I'm not going to reply point by point, since you've stated some pretty basic disagreements -- (1) that morally rights are there only for those innocent of any wrongdoing, not for the guilty; and (2) that promised anonymity is morally irresponsible unless the results from the information outweigh the crime.  

I think the context of a reviled crime like child abuse make it easier to justify claims like this -- i.e. that the case of a child molester makes it clear that rights are a bad thing that should be tossed aside so that the guilty can be punished.  And if a molester, then what about a rapist or a murderer?  

Since you deny the morality of promised anonymity -- saying that it is not justified to cover up an ongoing crime -- where does that put the Catholic church?  It has made a policy of anonymous confession for centuries.  Do you believe that their policy is fundamentally immoral?

Quote from: John MorrowWe'll just have to agree to disagree on that.  I think that's just one example of a systematic bias.  Either a researcher is doing science or they are doing propaganda.  That there is so much propaganda in the social sciences (from all sides) is one reason why many people don't consider it real science.

I agree that social sciences are riddled with bias and even propaganda, though I don't reject them completely out of hand. As I said, the entire feild is still in its infancy, work with the tools you have, not the ones you'd like to have.

Quote from: John MorrowSomehow, I can't think that Americans would have been willing to just let them go had the victims been a few thousand American POWs rather than Chinese prisoners, though it's possible some captured Americans were included in their experiments.

I agree to that as well. Let me add that I think it shows a tragic failing in human psychology that people have to force themselves to think sympathetically (in this case) or potentially the reverse, to remove themselves.  To illustrate the later, the Nazis (who DID have lifesaving research... unlike the far less defenseable biowar technology of YOUR example), had they expiremented on Americans, would we have been as willing to keep the data?  I suspect that it would have been harder, which is a rather stupid time to let your instincts rule you.

Quote from: John MorrowI disagree, because I think that while you acknowledge removing a criminal from society as a legitimate way to respond to a crime you are skipping over one of the primary purposes of harsh punishment, beyond simple revenge.  The objective is deterrence.  If you let people know that they can cut living people open without anesthesia to experiment on them in times of war and then they can cut a deal to live out their life in peace, you give people no reason not to do things like that to each other.  Basically, it sends the message that if you can give something useful to your enemies when they win, you can literally get away with murder.  No, mild punishments and a handful of executions years after the crime aren't much of a deterrence but serious corporal punishments can be, for example, Singapore.  In fact, this particular quote from the Wikipedia entry on Law in Singapore is relevant to this discussion in more ways than one:

   The criminal law of Singapore is largely statutory in nature. The general principles of criminal law, as well as the elements and penalties of common criminal offences such as homicide, theft and cheating, are set out in the Penal Code.[92] Other important offences are created by statutes such as the Arms Offences Act,[93] Kidnapping Act,[94] Misuse of Drugs Act[95] and Vandalism Act.[96]
In addition, there is a perception that Singapore society is highly regulated through the criminalization of many activities which are considered as fairly harmless in other countries. These include failing to flush toilets after use,[97] littering,[98] jaywalking,[99] the possession of pornography,[100] the sale of chewing gum,[101] and sexual activity such as oral and anal sex between men.[102] Nonetheless, Singapore is one of the safest countries in the world, with a low incidence of violent crimes.[103]
Singapore retains both corporal punishment (in the form of caning) and capital punishment (by hanging) as punishments for serious offences. For certain offences, the imposition of these penalties is mandatory.

I wanted to cut this down, but its relevant. Deterrence is a poor method of crime control in general. Yes, Singapore is safer than any other nation. They accomplish this through draconian control of the populace as evidenced by your own examples.   Is there 'no crime' in singapore? Of course not.  I am sure that there has been crime in Antarctica!  Despite being so safe, many people with our modern sensibilities consider signapore to be barbaric. There is a certain Orwellian tone to the above article as well. Is that where you want to go to 'stop crime'?  Even crimes like Pedophilia?

Its been shown, repeatedly, in captial punishment debates that it is not a deterrent in any meaningful way.   Threat of prision, loss of jobs, an a host of other punishments have not particularly impacted the likelihood of many people doing illegal drugs, or sleeping with 17 year old cheerleaders, or even hiring hookers for 2000 dollars an hour or sleeping with Interns.  

Quote from: John MorrowDo you think that John List should have been left alone after murdering his family since he had been living a crime free life for years and hurting nobody?  Are you fine with Mel Ignatow walking the streets because of double jeopardy protections since the police found the pictures he had taken of Brenda Schaefer before he raped and murdered her after he had been acquitted because he's been a good boy and hasn't murdered anyone else?  Just how much can a person get away with and have society say, "Ooopsie!" and just let them go?  Do you, in general, agree with the idea of war crimes and punishing people for them, then?

I see that you are deliberately misreading me or I am failing to communicate my point here.  

Was anything done to correct John List? or Mel Ignatow? of course not.  When did I advocate simply ignoring a predator simply because they haven't done anything 'recently'?

Never.  

The CLOSEST I came to that was suggesting that by removing the Japanese Scientists from an instituition where they were allowed... nay, ENCOURAGED, to commit attrocities in the name of research and putting them into our supposedly more civilized control we have 'corrected' the situation, crudely at best.  We haven't corrected them, certainly.  I also said it was less than ideal.

But of course, I am not a proponent of corrective treatment by habit.  Once someone has proven incapable of remaining human by adopting predatory behaviors, I personaly advocate destroying them.  However, my own viewpoint is often at odds with the direction we, as a people, want our civilization to go.  

I generally hate to do it, but I'm afraid I must accuse you of propagandizing.  I bring up an ethical case involving useful 'good' data (the nazis 'research') and you would rather discuss someone elses failings over 'bad' data (the biowar research which in all probability can NOT be used to save, or even improve lives).

I suspect you REALLY want to focus on the Japanese Scientists because you'd rather Kinsey's data be automatically linked to biowar research.  There is no other reason to continue to focus on that particular set of atrocities. In both our sample cases the scientists used unethical methods to obtain their data.  We can agree easily that this parallels Kinsey's unethical methods of treating with sexual predators.   As neither one of us is in a position to either absolve or condemn Kinsey of his crimes, the fates of the scientists is not relevant to the examples, thus I can only conclude your fixation on the Japanese data has to do with the ultimate use the research was put to.  

Ditto your quoted examples above. I never advocated ignoring predators, yet you bring up to cases you seem to think are relevant and apparently ignored what I actually said in what I can only assume is an attempt to make people draw the conclusion that I somehow DO advocate just 'letting people go'.

Doubly so, since it was you who brought up 'letting people go' in the first place with your irrelevant insistance on using Japanese examples instead of Nazi examples, as covered above.

Quote from: John MorrowThe letters suggest that Kinsey collected "data" from a man who was actively abusing children, encouraging him to collect more data and to be careful.  If someone is reporting the details of the responses children have to sex, data that person couldn't possibly be collecting ethically, is asking for more data an ethical response?

No, but it is also utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand: Is the data that already exists rendered purposeless due to the method by which it was gained?

No.  The Data still has potential value.   The ethical and moral implications of Kinsey's methods only apply with what to do regarding the man himself, not the knowledge he gained.   If you really want to get into an arguement about the ethical value of knowledge I suggest you start a new thread.

Quote from: John MorrowThe jab was at Utilitarianism rather than you, in particular.  

Irrelevant then.

Quote from: John MorrowSo your argument here is that a person can wrong others with reckless abandon and so long as they sin no more (repentance not required), they should just be let go to enjoy their lives?

I've already covered this in detail above.  While I am certainly willing to entertain the idea that I've somehow miscommunicated something, in light of your deliberate propagandizing above I am far more willing to believe in this case that it is a deliberate misrepresentation of my point.

As an 'ethical civilization' of the type we seem hellbent on creating, correction of the criminal is to be viewed as an Ideal to be acheived, worth more than punishment and far less drastic than destroying them like the animals they often are.

Correction, however, is not simply going 'yeah, he seems to be acting normally now, so we'll let him be'.  Did I, or did I not mention the possibility of chemical and surgical castration of sex offenders as a possibility?  

I did.

Did I not mention that my original post that brought me into this thread was advocating using existing materials as a part of therapy and monitoring designed to allow the more marginal examples to continue to lead useful functional lives without being a threat to those around them?

I did.

Did I NOT mention, repeatedly, that I advocated the execution of predatory members of the species as a means of removing those who have chosen to exempt themselves from humanity?

I Did.

The only way you could have possibly read that as letting people go around doing whatever the fuck they please is to have simply NOT READ what I actually wrote; since I don't believe you are lax in your reading I can only conclude that you DELIBERATELY presented a false arguement on my behalf.

I call bullshit, John.  That's low and intellectually dishonest.



 

Quote from: John MorrowThe revenge reflex that you describe as "masturbatory" is part of the innate sense of fairness that's showing up as an emotional response on MRI scans and can be found in other primates and social animals.  The reason why it evolved (or God gave it to people, take your pick) was that presumably revenge serves some legitimate and useful survival purpose, even it's not obvious to you.

*snip for length*

You seem to feel that the desire for revenge is some sort of psychological failing that people should try to fight.  I think the research shows that it's an evolutionary (or God-given, take your pick) response that has important positive social and survival value for social species like human beings.  Letting people get away with wrongs without punishment is like letting the first person in the $10 exercise get away with giving you $1 when asked to split the money.  What happens the next time they have the choice of treating you fairly or ripping you off?  Get ready for a life of getting the $1 because once people know they can get away with it, they'll shaft you up and down because they know you'll put up with it.

This is a far more forgivably misunderstanding of my point than the ones above.

