New Endangered Species

[Jogeephus]

Empathy

Here is some food for thought which might help restore what is becoming an endangered species.

What level of certainty about an accused guilt should drive anyone to crucify another? The standard to convict a defendant in criminal court is often understood as requiring anywhere from 95 to 100 percent certainty of the defendant's guilt. In civil court, the "preponderance of the evidence" standard requires 51 percent certainty. Would you crucify someone if you think there were a 25 percent chance they've done bad things? A 10 percent chance? A 5 percent chance? A 1 percent chance?

And what about the nature of those bad things? What about whether someone, against whom no further charges are known to have been raised, should be crucified because he did something objectionable—even horrifying—as a boy on the cusp of adulthood?

The conservative columnist Dennis Prager argues he shouldn't: "If our good actions outweigh our bad actions, we are morally in the black; if our bad actions greatly outweigh our good actions, we are morally in the red." Wouldn't you agree since we are only human and far from perfect, this seems to be a reasonable accounting of someone's morality? At the end of the day there must an accounting of our value to society doesn't there?

This thread is meant to be nonpolitical and is not intended to be left wing or right wing because no matter what wing you identify we are all attached to the same bird and the bird is what's important. Just offering some food for thought.

 

[Bright Raven]

Excellent post! It is nonpartisan which is another endangered species.

One comment at this point:

In practice, based on my experience in mostly administrative law and a few cases that were decided by civil law, I never got a sense that there is a sincere effort to set a threshold for guilt. Realistically, most folks are biased - to the point that empathy does not even enter the equation.

For example, I will just make this up but it is based on real personal experiences. If an agency conducts an inspection in a coal mining county, the operator becomes belligerent and threatens or assaults an enforcement agent....perhaps even to the point of brandishing a firearm. The operator is served an indictment. The case is prosecuted in civil court before a local jury. There will be a few on the jury that certainly will not have empathy for the agent even if they are 100 % convinced the crime occurred. Before the trial starts, those folks already have voted not guilty.

In my example, it is less a matter of having empathy for a person and more of a case of people being biased.

I was on a civil case in Denver as a juror. The case was so clear a 6 year old could see that the ex-husband was guilty. He violated a restraining order, broke and entered, and beat the heII out of his ex. A guy on the jury had just gone through a nasty divorce and absolutely would die before he would vote quilty. I was asked by the prosecutor as I left how in the world we didn't convict. I told him. He just slumped!

 

[greybeard]

"If our good actions outweigh our bad actions, we are morally in the black; if our bad actions greatly outweigh our good actions, we are morally in the red." Wouldn't you agree since we are only human and far from perfect, this seems to be a reasonable accounting of someone's morality? At the end of the day there must an accounting of our value to society doesn't there?

Disagree. This is nothing than more rationalization to justify bad behavior within our society.

You can spend a lifetime being "good" and then go on a rampage or make a mistake that causes another person (or persons) to no longer exist and all that "good" to society is and should be forfeit.
Or put the usual way......."One aw crap outweighs 100 attaboys".

 

[JMJ Farms]

Very well written post Joe. This one could get in depth.

I will keep it short and sweet. I'm human. I'm biased. I have my beliefs as does everyone. I can however, in the interest of fairness, be objective and see past my bias when it affects another persons well being or his/her future.

The way that I do this is to remember this. Paraphrased: "Let he among you without guilt cast the first stone." Always examine oneself before judging or crucifiying another.

 

[greybeard]

"Always examine oneself before judging or crucifiying another."
All well and good, but the law, under which this country operates says differently. "You" aren't on trial, and the person on trial or being investigated isn't there on account of his 'good' performance. He/she is there solely on the charge(s) levied and nothing more.

