follow.

Maybe the solution is to let people live in 150-people groups and the only common principle is just respecting other groups?

 

[jack action]

There aren't an infinite amount of suitable jobs.

There are as many jobs available as there are people. One person has needs that someone has to work for, usually themselves. If one person doesn't work for their needs, it only means someone else is working for them. You are just stating the common argument against immigration, which is false:

“Immigrants will take our jobs and lower our wages, especially hurting the poor.”

This is the most common argument and also the one with the greatest amount of evidence rebutting it. First, the displacement effect is small if it even affects natives at all. Immigrants are typically attracted to growing regions and they increase the supply and demand sides of the economy once they are there, expanding employment opportunities. Second, the debate over immigrant impacts on American wages is confined to the lower single digits – immigrants may increase the relative wages for some Americans by a tiny amount and decrease them by a larger amount for the few Americans who directly compete against them. Immigrants likely compete most directly against other immigrants so the effects on less-skilled native-born Americans might be very small or even positive.


New research by Harvard professor George Borjas on the effect of the Mariel Boatlift – a giant shock to Miami’s labor market that increased the size of its population by 7 percent in 42 days – finds large negative wage effects concentrated on Americans with less than a high school degree. To put the scale of that shock to Miami in context, it would be as if 22.4 million immigrants moved to America in a six-week period – which will not happen. Some doubt Borjas’ finding (here is Borjas’ response to the critics and here is a summary of the debate) but what is not in doubt is that immigration has increased the wages and income of Americans on net. The smallest estimates immigration surplus, as it is called, is equal to about 0.24 percent of GDP – which excludes the gains to immigrants and just focuses on those of native-born Americans.

Evolution itself wouldn't work if resources were unlimited, in a world of survival of the fittest, those genes that are better suited to compete in the environment become more prolific, those less suited die off.

Members of the same species, especially those of social nature like humans, don't really compete one against each other, they compete together against other species.

Why would you want to help people?
Alliances can be very helpful to you. You help them, they help you in return. We aren't always in prime physical condition. We help others in need, when we are in need, perhaps we've twisted an ankle or broken an arm, others help us. It is mutually beneficial.

How is a law mutually beneficial? If we agree that doing or not doing something is beneficial to all of us, why would we need a law and people to enforce it, why would we not act accordingly? If someone decides to do something else, it is necessarily because that person doesn't find a benefice anymore doing it the old way.

So the law - and the people enforcing it - just guarantees one party has control over the others such that things always go their way.

To truly established trust and respect, the alliances must remain fluid and flexible.

 

[MindlessPieces]

There are as many jobs available as there are people. One person has needs that someone has to work for, usually themselves. If one person doesn't work for their needs, it only means someone else is working for them. You are just stating the common argument against immigration, which is false:

Sometimes there are excess jobs, sometimes there are excess people, we all go to interviews and compete for jobs.

Members of the same species, especially those of social nature like humans, don't really compete one against each other, they compete together against other species.

All species compete for the limited resources in our ecosphere.

How is a law mutually beneficial? If we agree that doing or not doing something is beneficial to all of us, why would we need a law and people to enforce it, why would we not act accordingly? If someone decides to do something else, it is necessarily because that person doesn't find a benefice anymore doing it the old way.

So the law - and the people enforcing it - just guarantees one party has control over the others such that things always go their way.

To truly established trust and respect, the alliances must remain fluid and flexible.

It would be an interesting society if people were all nice to each other and cared about each other and helped each other out and were all besties, unfortunately life isn't like that.

 

[Grinkle]

Maybe the solution is to let people live in 150-people groups and the only common principle is just respecting other groups?

I think your proposal wouldn't scale well with population size, and it also seems to me it could work in a small isolated society. Respecting other groups is a matter of resource availability, relative prosperity, relative combat effectiveness, geography, probably other things as well imo. Some Native American tribes co-existed more or less peaceably, some were always blood enemies. I think that might be a good historical assessment of societies with no formal laws or police, although the larger cultures did use martial law to maintain social order - I am thinking specifically of the central and south American cultures that maintained standing militaries. I'm sure there are academic studies on why some Native cultures got along and others didn't - I'll see if I can find anything on that.

Edit:

I found quite a few, I'm going to read this one -

Empires, Nations, and Families: A History of the North American West, 1800–1860 – Anne F. Hyde

 

[jack action]

we all go to interviews and compete for jobs.

I strongly suggest you read the book Bullshit Jobs: A Theory by David Graeber. This should be a real eye-opener for you about how meaningless jobs can be today:

The productivity benefits of automation have not led to a 15-hour workweek, as predicted by economist John Maynard Keynes in 1930, but instead to "bullshit jobs": "a form of paid employment that is so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence even though, as part of the conditions of employment, the employee feels obliged to pretend that this is not the case". Many people who are working these bullshit or pointless jobs know that they are working jobs that do not contribute to society in a meaningful way. A review of the book notes: "Technology has advanced to the point where most of the difficult, labor-intensive jobs can be performed by machines." Instead of producing more jobs that are fulfilling for our environment, they create meaningless jobs to provide everyone with an opportunity to work. While these jobs can offer good compensation and ample free time, the pointlessness of the work grates at their humanity and creates a "profound psychological violence".