First of all its mostly tangental to the topic at hand, only coming into play in how we treat known predatory individuals.

Secondly, full understanding of my point requires a bit more solid an understanding of my personal philosophy than I've really wanted to get into here.  

On the individual basis, revenge, like any other instinctive behavior, is a good thing. In part for the reasons and studies you showed (and yes, I was aware of that), but mostly because I feel that our instinctive behaviors are a part of what makes us human, helps us survive.  

They must however, be weighed with a hefty dose of reason.  In relatively inconsequential moments (such as splitting ten dollars), the instinct can be blindly followed without serious consequence, but when you start talking about more serious things, such as murder, rape, or even just dealing with murderers and rapists, the more you have to apply reason and recognize the instinctive behaviors for what they are.

We cannot claim to be rational beings as long as we allow our instincts, our animal natures, continue to rule our behavior.  As a society, as a civilization, this is far more paramount than it ever is on an individual level. A single man can easily control his instincts, a mob however....

So: revenge on the societal level (Dealing with criminals) is bad, yes. Revenge on the personal level (governing our relations with other people) is good, as long as it is not unfettered.

However, I'd like to let the matter drop there as it is tangental to the matter being discussed.

Quote from: SpikeI agree to that as well. Let me add that I think it shows a tragic failing in human psychology that people have to force themselves to think sympathetically (in this case) or potentially the reverse, to remove themselves.  To illustrate the later, the Nazis (who DID have lifesaving research... unlike the far less defenseable biowar technology of YOUR example), had they expiremented on Americans, would we have been as willing to keep the data?  I suspect that it would have been harder, which is a rather stupid time to let your instincts rule you.

I think that part of our disagreement here is that you are talking only about whether we should keep the data or not and I'm primarily talking about what we should be willing to do to get the data, though I do see some connection between the two.  That's my fault, not yours.  

My main concern is that people give Kinsey a pass because his data was useful, just as the post WW2 Americans gave the Japanese a pass because their data was useful.  In other words, the methods for gathering the data are ignored because of the utility of the data.  That's why I find this analogy more appropriate than the Nazi analogy for what concerns me here.  But I do also think that the fact that the utility of the data encourages people to downplay or ignore the humanity involved with how the data was gathered or, in the case of the Japanese let go, let people us it as a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card is a good reason to destroy it rather than tempting people to make a utilitarian decision that ignores the victims.  It's a cloud that should not have a silver lining.

Since John Kim raised a civil liberty argument, I think this compares well with how US courts treat rules of evidence.  If the police collect evidence illegally, it can be ruled inadmissible in court, even if it accurately proves the guild of a person.  Why ignore a useful piece of data?  Because it was gathered unethically.  Further, the utilitarian argument for why this is the right way to do things makes the very same sort of deterrence argument that I'm making.  By using illegally gathered evidence in court, the police are rewarded for breaking the law and may be encouraged to gather evidence illegally whenever they suspect guilt but can't prove it.  There is also a concern over the evidence being biased or tainted, a problem that can also be found in Kinsey's case.

Another argument can be made to destroy the data, regardless of how useful it is, for the same reason that we destroy child pornography  The records of what those molesters did are a recording of a child's suffering (there are apparently more detailed descriptions of what went on in the data gathered that was not included in the book), just as a picture of a child being molested is a recording of their suffering.  That the children who were abused are anonymous does not clear the data of that taint any more that the anonymity of a child in a pornographic picture and the fact that the act has already taken place doesn't clear the picture of the taint of that crime.

Quote from: SpikeI wanted to cut this down, but its relevant. Deterrence is a poor method of crime control in general. Yes, Singapore is safer than any other nation. They accomplish this through draconian control of the populace as evidenced by your own examples.   Is there 'no crime' in singapore? Of course not.  I am sure that there has been crime in Antarctica!  Despite being so safe, many people with our modern sensibilities consider signapore to be barbaric. There is a certain Orwellian tone to the above article as well. Is that where you want to go to 'stop crime'?  Even crimes like Pedophilia?

Have you taken a look at law enforcement techniques and the treatment of prisoners in Japan, also used as an example in this thread?  That there is crime everywhere is not the issue.  That the crime rate varies substantial from place to place and how that happens is.  And if you take a good look, there is already pretty draconian treatment of sex offenders in place (both officially and unofficially), when they are reported and caught.

Quote from: SpikeIts been shown, repeatedly, in capital punishment debates that it is not a deterrent in any meaningful way.   Threat of prision, loss of jobs, an a host of other punishments have not particularly impacted the likelihood of many people doing illegal drugs, or sleeping with 17 year old cheerleaders, or even hiring hookers for 2000 dollars an hour or sleeping with Interns.

I don't think that's really been shown.  I suppose I should point out that I oppose the death penalty because mistakes can be made, not because I think it can't be a deterrent.  But please note that I am not calling for the death penalty here.

There were well over 10,000 case of murder in 2005 and only 60 executions.  A risk rate of 0.6% is not going to deter anyone of anything.  And while the consequences of punishment do not stop every crime

I live near a town (I used to live in it) where the police aggressively enforce the speed limit.  While speed limit laws are widely ignored where I live, I've observed many cars suddenly slow down upon hitting the border of that particular town.  Why?  Because the risk of getting caught and punished was real enough to act as a deterrence.  In fact, one friend who lived in the area didn't initially change his behavior until he got enough tickets that he risked losing his license if he got another one.  Then he, too, slowed down and obeyed the speed limit when he entered that town.  So I'm not buying the idea that deterrence is a poor way to reduce crime or change behavior but making it effective requires more than casual or erratic enforcement.  A deterrent doesn't work unless people perceive it as a real risk.

And, yes, there are crimes of passion and insane people for whom normal incentives and deterrents won't work or won't work as well, though they might moderate the actions of someone acting out of passion.  I don't think that invalidates the value of deterrence.  

Quote from: SpikeI see that you are deliberately misreading me or I am failing to communicate my point here.

The problem is that I failed to draw the connection.  My replies below may help.

Quote from: SpikeWas anything done to correct John List? or Mel Ignatow? of course not.  When did I advocate simply ignoring a predator simply because they haven't done anything 'recently'?

Here is the leap I took that I didn't explain.  How do you "correct" someone who is already law abiding?  They are already corrected.  They weren't committing other crimes and, in the case of John List, he was leading a fairly productive life with a new wife.  What was the law supposed to do to correct John List and what needed to be corrected?

Quote from: SpikeThe CLOSEST I came to that was suggesting that by removing the Japanese Scientists from an instituition where they were allowed... nay, ENCOURAGED, to commit attrocities in the name of research and putting them into our supposedly more civilized control we have 'corrected' the situation, crudely at best.  We haven't corrected them, certainly.  I also said it was less than ideal.

How do you know that they weren't corrected?  They seem to have sinned no more after being let go.  What, exactly, do you mean by "correction", then?  

Quote from: SpikeBut of course, I am not a proponent of corrective treatment by habit.  Once someone has proven incapable of remaining human by adopting predatory behaviors, I personaly advocate destroying them.  However, my own viewpoint is often at odds with the direction we, as a people, want our civilization to go.

Why do you find destroying them preferable to confining them to a facility where they simply can't prey on others?  I'm fine with the idea of removing certain people from polite society forever, but death is not the only way to accomplish that.

Quote from: SpikeI generally hate to do it, but I'm afraid I must accuse you of propagandizing.  I bring up an ethical case involving useful 'good' data (the nazis 'research') and you would rather discuss someone elses failings over 'bad' data (the biowar research which in all probability can NOT be used to save, or even improve lives).

Please note that when I raised the Japanese example, my assumption was that the data was "good" (for example, some of it dealt with the extremes that humans could service, which certainly has value as biological and medical date).  To me, that was not a relevant difference between the two examples.  If you want to imagine that the data had been switched, my opinions about the situation would remain the same.  I ignored thee distinction because it was and is irrelevant to me.

Quote from: SpikeI suspect you REALLY want to focus on the Japanese Scientists because you'd rather Kinsey's data be automatically linked to biowar research.  There is no other reason to continue to focus on that particular set of atrocities. In both our sample cases the scientists used unethical methods to obtain their data.  We can agree easily that this parallels Kinsey's unethical methods of treating with sexual predators.   As neither one of us is in a position to either absolve or condemn Kinsey of his crimes, the fates of the scientists is not relevant to the examples, thus I can only conclude your fixation on the Japanese data has to do with the ultimate use the research was put to.

The ultimate use of the data is irrelevant to the moral point that I'm making.

Where I find the comparison the the Japanese more relevant was that the data was gathered and used while those who gathered it were still alive and that both the Japanese and Kinsey were left off of the hook for what they did.  In the case of the Nazi's, they were generally dead or tried for war crimes, would have been hunted by Nazi hunters had they escaped, and they weren't given a pass for what they did.  I don't see a shrug when people talk about people experimented on in concentration camps by Nazis.  I do see what looks like a shrug when the Japanese are discussed and when Kinsey is discussed.  In the case of the Japanese, I think it's because few if any Westerners were the victims.  In the case of Kinsey, I wonder why people are shrugging.

Quote from: SpikeDitto your quoted examples above. I never advocated ignoring predators, yet you bring up to cases you seem to think are relevant and apparently ignored what I actually said in what I can only assume is an attempt to make people draw the conclusion that I somehow DO advocate just 'letting people go'.

You advocate "correcting" people.  Explain what you mean by correcting people and, once they are "corrected", how you propose handling them.  Once you've reformed a criminal, you normally let them go, right?  If a criminal is already reformed before they are tried and imprisoned, why hold on to them?