The military, prior to 2015 used to allow what was known as "The Good Soldier" defense, where a long line of character references, and all the past performance and awards was paraded before the court during (usually at the beginning of testimony and again at summary) in an effort to sway the judges (jury) in determining guilt. What the DoD and Congress found, was that many very guilty service members were getting off scott free (not guilty) based on their past good performance. Congress changed how a court martial and NJP can be done in Late 2014 that prohibited past performance even being presented, much less considered, making those proceedings much more in line with civilian court protocol. (Past performance can be presented during the sentencing phase)



If someone spends 40 years driving sober and then goes out one night, gets drunk and runs over a kid on the side of the road, I don't care about his sober years, or whether he was an active member of the PTA or went to church every Sunday or showed up for work on time every day and never left early.

 

[Jogeephus]

Greybeard I agree with what you are saying but you have turned the timeline upside down from the way it is written. The question reflects the fact that we grow each day and we are not the same person we were yesterday or more importantly who we were 40 years ago.

One of the best bosses I ever had always reminded us that we were only as good as the last job we completed. Doesn't matter how great you were thirty years ago - or how bad we were. What's important is recent. Its funny it took the military that long to figure that out when all they had to do is look at France and their military.

 

[Jogeephus]

The way that I do this is to remember this. Paraphrased: "Let he among you without guilt cast the first stone." Always examine oneself before judging or crucifiying another.

Yeah, a wise man once said this. Can't remember exactly who ;-) but he said a lot of things we should strive to live by today.

 

[greybeard]

Greybeard I agree with what you are saying but you have turned the timeline upside down from the way it is written. The question reflects the fact that we grow each day and we are not the same person we were yesterday or more importantly who we were 40 years ago.

One of the best bosses I ever had always reminded us that we were only as good as the last job we completed. Doesn't matter how great you were thirty years ago - or how bad we were. What's important is recent. Its funny it took the military that long to figure that out when all they had to do is look at France and their military.

So you're saying if as written should hold true, the inverse should not?
Older Nazi war criminals should be allowed to live out their lives regardless of how many thousands of innocent women and children they killed as young men.....simply because they haven't murdered anyone 'lately'?

The scales of justice are not on a timeline and there isn't a calendar etched into the base of the scales, but tho the wheels of the scales may move slow they do and should grind exceedingly fine.
An older person who did something as a youth, should be charged and judged for that crime solely on the merits of that crime and the law we all have to obey, statute of limitations notwithstanding.

 

[callmefence]

Good people make mistakes that's for sure. But the most important part of righting your wrongs is facing them head on and making them as right as you possibly can. " It's not so much what happens to you as how you handle it."

What's despicable imo is a "good" person who tries to lie or cheat their way out of facing the music on their "good" name. What they should do is admit their wrong ,and then hope their good name helps.
Of course if you have done nothing wrong you fight till the end.
Pretty simple really. You don't lie , and you own everything you do. Always worked for me.

 

[greybeard]

Good people make mistakes that's for sure. But the most important part of righting your wrongs is facing them head on and making them as right as you possibly can. " It's not so much what happens to you as how you handle it."

What's despicable imo is a "good" person who tries to lie or cheat their way out of facing the music on their "good" name. What they should do is admit their wrong ,and then hope their good name helps.
Of course if you have done nothing wrong you fight till the end.
Pretty simple really. You don't lie , and you own everything you do. Always worked for me.

This, I agree with wholeheartedly and the real 'endangered species are members of the underlined part.

The problem with the original question is not age or even the amount of time, but that the over riding factor being considered, is the number or amt of 'good' deeds (or more accurately, the absence of 'bad' deeds) during that timeline.
Does it really make a horses behind whether the 'good' deeds preceded or followed the offense? No, of course not, and we have seen it proclaimed both ways in the last few years, tho I honestly don't believe either hold water. Wrong is wrong.

 

[Jogeephus]

Greybeard I don't think there is a statute of limitations on murder.

I agree right is right and wrong is wrong and since I don't know any Nazi war criminals I think a wrong committed years ago is of less concern to me than one done recently. For instance, in 1965 we were playing hide and seek and I was supposed to close my eyes and count to a hundred before opening my eyes. I peeked when I got to 52 then shut my eyes again. This was wrong I know and I know I cheated but today should this keep me from being put on the board at the bank? Or should my actions and deeds over the last quarter century be what I'm judged on?