More than half of societal work is pointless, both large parts of some jobs and five types of entirely pointless jobs:

1. Flunkies, who serve to make their superiors feel important, e.g., receptionists, administrative assistants, door attendants, store greeters;
2. Goons, who act to harm or deceive others on behalf of their employer, or to prevent other goons from doing so, e.g., lobbyists, corporate lawyers, telemarketers, public relations specialists;
3. Duct tapers, who temporarily fix problems that could be fixed permanently, e.g., programmers repairing shoddy code, airline desk staff who calm passengers with lost luggage;
4. Box tickers, who create the appearance that something useful is being done when it is not, e.g., survey administrators, in-house magazine journalists, corporate compliance officers, academic administration;
5. Taskmasters, who create extra work for those who do not need it, e.g., middle management, leadership professionals.

These jobs are largely in the private sector despite the idea that market competition would root out such inefficiencies. In companies, the rise of service sector jobs owes less to economic need than to "managerial feudalism", in which employers need underlings in order to feel important and maintain competitive status and power. In society, the Puritan-capitalist work ethic is to be credited for making the labor of capitalism into religious duty: that workers did not reap advances in productivity as a reduced workday because, as a societal norm, they believe that work determines their self-worth, even as they find that work pointless. This cycle is a "profound psychological violence" and "a scar across our collective soul". One of the challenges to confronting our feelings about bullshit jobs is a lack of a behavioral script, in much the same way that people are unsure of how to feel if they are the object of unrequited love. In turn, rather than correcting this system, individuals attack those whose jobs are innately fulfilling.

YouGov undertook a related poll, in which 37% of some surveyed Britons thought that their jobs did not contribute 'meaningfully' to the world.

So it is estimated that about a third of the people working are not contributing to society. That means they are living off the other two-thirds who are actually productive, doing the "real" work.

The competition you refer to is completely made up and has nothing to do with the limited resources in our ecosphere.

It would be an interesting society if people were all nice to each other and cared about each other and helped each other out and were all besties, unfortunately life isn't like that.

So your solution is to force people to "help" others with laws? But who are those good souls among those careless people who know better, and that will make and enforce those laws? Because people don't care for each other, the only possibility in such a world is people helping themselves by forcing others to do what is good for them, which is in itself wrong.

The more laws you create, the more you reinforce that concept because people don't even try to trust each other. That is why I choose not to believe that and encourage that doctrine. It only turns into a vicious circle: the existence of these laws proves that people are not trustworthy, thus we need more laws to protect us from these careless people.

 

[gleem]

So your solution is to force people to "help" others with laws? But who are those good souls among those careless people who know better, and that will make and enforce those laws? Because people don't care for each other, the only possibility in such a world is people helping themselves by forcing others to do what is good for them, which is in itself wrong.

The Chinese have instituted a system of social credits to promote approved behavior with an extensive surveillance system. Do it our way, and life is good. If not, then well, life isn't as good as you would have hoped.

 

[MindlessPieces]

I strongly suggest you read the book Bullshit Jobs: A Theory by David Graeber. This should be a real eye-opener for you about how meaningless jobs can be today:

Your quote said
"Instead of producing more jobs that are fulfilling for our environment, they create meaningless jobs to provide everyone with an opportunity to work. "


Which is utter rubbish, at least in the private sector where profits is everything. Private companies have pressure to reduce costs, they have no obligation to provide everyone in society with an opportunity to work.

The competition you refer to is completely made up and has nothing to do with the limited resources in our ecosphere.

Everytime I've got a job, I've had to go to job interview and compete against other people also wanting the same job.

So your solution is to force people to "help" others with laws? But who are those good souls among those careless people who know better, and that will make and enforce those laws? Because people don't care for each other, the only possibility in such a world is people helping themselves by forcing others to do what is good for them, which is in itself wrong.

That's a very poor understanding of my position.
Some people are helpful, some are not. Helpfulness has its limits. Even the most caring, most helpful person still needs to compete for jobs, for a house, for a spouse, for items that they buy. Money is a way of competing, those without sufficient money go without, those with money can buy stuff, they also tend to make decisions, I have this limited money, there are a gazzilion things I want but I can't afford it all so I need to buy that which a want or need the most.

 

[dlu]

This should be a real eye-opener for you about how meaningless jobs can be today:

No mention of 'fluff' industries? That if they went away, or downsized, not all that many would notice or care all that much.
ie Bloated sports industry, such as with organizations FIFA, Olympics, professional teams. Fashion and beauty industries. They serve to excite some part of the human brain, but their importance is exaggerated beyond that necessary for normal survival.