Quote from: SpikeNo, but it is also utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand: Is the data that already exists rendered purposeless due to the method by which it was gained?

The method by which it was gained certainly tainted Kinsey's, data.  See the links to what current Kinsey Institute people have to say in an earlier reply.  But it also morally taints it, just as evidence illegally obtained by the police is morally tainted.  And the problem is that the apparent value of the data encourages people to defend Kinsey and his practices and shield him from scrutiny and criticism.  And in that way, the data continues to perpetuate the wrongs that were done.  Similarly, child pornography may have artistic merit but the law makes it illegal regardless, because the immorality for how it was made.  If people can agree that real child pornography be illegal, in part because permitting possession of it can create a market and encourage more abuse, why isn't the use of data collected under similar unethical circumstances considered harmful and worthy of destruction for the same reason?  

Quote from: SpikeNo.  The Data still has potential value.   The ethical and moral implications of Kinsey's methods only apply with what to do regarding the man himself, not the knowledge he gained.   If you really want to get into an arguement about the ethical value of knowledge I suggest you start a new thread.

They also relate to how the man is remembered by history.  But as I've pointed out, there are other cases where the methods of creation or collection is considered an inexcusable taint.  But I'm also curious about what exactly the value of this particular bit of data is that you and others seem to be assuming exists and is important.  Where are the benefits comparable to the valuable medical information that you point to in your preferred example of ethically tainted data from the Nazis?  What would be lost if this data were destroyed?

Quote from: SpikeAs an 'ethical civilization' of the type we seem hellbent on creating, correction of the criminal is to be viewed as an Ideal to be achieved, worth more than punishment and far less drastic than destroying them like the animals they often are.

I don't think that's universally true.

Quote from: SpikeCorrection, however, is not simply going 'yeah, he seems to be acting normally now, so we'll let him be'.  Did I, or did I not mention the possibility of chemical and surgical castration of sex offenders as a possibility?

And what if they don't need it?  As I said, John List, to the best of my knowledge, killed his family and then killed no more.  What needed correcting?  He had a family and a job and was leaving peacefully, bothering nobody.  What more needed to be done there?  Similarly, the Japanese scientists simply faded back in to Japanese society and killed no more.  What sort of correcting did they need?  And the same is true of plenty of Nazis who fled to South America to leave peaceful and prosperous lives.  Erich Priebke had been living peacefully in Bariloche, Argentina when Sam Donaldson tracked him down.  What sort of "correcting" did he need?

Quote from: SpikeDid I not mention that my original post that brought me into this thread was advocating using existing materials as a part of therapy and monitoring designed to allow the more marginal examples to continue to lead useful functional lives without being a threat to those around them?

What I'm saying is that there are plenty of people who have done horrible things and then lived peaceful and productive lives for decades without ever harming anyone else.  Their lives prove that they are not a threat to those around them, especially when they are old men when they get tracked down.  So what do you suggest be done with those people and why?

Quote from: SpikeThe only way you could have possibly read that as letting people go around doing whatever the fuck they please is to have simply NOT READ what I actually wrote; since I don't believe you are lax in your reading I can only conclude that you DELIBERATELY presented a false arguement on my behalf.

And I don't think you are reading the examples I'm giving you.  There are people who have done horrible things who, for all intents and purposes, "self-correct" when they escape justice.  They fade into society and never hurt anyone ever again.  You mention "correction".  They apparently don't need correction.  What do you do with a person who is corrected?  I assume you let them go.  If there is a flaw in that train of logic, please point it out.

Quote from: SpikeOn the individual basis, revenge, like any other instinctive behavior, is a good thing. In part for the reasons and studies you showed (and yes, I was aware of that), but mostly because I feel that our instinctive behaviors are a part of what makes us human, helps us survive.

They must however, be weighed with a hefty dose of reason.  In relatively inconsequential moments (such as splitting ten dollars), the instinct can be blindly followed without serious consequence, but when you start talking about more serious things, such as murder, rape, or even just dealing with murderers and rapists, the more you have to apply reason and recognize the instinctive behaviors for what they are.

I don't think that's true.  Another paper that I posted in to some earlier discussions of morality points out that psychopaths are often highly intelligent and rational people who lack an innate moral instinct.  What they demonstrate is that reason does not inherently produce moral behavior and may be used to justify incredibly immoral behavior.  In fact, there is no shortage on the internet of people justifying all manner of horrible and immoral behavior on rational grounds.  In fact, I think the international reaction to Rwanda, Darfur, and other international tragedies that can be kept at an emotionally detached distance illustrate exactly what's wrong with ignoring the instinct.

Quote from: SpikeWe cannot claim to be rational beings as long as we allow our instincts, our animal natures, continue to rule our behavior.  As a society, as a civilization, this is far more paramount than it ever is on an individual level. A single man can easily control his instincts, a mob however....

I don't think we should try to be wholly rational beings.  Psychopaths, in many ways, are closer than non-psychopaths and I think they are step down, not a step up.  This is why I mentioned, in the thread about how aliens might see us, the importance of caring and emotion.  Without any emotional context, we are left with utilitarianism and utilitarianism can be used to justify chopping up your neighbor to use his organs to save a dozen other people.  That's a perfectly rational thing to do and what stops most of us from seriously considering doing things like that is the instinct, not the reasoning.  Similarly, I think the shrugs I'm seeing over Kinsey's research is due to the fact that the children who were abused have been reduced to some numbers on a few tables in a book, emotionally distanced enough, like the people in Darfur, that they can be ignored.

Quote from: SpikeSo: revenge on the societal level (Dealing with criminals) is bad, yes. Revenge on the personal level (governing our relations with other people) is good, as long as it is not unfettered.

Well, the instinct should always be fettered by the reason, and vice-versa.  That's why we have both.  I think it is a mistake to consider reason the superior component and offer psychopaths up as Exhibit A for that argument.

John, I'm not going to continue the multi-quote thing, as your singular post was as long as many 'page' of other given threads, and you seemed to be hung up on a few things that I feel comfortable attempting to address without recourse to exhaustive quoting.

First: Had Kinsey been alive and kicking to this day, with the information we have, I would fully be on board for investigating him, if necessary stopping him (leaving aside punishment/correction/etc debate for the moment). The If Necessary part is due to the presumption of innocence. I am not a judge, and I am not on the jury to convict him.

Ditto the Japanese Scientiests. The people made a call I probably would not have made. Probably, however.  If I knew or felt that what they had was worth it, I would have made a deal.  Do I feel they escaped 'Justice'? Certainly.  Do I think it was right, or that it set a good precedent? Of course not.

But if what they had learned was 'valuable'... beyond its potential for weapons research... and unobtainable through more ethical means would I make a different call?

I don't think so. Again, you seem a bit fixated on the ethical value of knowledge.  Knowledge, regardless of how it is obtained is not good or bad. I believe the more we know, the better off we are.  How it is gained doesn't actually affect IT however.  

So we're left with precedents. Precedents that we don't like hanging around because they say bad things about us and what we're willing to tolerate in the pursuit of knowledge.  Precedents that incidentally have little to do with how we theoretically move forward when dealing with pedophiles of all stripes.  


The second major hang up seems to be correction. Despite my restated examples.

For all I know there is a better technical term.

While we can all be relatively happy that your examples did not continue their predation after their singular attacks, that does not mean the underlying cause of their action has been fixed, nor that, given a long enough time, they will never repeat their crime.

Further, I did not suggest that moving to a purely corrective regimin for criminals was the 'only' way forward. I said it was how we were moving as a culture.  

I'll try to explain my reasoning in brief.

World wide we have a powerful movement away from Capital punishment. Exceptions exist, of course, and we are still far from a world wide cultural movement, but the trend exists.  Draconian punishments are extremely unpopular, and there is increasing interest in treating many formerly tolerable forms of incarceration as 'inhumane'.

Continuing in this line there is an increasing trend also to consider criminals victims of circumstances, their environment, inadequete socialization, what have you, instead of demonizing them.

Thus, I belive that the current trend is to treating criminals as victims of their own crimes, if you will.

Correction is a word I grabbed over 'rehabilitation', and having used it I think it covers a much wider spectrum of 'treatment' than simply 'rehabing' would.  Of course, we are torn as well.  Chemical and surgical neutering was rejected in California as inhumane as I recall. A clockwork orange is a stunning condemnation of aversion therapy.  

So we are horribly divided. The criminals aren't at fault, but taking away their free will to commit criminal acts is abominable.  At some point we will have to chose, and I rather suspect the choice will be to 'correction'.

In the 'on topic' case of people who enjoy child rape anime:  Once you have divided them into those who have rejected humanity to become predatory animals in the selfish gratification of lusts, and those who are merely content to fantsize:  in suggestion, removing predators from the population (execution) is the only logical recourse. No amount of correction we currently have can garauntee they won't continue to predate, not even surgically removing the 'goods'.  On the other hand, the larger second catagory can be 'salvaged' by therapy, of which PERHAPS monitored access to fantasy materials to gratify their lusts could be a valid PART of the method of preventing predation. They are being 'corrected', as best we are able.


Your two examples have proven incapable of controlling their violent impulses on their own (by virtue of their criminal acts) and unless we have a method in place to prevent future relapses, then they are, as the predatory pedophiles, uncorrectable animals fit only for landfills.

Lastly: You still seem to misunderstand. I EMBRACE the instinctive. That's why I dislike religious movements based around the idea that such basic things as lust are sinful.  As an individual choice, I'm also all for ascetism and celibacy, but when it is imposed under the idea that its wrong to have those feelings it is gone off the deep end.  

On a societal, cultural level, however, descisions should never be made without stepping back from instinctive responses.  