In my view, the misdeeds of your past are diluted with time assuming you have learned from your past mistakes and have become a better person.

 

[Son of Butch]

Bible law: 2 witnesses to convict.
Modern Example: dna is a witness, so victim plus dna = 2 witnesses

False witness: A false witness is to receive the punishment of the crime of which they accused.
Murder by lying in wait (premeditated murder) = death sentence
(The murderer is to be sent publicly and swiftly to God for judgement and these things will cease from among you)

 

[Bright Raven]

In my view, the misdeeds of your past are diluted with time assuming you have learned from your past mistakes and have become a better person.

Morally, I agree. But right or wrong has nothing to do with the judicial system which is founded on the judgement of guilt or innocence. The exception is damage claims where value judgements involve "right and wrong" but usually defined by law. Hence, a judge or jury judges the accused guilty or not guilty. They don't get into the right or wrong business. (You could argue that the legislature in making laws is more engaged in the right and wrong business).

On a moral basis as opposed to a legal basis, you have to cultivate values based on your experiences (that may or may not include the influence of religion). In Georgia, it might have been a moral wrong to open your eyes during a game of hide-and-go-seek but in Kentucky, it was a "moral right" to peep at least 4 times before you got to 100. :nod: So one man's values label some misdeeds as "wrongs" whereas another man's values labels those misdeeds as "rights".

In my personal value system, I would think that your peeping has been forgiven if not totally diluted. :lol:

 

[TexasBred]

What was that old spaghetti western "God Forgives..I don't".

 

[greybeard]

I peeked when I got to 52 then shut my eyes again. This was wrong I know and I know I cheated but today should this keep me from being put on the board at the bank?

Does peeking during that game reach the threshold of 'high crime or misdemeanor'? No. It is on that premise, not whether it was 'diluted' or not that would make me tend to answer "no", but I would have to have some kind of re-assurance that you wouldn't be using the power of your board position to 'peek' at my account information or to look into aspects of that bank's operations not available to other investors and do a bit of insider trading.
Now, if someone today, had asked if you had peeked 53 years ago and you lied and said no, then that's a different story. Loss of public trust.

In my view, the misdeeds of your past are diluted with time assuming you have learned from your past mistakes and have become a better person.

Perhaps in your own mind, but I view that as but one more rationalization to "make it all ok'. Misdeeds, should carry a penalty, and simply not repeating them is no penalty at all..not doing them again (or to begin with) is the norm, not something special or enviable or reward worthy. If it were, then the whole "everybody gets a trophy" thing is not to be so easily ridiculed after all.

We all understand what this thread and it's question specifically relates to , but it's also multi faceted. IF one accepts that the long period of 'doing good' in the interim dilutes a misdeed, then one must also accept that a similar long period of 'doing good' prior to the misdeed has to count as well. I generally do not, on either account, but I do accept that there is a murky and mostly intangible threshold that should be met. If great harm was done to others during the misdeed, then imo, no amount of time 'doing good'' will suffice.

 

[Jogeephus]

In my view, the misdeeds of your past are diluted with time assuming you have learned from your past mistakes and have become a better person.

Morally, I agree. But right or wrong has nothing to do with the judicial system which is founded on the judgement of guilt or innocence. The exception is damage claims where value judgements involve "right and wrong" but usually defined by law. Hence, a judge or jury judges the accused guilty or not guilty. They don't get into the right or wrong business. (You could argue that the legislature in making laws is more engaged in the right and wrong business).

On a moral basis as opposed to a legal basis, you have to cultivate values based on your experiences (that may or may not include the influence of religion). In Georgia, it might have been a moral wrong to open your eyes during a game of hide-and-go-seek but in Kentucky, it was a "moral right" to peep at least 4 times before you got to 100. :nod: So one man's values label some misdeeds as "wrongs" whereas another man's values labels those misdeeds as "rights".

In my personal value system, I would think that your peeping has been forgiven if not totally diluted. :lol:

I'm glad I don't have to live with the guilt of peeking the rest of my life. Its a burden I care not to carry.