In the case of the Japanese Scientists, for example: The instinctive response is to take revenge on them for their crimes.  The rational choice, as painful as it might be, is to get lifesaving knowledge from them.  There is the point of moderation, where reason suggests that you are going too far: For example allowing people to continue such research for the sake of extra data.  There is a difference between accepting something as fait accompli and instituiting new atrocities for the same purpose, after all.

Note that I have not advocated making, or allowing the making of, new child porn for the sake of this theoretical therapy, merely using what already exists. Nor do I advocate NOT punishing those who make it as fully as they are now (more, really. As predatory animals they deserve the same bullet as others who have proven they don't deserve to be human).



As a side note, on your comments regarding child porn and art, It might shock you to know that I could go to the nearest major bookstore (borders around here) and find a book of artistic photographs made in the last decade (roughly) that includes nudes of small children.   It caused quite a stir when it came out, as I remember.   I'm tempted to research the name of the photog and the name of the specific book, but as your google fu is quite strong you can probably find it faster anyway.

Quote from: jhkimI'm not going to reply point by point, since you've stated some pretty basic disagreements -- (1) that morally rights are there only for those innocent of any wrongdoing, not for the guilty; and (2) that promised anonymity is morally irresponsible unless the results from the information outweigh the crime.

To your first point, I said "Constitutional protections are designed to protect the innocent from false conviction, not to help the guilty escape just conviction, and I can find no benefit toward that end in anyone covering up an ongoing crime."  That's not the same thing as saying that rights are not for the guilty nor does that mean that the courts shouldn't presume innocence nor require that guilt be proven.  What it means is that the purpose of those protections is not to get the guilty off the hook.

The protections against search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment are clearly not designed to help the guilty hide their crimes but to protect the innocent from abusing intrusion in their lives.  How can I say that with certainty?  The US Constitution explicitly provides a warrant mechanism that allows the government to perform searches and seizures when there is probable cause of a crime to warrant it.  If the rights against search and seizure were intended to apply equally to the guilty and innocent, then why have a warrant mechanism that allows for searches and seizures with probably cause of a crime having been committed?  Basically, the right can be suspended upon suspicion of guilt.  Why is that?  Yes, there are additional protections involved that require the intrusion to be specific, but that, again, is designed to protect the innocent from malicious fishing expeditions and vague accusations, not to protect the guilty.

So I don't cheer when someone gets off on a technicality because those rights are intended to be tricks to allow the guilty to avoid justice.  That's not the system working.  That's the system not working.  It's like when an otherwise good role-playing system produces a bad result that doesn't make sense.  That's not the system working.  It's the system not working.  That's going to happen from time to time and there may even be good reasons to tolerate it (I explain why illegally gathered evidence can get thrown out earlier) but it's not something to be celebrated or cheered or held up as an example of the system working.  Why would anyone cheer justice not being done and the guilty walking free?

As for the second point, my claim is that promised anonymity should not act as a shield to cover up hidden or especially ongoing crimes that could be stopped by breaking that anonymity, at least where the crimes involve injury to others and especially children.  No I'm not suggesting that people report their neighbors for every misdemeanor that they see but I do expect them to not look the other way when they can stop harm from being done to another, especially a child.

The law is with me on this point, as I pointed out earlier, and all states have laws making the reporting of child abuse mandatory for many professions including psychologists and doctors, which is roughly the capacity under which Kinsey was operating.  Several states have laws making it mandatory for anyone who knows about child abuse to report it.  So the expectation that people who are aware of child abuse are morally obliged to report it is hardly radical or out of the mainstream.

In addition, if I know that my neighbor is molesting their child and I don't report it, would you consider that morally reprehensible or not?  Doesn't that make me an accessory to the crime?  Why does that suddenly change if I'm holding a clipboard and taking a survey or doing research?  Because it's much more emotionally detached?  Because science justifies unethical behavior?  Are scientists, doctors, and psychologists not expected to exhibit common decency or obey the law?

Quote from: jhkimI think the context of a reviled crime like child abuse make it easier to justify claims like this -- i.e. that the case of a child molester makes it clear that rights are a bad thing that should be tossed aside so that the guilty can be punished.  And if a molester, then what about a rapist or a murderer?

Off hand, I would probably argue that any violent crime that has a victim and especially if it's ongoing should fall into that category.  But here you are ignoring the fact that many states already have laws specifying what can and can't be held confidential.  You make it sound like I'm saying something radically outside of the mainstream here but in the case of Kinsey's research, were it being done today, or the Planned Parenthood workers that I mentioned earlier, they would be or are in violation of the laws that make it mandatory to report the sexual abuse of children, including statutory rape.  In fact, that's why several states have been taking Planned Parenthood to court over those investigations.  They are breaking the law.

Quote from: jhkimSince you deny the morality of promised anonymity -- saying that it is not justified to cover up an ongoing crime -- where does that put the Catholic church?  It has made a policy of anonymous confession for centuries.  Do you believe that their policy is fundamentally immoral?

Well, anonymous confession, like anonymous surveys, make it difficult to identify the perpetrator.  It would also be difficult to hold Kinsey responsible for not reporting findings if he had gathered them from anonymous surveys, either.  That said, I do think it can be immoral when the confessor is know and confidentiality covers up an ongoing crime that victimizes someone else.  I can also imagine situations where I think a member of the clergy or a researchers would be warranted in purposely breaking the cloak of anonymity to stop a crime.  I'm willing to imagine that there might be some reason not to do so but as I've asked before, you'd have to tell me what's so important to protect here and what would be lost if it wasn't protected.

As I said to RPGPundit earlier, I think the cover-up of child molestation in the Catholic Church on the grounds that they could handle it internally is pretty much the same thing as what Kinsey apparently did and what Planned Parenthood employees apparently have done.  And I feel the same way about college administrators who cover up rapes on campus because they don't want to tarnish their school's reputation.  And the same way about police officers who cover up crimes committed by other officers against innocent civilians.  In all of these cases, the person feels that they are justified in covering up a crime for some more important purpose or cause.  In the case of violent crimes and the molestation of children at the very least, I think people have a higher responsibility to protect a victim than to provide aid and comfort to the villain who victimizes them.  

What do you think, for example, of the anti-abortion activists who are suspected of helping Eric Rudolph evade authorities because they personally felt his bombings were justified?  Do we really want to let each individual decide when it's OK or not to cover up for the crimes of others?

I'm not Catholic so maybe my theology is mistaken, but I thought that penance was an important part of Confession and I would think that telling perpetrators that their penance is to stop committing a crime and turn themselves in would be reasonable.  And if the person giving the confession fails to stop doing what they are doing or turn themselves in, I'm not sure why the Church should continue to protect them.

Quote from: SpikeJohn, I'm not going to continue the multi-quote thing, as your singular post was as long as many 'page' of other given threads, and you seemed to be hung up on a few things that I feel comfortable attempting to address without recourse to exhaustive quoting.

You are under no obligation to reply back to me in kind.  Reply however you want.  It doesn't really matter to me.  In fact, I find the criticism over how I reply a bit bizarre because it doesn't really matter to me (though I can understand the criticism of the volume).  I reply that way because it keeps me focused and reminds me of what I'm replying to, especially when my reply is long or I'm doing a revision pass.  There are things I don't like about the replies directed at me (ranging from tone and how my arguments are characterized to specificity and what the replies ignore), but I think it's a bit silly to complain about it or take offense over it.

Quote from: SpikeSo we're left with precedents. Precedents that we don't like hanging around because they say bad things about us and what we're willing to tolerate in the pursuit of knowledge.  Precedents that incidentally have little to do with how we theoretically move forward when dealing with pedophiles of all stripes.

While I think your identification of precedents is good here, I think you are missing the other purpose to which precedents are put.  When a legal case comes before a court, judges look at the way similar cases were decided in the past and thus precedence influences future legal decisions.  Similarly, the precedents left over from such moral trade-offs are used by people to assess how certain courses of action will play out.

That's one of the reasons why people fear amnesty programs that are used more than once.  Once people start expecting periodic amnesties, it greatly reduces their incentive to obey the law because the know that they'll be able to escape any consequences of not obeying the law.  And that's the problem seen in all of the practices I've mentioned as seeming similar to me (e.g., the Japanese scientists, Kinsey, Planned Parenthood, the Catholic Church, college administrators, police officers, etc.).  Maybe there are limits to how effectively deterrence can deter crime, but the absence of deterrence most certainly encourages that (as nicely illustrated by the looting that can occur during natural disasters).  

I think that just about any scientists working for a murderous regime now knows that they can cut a deal if the regime that they work for falls so long as they don't get their hands too dirty or kill the wrong people, thus there is no incentive for scientists not to work with murderous regimes.  Nobody was paying attention to the fact that Planned Parenthood employees were helping to cover up statutory rape so when a group checked out around 900 locations, over 90% of them were willing to help cover up statutory rape, even when it was in violation of the law.  The Catholic Church covered up priests molesting children and they kept doing it and it got worse.  And so on.

Quote from: SpikeThe second major hang up seems to be correction. Despite my restated examples.

Your examples still didn't seem specific enough for me, though I get the gist of what you are talking about.

Quote from: SpikeWhile we can all be relatively happy that your examples did not continue their predation after their singular attacks, that does not mean the underlying cause of their action has been fixed, nor that, given a long enough time, they will never repeat their crime.

OK.  So let's tie up that loose end, then.  Suppose that upon interviewing a John List or Erich Priebke and determined that they posed no more risk than any other person of repeating the crimes that they had committed in the past?  Suppose they are evaluated and judged corrected or reformed.  Then what?

Quote from: SpikeThus, I belive that the current trend is to treating criminals as victims of their own crimes, if you will.

Do you believe that's a good thing or a bad thing?

Quote from: SpikeCorrection is a word I grabbed over 'rehabilitation', and having used it I think it covers a much wider spectrum of 'treatment' than simply 'rehabing' would.  Of course, we are torn as well.  Chemical and surgical neutering was rejected in California as inhumane as I recall. A clockwork orange is a stunning condemnation of aversion therapy.  

So we are horribly divided. The criminals aren't at fault, but taking away their free will to commit criminal acts is abominable.  At some point we will have to chose, and I rather suspect the choice will be to 'correction'.

The detail that's missing is, How do we tell when a criminal is "corrected"?  What would differentiate a "corrected" criminal from an "uncorrected" criminal?  Surely we can't set the threshold at 100% certainty that they'll never commit a crime again, short of a Clockwork Orange scenario, since we can't expect that of the general populace.

The reason I'm asking this, and my point about the John List example and the Erich Priebke example (to a lesser extent, the Mel Ignatow example), is that I think some people can self-correct enough to effectively no longer be a threat to others.  I think there was basically no chance of Erich Priebke repeating his crimes (done during time of war under orders) and a very low chance of John List repeating his crimes (his life situation was different).  They already seem pretty "corrected" to me, at least with respect to recidivism, though not remorse (which is why I raised that -- is remorse required?).  And if a person is no longer a threat to others, would they need no punishment or rehabilitation at all?  Or would that simply amount to punishment and revenge?

Quote from: SpikeYour two examples have proven incapable of controlling their violent impulses on their own (by virtue of their criminal acts) and unless we have a method in place to prevent future relapses, then they are, as the predatory pedophiles, uncorrectable animals fit only for landfills.

I think that John List, for example, lived for almost 20 years without repeating his crime and the difficult family situations that might have led to his original crime were not in play in his new life.  Erich Priebke was free for about 50 years when Sam Donaldson caught up to him and he wasn't in any position to repeat his crimes.  The Erich Priebke is pretty interesting and worth reading about because he's been rattling around in courts in Europe, illustrating some of the points we've been discussing.

Quote from: SpikeLastly: You still seem to misunderstand. I EMBRACE the instinctive. That's why I dislike religious movements based around the idea that such basic things as lust are sinful.  As an individual choice, I'm also all for ascetism and celibacy, but when it is imposed under the idea that its wrong to have those feelings it is gone off the deep end.  

On a societal, cultural level, however, descisions should never be made without stepping back from instinctive responses.

And I think that can be a big mistake.  There is a good article here from Discover Magazine (I've posted links to it before) concerning moral decision making.  The jist of the article is that moral decisions are a combination of emotional gut feelings and rational utilitarian calculations and shifting a moral problem to more strongly engage one or the other can change a person's moral answers, even when the utilitarian calculus of the situation is identical (e.g., sacrificing one life for five).  And it's the elimination of empathy, emotional detachment, and so on that's not only the hallmark of psychopaths but how normal people are persuaded to engage in some of the worst atrocities.  What's left is utilitarianism (which is what Joshua Greene, one of the researchers in that article, actually advocates in an interesting book that he wrote) and as I've said, utilitarianism is a harsh mistress.  

The classic Star Trek episode The Conscience of the King deals with this issue.  Near the end, when Kodoss the Executioner has been caught, he asks Captain Kirk, "Who are you to say what harm was done?"  That's what pure utilitarianism and reason does.  It unhinges us from moral moorings.  And Kirk's response?  "Who do I have to be?"

Quote from: SpikeIn the case of the Japanese Scientists, for example: The instinctive response is to take revenge on them for their crimes.  The rational choice, as painful as it might be, is to get lifesaving knowledge from them.

But what makes you assume that the rational utilitarian choice is the superior one?

Quote from: SpikeThere is the point of moderation, where reason suggests that you are going too far: For example allowing people to continue such research for the sake of extra data.  There is a difference between accepting something as fait accompli and instituiting new atrocities for the same purpose, after all.

I agree about moderation, but moderation requires that one listen to both their emotional response and their rational response.  I think the required balance it to be able to look the emotional response in the face and say, yes, I'm willing to live with that, and not just turn it off.  That way, the moral calculus of decisions like whether to go to war or whether to report a crime are made with a full appreciation of what that choice is going to mean to those harmed by some of the options.  And there is also a point where accepting something as a fiat accompli with no repercussions is inviting it to happen again, by creating the precedent that certain crimes will not be punished.  

Quote from: SpikeAs a side note, on your comments regarding child porn and art, It might shock you to know that I could go to the nearest major bookstore (borders around here) and find a book of artistic photographs made in the last decade (roughly) that includes nudes of small children.   It caused quite a stir when it came out, as I remember.   I'm tempted to research the name of the photog and the name of the specific book, but as your google fu is quite strong you can probably find it faster anyway.

Yes, I'm aware of that and remember the controversy.  I suspect that the defense of the book is that it's not pornography and I don't, for example, want to lock up parents who take pictures of their children in the bathtub in the nude.  And while I think such pictures are a bit odd, myself, I think this goes back to the point about putting young girls in a hajib.  Not all nudity is pornography.

John: I wasn't condemning the style. I can, at times, find it hard to slog through, particularly when dealing with long and repeated instances, but I understand the value of it in presenting clear, point by point arguments. I simply felt responding in kind would continue to lengthen both our posts to the point of insanity, particularly since we were dealing with only to main points of contention.


I am vaguely annoyed that somehow this has shifted to almost exclusively a discussion of ethical vs. utilitarian decision making, if I may make that shorthand summation without confusion.  Discussing this stuff outside the specifics of a given situation (for example: child porn anime) gets rapidly less useful as both sides pull farther back and more and more the discussion takes place in a vacuum.   You cannot test a hypothesis in a vacuum... (leave aside the snark comments about "Unless vacuum conditions are part of testing the hypothesis... please)


As for your self correction: If we make the assumption that social sciences and technology progress far enough I can suppose that one day an 'enlightened' culture would be forced into the ethical quandry of dealing with a vicious criminal who has self corrected within a high degree of provability.

However, we luckily don't have to worry about that.  So, what can we prove about John List?  We can prove that given the right circumstance that he will murder people. Those right circumstances are not particularly 'mitigating', and that for twenty years those circumstances have not come back up.

There is no actual evidence of correction in there, self or otherwise.  Again, an 'enlightened' culture might decide that it is enough to simply force List from engaging in 'risky' activities.

I for one do not expect us to become that enlightened for a long, long time.

From my personal point of view, lacking the means to keep John List as a functional member of society while simultaniously removing his ability to kill again, he is best treated like a rabid dog.  Because while we can not prove wether or not he will kill again, we can, with some certainty, prove that John List can, and will, ignore the most fundamental rules of society and kill people.  Because he did so.   Ditto the others.


I will admit to overstating the case on Deterrents, of course.  Obviously laws without enforcement don't work, thus Deterrents have a value. Leaving aside my personal feeling that we've gotten a bit crazy with the lawmaking, note that I've never been excessively focused on a 'single solution' to crime either.  Removal of predatory people (those criminals that are beyond saving) coincidentally can serve as a deterrent as a pleasant side effect for serious crimes.  For minor crimes, you might view correction to fill the deterrent role. In no case did I suggest that crime never be 'handled', or punished as that is the accepted term, despite my desire to reinforce the position that a justice system based entirely around 'punishment' is revenge based and doomed to ineffectualness in the long run. Better than nothing, yes.  

By itself treating criminals as victims is neither good nor bad.  Personally, I feel it is more an outgrowth of a selfish society where there is little to know personal responsibility for one's own life.  THAT, I feel, is bad.  Even very bad.

If it were to be an outgrowth of an enlightened perspective that all human beings are inherently valuable and that we all deserve a chance to make something of ourselves (for example... this isn't really a philosophy I buy into even in part) then I suggest it would be good. If you will, a step towards actual 'enlightened' being, rather than merely mimicking the form of it.

While it may seem terribly 'utilitarian' of me, I don't view many things as objectively good or bad. Many things are just outside of such states (like knowledge.  By itself it is utterly neutral. What you do with it matters, and having 'more' of it is never a bad thing (though, of course, if it is likely to lead to 'bad things' happening more than good, than knowing that particular knowledge could be viewed as 'bad'... sort of the John Critton wormhole technology sort of deal). So to with paths societies take.   I don't agree with the 'enlightened' perspective, even as I acknowledge that it is the apparent ideal of the people around me.   I can see how many good things come from it.

I can see how the actual path we tread (the selfish irresponsible route) is a bad path to be on, because at the end of it lies the destruction of our culture.

I do try to take the long view, the very long view: what is more likely to help humanity grow and survive, even beyond the death of our star?  Naturally its a moot question if we never get off planet earth. And obviously, I don't spend every waking day worrying about if my next cup of coffee will doom us to die a few thousand years earlier than we might otherwise.  On the other hand, I can look at trends, even personal ones from that view. If I am fit and healthy, not only is it good for me, but I might help create or maintain a growing trend towards more fitness from other people. Fit and healthy people are more likely to survive and overcome hardships than unfit and unhealthy people, thus: Good.  


I don't think I have anything more I need to say in my 'rebuttal' here, so I guess I'll go ahead and weigh in on the civil liberties portion, in brief:

I may not have the exact quote, but I always understood that the founding fathers intended that

"It is better that a dozen guilty men go free than on innocent languish in prison".

When I was FIVE I didn't get it, not quite.   But I was five then.  Since then I've come to understand both the absolute wisdom of it, at least as far as given the basic principles we hold dear, and the moral courage it takes to actually say it sincerely. To actually ACT upon it is very hard indeed.