But going to your example of the judicial system. Is it not true there is a statute of limitations on most all crimes except murder? Isn't this an example of the wrong doing being diluted?

 

[Jogeephus]

I peeked when I got to 52 then shut my eyes again. This was wrong I know and I know I cheated but today should this keep me from being put on the board at the bank?

Does peeking during that game reach the threshold of 'high crime or misdemeanor'? No. It is on that premise, not whether it was 'diluted' or not that would make me tend to answer "no", but I would have to have some kind of re-assurance that you wouldn't be using the power of your board position to 'peek' at my account information or to look into aspects of that bank's operations not available to other investors and do a bit of insider trading.
Now, if someone today, had asked if you had peeked 53 years ago and you lied and said no, then that's a different story. Loss of public trust.

In my view, the misdeeds of your past are diluted with time assuming you have learned from your past mistakes and have become a better person.

Perhaps in your own mind, but I view that as but one more rationalization to "make it all ok'. Misdeeds, should carry a penalty, and simply not repeating them is no penalty at all..not doing them again (or to begin with) is the norm, not something special or enviable or reward worthy. If it were, then the whole "everybody gets a trophy" thing is not to be so easily ridiculed after all.

We all understand what this thread and it's question specifically relates to , but it's also multi faceted. IF one accepts that the long period of 'doing good' in the interim dilutes a misdeed, then one must also accept that a similar long period of 'doing good' prior to the misdeed has to count as well. I generally do not, on either account, but I do accept that there is a murky and mostly intangible threshold that should be met. If great harm was done to others during the misdeed, then imo, no amount of time 'doing good'' will suffice.

I can totally agree with that. And if that were the case I would think alarms would have gone up at the time and the wronged or the parent of the wrong would be seeking justice. The old legal maxim that states, "justice delayed is justice denied". I think most will agree with this and I have trouble understanding why anyone would want to delay their own justice if they were actually wronged.

 

[Bright Raven]

In my view, the misdeeds of your past are diluted with time assuming you have learned from your past mistakes and have become a better person.

Morally, I agree. But right or wrong has nothing to do with the judicial system which is founded on the judgement of guilt or innocence. The exception is damage claims where value judgements involve "right and wrong" but usually defined by law. Hence, a judge or jury judges the accused guilty or not guilty. They don't get into the right or wrong business. (You could argue that the legislature in making laws is more engaged in the right and wrong business).

On a moral basis as opposed to a legal basis, you have to cultivate values based on your experiences (that may or may not include the influence of religion). In Georgia, it might have been a moral wrong to open your eyes during a game of hide-and-go-seek but in Kentucky, it was a "moral right" to peep at least 4 times before you got to 100. :nod: So one man's values label some misdeeds as "wrongs" whereas another man's values labels those misdeeds as "rights".

In my personal value system, I would think that your peeping has been forgiven if not totally diluted. :lol:

I'm glad I don't have to live with the guilt of peeking the rest of my life. Its a burden I care not to carry.

But going to your example of the judicial system. Is it not true there is a statute of limitations on most all crimes except murder? Isn't this an example of the wrong doing being diluted?

Yes. Our value system goes back to ancient times. If you look at old Greek and Roman laws that predate the Judeo-Christian concept of values, there was always a dilution of guilt over time except in the most heinous offenses.

 

[sstterry]

I will not even attempt to enter this fray. I have realized that with all the accusations and responses, there are very few on this Board that have an open mind. Whether it be from upbringing or education, it will always be " By Goodness" I am right and no facts or truths matter." I am not always right, but I like to think that I am man enough to acknowledge when I am not!

 

[Bright Raven]

I will not even attempt to enter this fray. I have realized that with all the accusations and responses, there are very few on this Board that have an open mind. Whether it be from upbringing or education, it will always be " By Goodness" I am right and no facts or truths matter." I am not always right, but I like to think that I am man enough to acknowledge when I am not!

Not going to let you off that easy, Bud. Who gives a shyt what anyone thinks. This board needs some opposing views, otherwise it is just one big back slapping fest.