Going against that basic principle, to overtly toss it out the door is one of those few things that would get me, literally, up in arms.  Since you've more or less rejected its validity, I feel we can come to no terms on it whatsoever.  

That said: I do not necessarily agree with how the judicial system has handled the situation.  

The 'No Double Jepardy' clause was instituited to prevent people from just retrying someone until they got the verdict they wanted.  Its that simple.  While it is a terrible thing that a criminal can get away with a crime that is only proveable after the trial, it is a far greater crime if we allow the judicial system to be abused by popular opinion rather than legally proveable fact.  It is that simple.  It is not a protection I am at all comfortable of monkeying with, be it by the expedient of retrying OJ as a civil case rather than a criminal case (guilty or not, legal or not, that was a gross perversion of the intent of the law), or allowing someone to be retried for a crime they were, unfortunately, aquitted of in the wake of new, lethally damning evidence.  

And yes, I will say that it does bother me, intensely that people DO get away with heinious shit from time to time. But I'd rather blame the DA for going to trial without enough evidence, in a hurry for whatever reason. The problems are solveable without the simple minded, and disasterous, blunt force solution of removing this right.

Tossing out cases on technicalities: I'm actually with you on this. Its stupid. Not so much the reasoning behind it (keeping the law enforcement establishment honest and under the rule of law) but ass backwards in implementation.  Criminals should not be rewarded by someone else's mistakes. Given the intent, the better thing to do would have been to instituite appropriate punishments, perhaps under civil law for offending officers.  That is: if a murderer goes to jail for life because a police officer searched his home without a warrent, the murderer could then have (and still does I believe) the legal right to charge the officer with breaking and entering. Fail to miradarize him? Probably a civil charge, worth a small claim...

I'm not a legal scholar, so I don't know why that was never implemented, or how we got the idea that people became less guilty if their rights were violated. Frankly, I don't care.


In conclusion: It was only a side note, after all.  A point of interest mildly relevant to the very rapidly dying OP

Quote from: John MorrowI'm not Catholic so maybe my theology is mistaken, but I thought that penance was an important part of Confession and I would think that telling perpetrators that their penance is to stop committing a crime and turn themselves in would be reasonable.  And if the person giving the confession fails to stop doing what they are doing or turn themselves in, I'm not sure why the Church should continue to protect them.

You are mistaken.  The anonymity of confession is absolute.  The following is from the Wikipedia "Confession" article, and it matches my understanding of the sacrament.  

QuoteFor Catholic priests, the confidentiality of all statements made by penitents during the course of confession is absolute. This strict confidentiality is known as the Seal of the Confessional. According to the Code of Canon Law, 983 §1, "The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason." Priests may not reveal what they have learned during confession to anyone, even under the threat of their own death or that of others. This is unique to the Seal of the Confessional. Many other forms of confidentiality, including in most states attorney-client privilege, allow ethical breaches of the confidence to save the life of another.) For a priest to break that confidentiality would lead to a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication reserved to the Holy See (Code of Canon Law, 1388 §1). In a criminal matter, a priest may encourage the penitent to surrender to authorities. However, this is the extent of the leverage he wields; he may not directly or indirectly disclose the matter to civil authorities himself.

The logic to this is that the assurance of anonymity encourages people to confess things that they never would otherwise.

Quote from: SpikeJohn: I wasn't condemning the style. I can, at times, find it hard to slog through, particularly when dealing with long and repeated instances, but I understand the value of it in presenting clear, point by point arguments.

I understand people find it hard to slog through, in part because I go on and on, too.  The important part of my reply is that it's fine with me for you to reply in whatever way works best for you.  You shouldn't feel obliged to quote and reply like I do.

Quote from: SpikeI am vaguely annoyed that somehow this has shifted to almost exclusively a discussion of ethical vs. utilitarian decision making, if I may make that shorthand summation without confusion.  Discussing this stuff outside the specifics of a given situation (for example: child porn anime) gets rapidly less useful as both sides pull farther back and more and more the discussion takes place in a vacuum.   You cannot test a hypothesis in a vacuum... (leave aside the snark comments about "Unless vacuum conditions are part of testing the hypothesis... please)

Well, that's one of the reasons why I've been trying to provide specific examples.  I guess my main point is that once you shift entirely to reason (which is what often happens in a vacuum because victims are hypothetical), it becomes possible to excuse just about anything, because the utility part of utilitarianism can be pretty slippery.  That's why I kept asking, early on, about what the value of Kinsey's research on children that was valuable enough to gather information the way he did?  What's really sitting on the other side of that scale from child abuse?

Quote from: SpikeI may not have the exact quote, but I always understood that the founding fathers intended that

"It is better that a dozen guilty men go free than on innocent languish in prison".

When I was FIVE I didn't get it, not quite.   But I was five then.  Since then I've come to understand both the absolute wisdom of it, at least as far as given the basic principles we hold dear, and the moral courage it takes to actually say it sincerely. To actually ACT upon it is very hard indeed.

Yes, and I understand why the Founding Fathers put those safeguards in and I understand the wisdom in them.  But as I pointed out in another reply, the Constitutional protections against search and seizure can be bypassed when there is probable cause, so the protections are not designed to protect the guilty from justice, though they may accidentally do so from time to time.  I think some people see it as a game of "Can I beat the rap even if I'm guilty" but that's a twisting of why those rules are there.  

What bothers me is that following those principles blindly is not unlike the zero tolerance rules being implemented in many schools where young children get suspended for drawing a gun or pointing their finger at a classmate and saying, "Bang!"  At some point, they become zero common sense rules where the individuals and specifics of a situation are ignored.

When the UK overturned their double jeopardy protections, they required that "new and compelling evidence" be produced in order to trigger a new trial.  Given the police science now available, the possibility of finding recordings or DNA samples or other incontrovertible evidence of guilt is very real and I don't think the whole Constitution would collapse if the United States moved to a similar approach because I don't think it would increase the risk of the one innocent man going to jail while reducing the possibility of a dozen men to go free.  I think this sort of reform is something of a no-brainer.

But for the most part, I wasn't talking about civil rights protections.  The discussion was about confidentiality between a researcher and their subjects.  And as I pointed out, the law already requires them to report abuse in every state in the United States.  It's illegal not to.  

Quote from: SpikeGoing against that basic principle, to overtly toss it out the door is one of those few things that would get me, literally, up in arms.  Since you've more or less rejected its validity, I feel we can come to no terms on it whatsoever.

What I said did not disagree with that principle.  In fact, I said that I oppose the death penalty in large part because it might execute innocent people.

"It is better that a dozen guilty men go free than on innocent languish in prison."

What I said is that the purpose for those Constitutional protections is to keep the one innocent man out of prison, not to let the dozen guilty men to go free.  That a dozen guilty men may go free keeping that one innocent man out of prison is an unfortunate side effect of protecting the innocent, not a positive feature that should be cheered and lauded.  We should cheer the one innocent man going free, not the dozen guilty men going free, which is still an injustice.  From that perspective, there is nothing wrong with adjusting the rules so that fewer guilty people go free so long as more innocent people are not imprisoned.

Quote from: SpikeThe 'No Double Jepardy' clause was instituited to prevent people from just retrying someone until they got the verdict they wanted.  Its that simple.  While it is a terrible thing that a criminal can get away with a crime that is only proveable after the trial, it is a far greater crime if we allow the judicial system to be abused by popular opinion rather than legally proveable fact.  It is that simple.

Correct, but this isn't the 18th Century and given the ability to collect and find incontrovertible evidence, in the form of DNA strands, recordings, and so on, even years after a crime was committed, I think it's entirely possible to, as the UK law does, demand compelling new evidence before allowing another trial which would protect the innocent from vindictive trials while reducing the number of guilty who go free.

Quote from: SpikeIt is not a protection I am at all comfortable of monkeying with, be it by the expedient of retrying OJ as a civil case rather than a criminal case (guilty or not, legal or not, that was a gross perversion of the intent of the law), or allowing someone to be retried for a crime they were, unfortunately, aquitted of in the wake of new, lethally damning evidence.

I agree that the civil trial of OJ Simpson subverted the double jeopardy protections.  And I'll also add that if OJ Simpson had not written his book (which he wouldn't have under different rules), there would be no new compelling evidence in his case to warrant another trial.  Even under the rules enacted in the UK, OJ would likely not have been subjected to another criminal trial because there was no new evidence to justify it (except maybe his book, which he likely wouldn't have written if he didn't feel safe from double jeopardy).  But in the case of Mel Ignatow, where pictures of him actually committing the crime he was acquitted of were found after he was acquitted, that would be compelling new evidence and thus warrant a new trial.  I don't see how that would subvert the intent of the founders or the principle that you stated earlier.

Quote from: SpikeAnd yes, I will say that it does bother me, intensely that people DO get away with heinious shit from time to time. But I'd rather blame the DA for going to trial without enough evidence, in a hurry for whatever reason. The problems are solveable without the simple minded, and disasterous, blunt force solution of removing this right.

Well, I think it's also sometimes possible to monkey with the right to make it work better.  If you read the Bill of Rights, many of the rights are qualified and have conditions under which they can be suspended (e.g., even the right to habeas corpus can be suspended "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.").  If the Founders could imagine a mechanism by which the government search someone's home and seize evidence in cases of probable cause (search warrants) and a grand jury system to govern indictments for serious crimes, I think an equally safe mechanism could be put into place to allow for a retrial when compelling new evidence is found pointing to an acquitted person's guilty.  And in fact the UK has enacted just such an approach.

Quote from: SpikeTossing out cases on technicalities: I'm actually with you on this. Its stupid. Not so much the reasoning behind it (keeping the law enforcement establishment honest and under the rule of law) but ass backwards in implementation.  Criminals should not be rewarded by someone else's mistakes. Given the intent, the better thing to do would have been to instituite appropriate punishments, perhaps under civil law for offending officers.  That is: if a murderer goes to jail for life because a police officer searched his home without a warrent, the murderer could then have (and still does I believe) the legal right to charge the officer with breaking and entering. Fail to miradarize him? Probably a civil charge, worth a small claim...

That's more or less exactly what I'm talking about when I say that those rights and protections are not there to protect the guilty.  

Quote from: SpikeI'm not a legal scholar, so I don't know why that was never implemented, or how we got the idea that people became less guilty if their rights were violated. Frankly, I don't care.

That's exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.  Why is a person less guilty if there rights were violated?  Why do people applaud them for beating the rap.

Another saying that probably goes back to when you were five:

"Two wrongs don't make a right."

Quote from: jhkimYou are mistaken.  The anonymity of confession is absolute.  The following is from the Wikipedia "Confession" article, and it matches my understanding of the sacrament.

The article says that it's confidential, not necessarily anonymous.  It also points out that the sacrament is really called Penance and says the following, which is relevant to this discussion:

   In order for the sacrament to be valid the penitent must do more than simply confess his known mortal sins to a priest. He must a) be truly sorry for each of the mortal sins he committed, b) have a firm intention never to commit them again, and c) perform the penance imposed by the priest. Also, in addition to confessing the types of mortal sins committed, the penitent must disclose how many times each sin was committed, to the best of his ability.

...and...

   In a criminal matter, a priest may encourage the penitent to surrender to authorities. However, this is the extent of the leverage he wields; he may not directly or indirectly disclose the matter to civil authorities himself.

Where I would disagree with Catholic Church (I'm not Catholic).  I would argue that the proper course of action for a priest, if confronted with a parishioner who confesses to child molestation should be to do what's mentioned above which should include "encourag[ing] the penitent to surrender to authorities" as their act of penance.  If, however, the parishioner doesn't willingly submit themselves to the authorities as evidence that they are truly sorry and intend never to repeat the sin, then I think the priest is dealing with a sinner who is not truly repenting and I would have no moral problem with them going to the authorities.

Again, I have to ask what the downside is.  If the priests aren't able to stop the molesters from molesting and the molesters aren't truly repentant, then what difference does it make if they scare them away?  I'm all for child molesters repenting and even going to heaven if their repentance is sincere, but the Catholic Church got itself into a whole heap of trouble covering up members of it's own clergy molesting children.  "If Woody had gone right to the police, this never would have happened."

Quote from: jhkimThe logic to this is that the assurance of anonymity encourages people to confess things that they never would otherwise.

Yes, the argument makes sense, especially when dealing with things like theft and adultery and so on.  But in the case of child molestation, not so much, since I find it difficult to imagine that giving them penance without requiring them to turn themselves in, given the recidivism rates for child molesters, is going to stop them from molesting again.

The thing is while I obviously agree with your sentiments in parts, I do not agree that tossing, or even monkeying with, the basic principles of our judicial system is something to be contemplated casually.

I know you haven't said casually, but you are certainly trending that way. 'Oh look the brits did it! If they can make it work, we can!'... they also have an Orwellian level of surviellance, as foolish as it turns out to be, which hardly inspires me to follow their footsteps regarding my basic rights.  They also seem to think I should not be allowed to defend myself against violent criminals or tyrannic governments (gun control).

We could use Singapore as a valid reason to tighten up our laws until smoking pot was an executable offence, that doesn't mean we should.


Here is the thing: One of your main (even strongest) arguements regarding Double Jeapordy is how our increasing technology makes it easier to prove or disprove cases than it was twenty years ago.

This is true. However, this is also a 'state of flux'. Twenty years from now it won't matter that FOURTY years ago DNA evidence didn't exist.   You don't toss a 200 year old tradition out because, for a twenty year span, new technologies are rendering older trials moot or finding criminals that once slipped through the cracks.  Our grandchildren won't care that some thug rapist slipped through the double jeapordy crack because he was tried without DNA evidence any more than you care that some back robber in the Twenties got off because they didn't fingerprint him.  They WILL care however, if lacking that protection they start finding themselves on trial again and again because someone disagrees with them, because the state thinks they are dangerous, because of all the ways that double jeapordy can be abused.

It is not worth it.

And what of Mel?

So what?

Two hundred years ago it was possible to try a man, find him not guilty due to a lack of evidence then have some impecabble witness arrive to 'solve' the case. Maybe they were abroad and didn't realize there was a trial.

Our founding fathers had to deal with the same situation we do. Maybe not with photographs, certainly, but with 'new evidence', yes.  They still made the descision they made.


Again: While I agree that having one's rights violated by the due process should not automatically be a 'get out of jail free card'... though certainly an option for less heinious crimes... trying to apply the same solution I offered up as my preferred alternative to letting them go (that is leaving the cops and lawyers open to punishment), seems unworkable for this.  How do you punish the judicial system?  There is no 'warrent' clause for double Jeapordy, no exemption, no 'if than', and frankly I don't see how you could put one in without hopelessly compromising the entire protection.  

You suggest in the face of new evidence. What's to stop DA's from holding back certain evidence on a 'just in case' basis?  Lets not interrogate Kato Kaelin right now. I don't think he's got much, but what if OJ beats the rap? We'll want a fall back for a new trial...

I simplify, but given how people use and abuse existing rule sets (the existing legal system, loophole fuckers in RPGs, shit like that) I KNOW someone will think of a way. Hell, even with the fairly absolute system we have no some twisted genius came up with 'wrongful death civil suits'. If that had failed maybe we would have seen a tort case on some obscure point.

And you want to weaken that? Make it easier?  So Mel can get his just deserts?

If it matters that much to you, go take the law into your own hands then. Obviously consequences aren't that important, only your own moral outrage.

I generally agree with Spike -- and I would add a personal note.  One of the assumptions made is that anyone accused is guilty -- i.e. applying protections like double jeopardy is just there to help the guilty escape.  

I would note that my father is a psychiatrist, and at one point one of his patients -- a teenage boy -- accused him of inappropriate touching.  I believe him that this was a disturbed boy who was lying, and he was not in the end found guilty of anything.  (This was not actually a criminal case, but it did go before a psychiatric board.  Still, the parallels to criminal cases are clear.)  His career was put through the wringer over that incident, and it caused him considerable personal grief.  I think the concern was justified, but it certainly gives me pause when thinking about rights of the accused.  

Allowing cases to be re-opened (i.e. double-jeopardy) means that anyone falsely accused can be repeatedly dragged through trial.  Either someone in the police or someone outside who has manufactured evidence can hold some back, and then release it later to re-open the case, thus subjecting the accused through arrest and trial repeatedly.

Quote from: jhkimI generally agree with Spike -- and I would add a personal note.  One of the assumptions made is that anyone accused is guilty -- i.e. applying protections like double jeopardy is just there to help the guilty escape.

John, you and others have whined a great deal about how I unfairly characterize your arguments.  If you are going to complain about that sort of thing, then please be more careful about doing it yourself.

I never said that the protections against double jeopardy are there just to help the guilty escape.  I said that it can be used by the guilty to escape and that it could be changed to make it less likely for the obviously guilty to escape in a way that would pose little or no risk to innocent people.

What I suggested was a bypass mechanism, to be available when there is compelling new evidence to be reviewed through some sort of mechanism like judicial review or a grand jury, just as there is a bypass mechanism in the protections against searches and seizures.  That's why the Fourth Amendment talks about unreasonable searches and seizures and allows them when there is probable cause and a judicial review to allow someone's property to be invaded and searched.  My proposal is to allow a bypass mechanism to the protections against double jeopardy in cases where new compelling evidence has been found and there is a judicial review.

But why I really can't understand why you are mischaracterizing my position is that I explicitly said, as a point of example:

Quote from: John MorrowI agree that the civil trial of OJ Simpson subverted the double jeopardy protections. And I'll also add that if OJ Simpson had not written his book (which he wouldn't have under different rules), there would be no new compelling evidence in his case to warrant another trial. Even under the rules enacted in the UK, OJ would likely not have been subjected to another criminal trial because there was no new evidence to justify it (except maybe his book, which he likely wouldn't have written if he didn't feel safe from double jeopardy).

Doesn't that suggest to you that I'm not talking about throwing the whole thing out and that I think that there would still need to be sufficient protections in place to protect the innocent such that a man that almost everyone believes is guilty would not be retried under what I'm proposing?

But if you really want to turn this into an excluded middle argument, let's look at the flip side.  If the innocent are never to be falsely accused, though guilty, or inconvenienced, then should we make all police searches of private property illegal, regardless of whether there is probable cause or not?  Plenty of innocent people have their property searched by mistake, including some cases of no-knock raids performed on the wrong house by police.  

If it's really always better than a dozen guilty men go free than one innocent man be inconvenienced by a trial or search for something for which they are innocent, then perhaps we should just do away with searches.  And trials, too, since they ruin the lives of plenty of innocent people who spend their life's savings defending themselves from false charges.  And of course even with all of those protections, innocent people still wind up in prison.  Since the justice system is so easy to abuse and such a burden on the innocent, why don't we just abolish it entirely?

Quote from: jhkimI would note that my father is a psychiatrist, and at one point one of his patients -- a teenage boy -- accused him of inappropriate touching.  I believe him that this was a disturbed boy who was lying, and he was not in the end found guilty of anything.  (This was not actually a criminal case, but it did go before a psychiatric board.  Still, the parallels to criminal cases are clear.)  His career was put through the wringer over that incident, and it caused him considerable personal grief.  I think the concern was justified, but it certainly gives me pause when thinking about rights of the accused.

I am not saying that we should not be concerned about the rights of the accused nor am I saying that we should throw every protection out the window.  What I am saying is that there are cases where justice has clearly not been served.  There is a significant difference between an unsupported accusation (which may still warrant investigation) and pictures, videos, sound recordings, confessions, DNA evidence, and so on when it comes to proving guilt.

I invite you to read about the case of Mel Ignatow and then tell me why a sufficiently high bar to bypass double jeopardy protections couldn't be set that would allow the evidence that was found after Ignatow was aquitted, which included pictures he took while committing the torture and murder of Brenda Schaefer, but not allow a bypass under the sort of circumstances that you are talking about.

Quote from: John MorrowAllowing cases to be re-opened (i.e. double-jeopardy) means that anyone falsely accused can be repeatedly dragged through trial.  Either someone in the police or someone outside who has manufactured evidence can hold some back, and then release it later to re-open the case, thus subjecting the accused through arrest and trial repeatedly.

Why would the police hold back compelling evidence and purposely lose a case?  Why would they prefer a series of trials rather than a conviction?

But assuming that there might be some reason for that, the criteria that the evidence be new and compelling (and vetted by, say, a grand jury or judicial review board) would provide as much or more protection to the innocent as grand juries and search warrante do.  If the evidence is found to have been purposely withheld, then it could be declared "not new" and excluded from consideration.  If the evidence is not compelling enough to convince a grand jury or panel of judges that a new trial would produce a different verdict, then they could deny the request for a new trial.  And, of course, if there is no new evidence, then no new trial.  There could even be limits place on the severity of the crime, limiting retrials only to violent crimes and abuse.

Actually, John, if you consider the 'OJ Book' compelling new evidence you either are under-informed about the specifics of the book, or your standards are just as low as the other John and I fear.

Recall: Normally I am more on your side of the political aisle than Mr. Kim's (wasn't he the 'Im now a communist' guy? I can't recall, sadly).

But as to the OJ thing: First it was not, despite the title, a confession by any reasonable standard. It was ghost written from interviews that presented a 'hypothetical' as in 'If you were guilty, how would you have done it' and then written to be specifically damning. I seem to recall OJ  actually being quite upset at it and the author (who was not, despite appearences, OJ himself).  

Which makes the Goldman's subsequent suit against it almost amusing, though I'm more inclined to say Damning. They didn't move to prevent sales but to ensure all profits went to them as I recall.

Not being a lawyer, I can't say how it follows with the protections against self incrimination other than to say we can not legally compel OJ to state that it was not actually hypothetical at all.  That is we can't say 'this is a confession OJ, we just need you to confirm it'.  

WHile it could be used as evidence in a trial, it would be most useful to show knowledge of the details of the actual crimes. However, as he had to sit through the trial the first time, undoubtedly he is intimately familiar with even those details that the murderer (himself or others) wouldn't have known from having been there... like where he left footprints or how many stabs each victim received (assuming a killer without OCD and a counting fetish)...

Your constant, strenuous, cries about 'what about this guy' are not unlike a victim's family, upset with the lack of viciousness in the punishment, crying 'what if it were your child'.  Its a great emotional appeal, but we've already covered, repetetively, that while it's tragic, it is one of those things you have to accept in order to prevent the possibility of worse tragedies.

In other words, we've acknowledged that its wrong, that it is sad, that we don't like it.  But we also point out that it is not worth making the change.

While there can certainly be debate, the constant repetition of a singular obvious case... one unlikely to be casually repeated does not make your arguement any stronger, only repetetive.

In fact the counter argument is simple enough, though I haven't gone in detail previously I did mention it: Why weren't the pictures found earlier in the investigation?  Why did the proscecutor go to trail with too weak a case? The weakness of the case obviously wasn't due to Mel being innocent, thus the fault lies in the investigation.

In other words, you are trying to break one system to correct the failings of another.

Quote from: SpikeThe thing is while I obviously agree with your sentiments in parts, I do not agree that tossing, or even monkeying with, the basic principles of our judicial system is something to be contemplated casually.

I've given it a great deal of thought and since I lack the power to implement my suggestions unilaterally, they would go through a great many more reviews before they ever became law.  Since they would require a Constitutional Amendment to implement in the United States, the reforms I suggest would have to get massive super-majority support to be implemented.  I think that's a sufficient check and balance (designed by the Founding Fathers, in fact) to ensure that monkeying around with the basic principles of our justice system is not done casually.

Quote from: SpikeThis is true. However, this is also a 'state of flux'. Twenty years from now it won't matter that FOURTY years ago DNA evidence didn't exist.   You don't toss a 200 year old tradition out because, for a twenty year span, new technologies are rendering older trials moot or finding criminals that once slipped through the cracks.

The point about the technolgy is that it can create situatoins where there is absolutely no question of guilt.  Mel Ignatow took pictures of himself raping and torturing his victim while he was committing the crime.  Absolutely no question of guilt.  Why is it impossible to figure out some way to evaluate a situation like that?  I'm not even talking about OJ Simpson, where there is some sliver of uncertainty in the evidence that we can't be 100% sure he did it.  I'm talking about pictures that clearly show a person doing the deed that they are accused of.

Quote from: SpikeOur grandchildren won't care that some thug rapist slipped through the double jeapordy crack because he was tried without DNA evidence any more than you care that some back robber in the Twenties got off because they didn't fingerprint him.

Are grandchildren might care if the rapist who slipped through the cracks killed their grandmother just as many African Americans still care today that their ancestors were enslaved and the Serbians and Albanians care about wrongs committed against each other hundreds of years ago.  And let's not forget that incidents like the Black Dahlia murder and even the Jack the Ripper murders (I can list plenty more) continue to be cared about precisely because the justice was never done and the killer was never brought to justice.

Quote from: SpikeThey WILL care however, if lacking that protection they start finding themselves on trial again and again because someone disagrees with them, because the state thinks they are dangerous, because of all the ways that double jeapordy can be abused.

It is not worth it.

So you think there is no middle ground between aboslute protection against double jeopardy and no protection that's workable despite the fact that the Constitution, on many matters including very seriously civil liberty issues, allows bypasses and tries to find a middle ground?

Quote from: SpikeAnd what of Mel?

So what?

Well, let me put it this way.  John Kim talked about his father being falsely accused.  Suppose he had been put on trial.  And without double jeopardy, put on trial again.  And again.

So what? (And before anyone takes that line seriously, that's not how I really feel.)

It's not happening to me, right?

It's an injustice to persecute or imprison an innocent man unjustly and it's an injustice for a guilty man to go free.  If we can casually ignore the rape, torture, and murder of Brenda Schaefer and let her murderer walk the streets, why can't we just as casually ignore the abuse of justice of a prosecutor trying an enemy again and again vindictively?  After all, in a hundred years, nobody will care, right?

Quote from: SpikeTwo hundred years ago it was possible to try a man, find him not guilty due to a lack of evidence then have some impecabble witness arrive to 'solve' the case. Maybe they were abroad and didn't realize there was a trial.

Our founding fathers had to deal with the same situation we do. Maybe not with photographs, certainly, but with 'new evidence', yes.  They still made the descision they made.

The Founding Fathers were not perfect.  They had assumed that the vice president should be the runner up in a Presidential election.  They did their best to prohibit a standing army because they didn't think that we'd need one (the Army has to be reauthorized every two years).  They tolerated slavery, didn't give women a vote, and left quite a few things so vague that people are still arguing over what they mean.  But they also provided a mechanism by which the Constitution could be amendended by super majorities because they knew they weren't perfect and knew there might need to be changes.  So the idea that the Constitution is a static document that must never be changes isn't borne out by the Constitution itself, even if I do personaly think that the 17th Amendment and possibly a few others were a mistake.

Quote from: SpikeAgain: While I agree that having one's rights violated by the due process should not automatically be a 'get out of jail free card'... though certainly an option for less heinious crimes... trying to apply the same solution I offered up as my preferred alternative to letting them go (that is leaving the cops and lawyers open to punishment), seems unworkable for this.  How do you punish the judicial system?  There is no 'warrent' clause for double Jeapordy, no exemption, no 'if than', and frankly I don't see how you could put one in without hopelessly compromising the entire protection.

Does the probably cause bypass in the Fourth Amendment compromise the entire protection in an unacceptable way?  Should we do away with warrants?

Quote from: SpikeYou suggest in the face of new evidence. What's to stop DA's from holding back certain evidence on a 'just in case' basis?  Lets not interrogate Kato Kaelin right now. I don't think he's got much, but what if OJ beats the rap? We'll want a fall back for a new trial...

Compelling new evidence.  How do you determine if the evidence is new or compelling?  The same way we determine if probable cause is sufficient for search and seizure.  Judicial review.  A grand jury.  All of these mechanism already exist because they are used elsewhere in the legal system without utterly compromising it.

Quote from: SpikeAnd you want to weaken that? Make it easier?  So Mel can get his just deserts?

Weaken it slightly, when the evidence is so compelling than nobody could possibly deny the person's guilt or that an injustice has been done?  Yes.  Absolutely.  

Quote from: SpikeIf it matters that much to you, go take the law into your own hands then. Obviously consequences aren't that important, only your own moral outrage.

Because then a person who is correcting an injustice will go to jail because the government doesn't tolerate competition in that area.  There are ways that problem could be addressed but they'd be even far riskier from a civil rights and protection of the innocent perspective than what I'm proposing.