Quick question

I was looking at my previous post when I had to ask myself a question.  Why do we, as Americans, settle for a “justice” system that will lock away (and sometimes execute) innocent people on sometimes very flimsy evidence and questionable testimony while people who are obviously guilty pretty much walk free?


26 thoughts on “Quick question

  1. Innocent until proven guilty. The problem though is those who walk away on technicalities when the evidence seems to be there especially for violent crimes. I hate the fact they can go out and hurt, rape, murder someone again and we could have stopped it.


      • I also cringe when someone has been in prison for decades for crimes they did not commit. Sadly I also notice those men are usually people of color. That is so telling about our justice system. Has there been a White man that was cleared and let out of prison? I honestly can’t recall one.


      • It is like the guilty from Wall Street cannot even be prosecuted or those get minimal punishment and then go about their merry way plundering. They take it from the poor and give it to the rich. I know I sound like a broken record. But it is true. These maggots do as much damage as the violent criminals do.


  2. Nothing scares me more than the thought I could face charges of which I would be innocent and facing a jury of my peers.

    Doesn’t answer your question, I know, but I’m finishing stuff to go a couple hundred miles to my mom’s for her 92nd birthday.


      • I hear your pain. Recently I lost a civil suit and mad as hell. I had to settle because I did not pursue because of the legal cost and had to save as much as I could because my kid started college last fall.


  3. My questions include, among many others, why do so many people get locked up for petty crimes when the wall streeters & bankers who steal millions & bankrupt thousands get off with, usually, nary a slap on the wrist? Am glad to see that guy re the drugs (can’t spell his name) is at least under investigation. I hope “they” throw a really big book at him.

    Safe trip, Paul42 & HB to your Mom.


      • Mixed-economy statism and the resulting pressure-group warfare and need for business to cultivate relationships with government officials have been corrupting and distorting both business and government for a long time. This can result both in innocent businesspersons being railroaded and in guilty ones going free. The solution is laissez-faire capitalism.


        • I vehemently disagree. In the 18th and maybe 19th Century, laissez-faire may have been a viable solution, it is not such a solution today. Laissez-faire would give us another worldwide economic collapse in my view because of greed.

          I don’t trust the market, nor the fabled invisible hand, to do what’s right and good anymore. This world is far more selfish and individual driven than altruistic. We can find a pathway by limiting the business influence on government by actually becoming more civic active instead of giving up on our duties as citizens.

          We’ve fought that battle of strong vs weak centralized government, and strong won the best two out of three. #1 was the Articles of Confederation vs the Constitution. #2 was the Civil War. I see no need for a best 3 out of 5 personally.


          • Selfishness and individualism are beneficial, not harmful, if done right. The rationally self-interested approach to others is that of the trader who seeks to exchange value for value, neither seeking nor giving sacrifices.

            You are package-dealing with your comments on strong vs weak centralized government. I advocate limiting government on all levels, not just the central government. I am not objecting to federating. I am very much against slavery.


          • The key to your entire premise rests on the words “if done right”. I don’t have any faith that it’s possible to do right in today’s society.

            Limiting government in today’s time is inviting the same issues we see in the Mid East. How often would we see armed groups taking over some building or property because of something they didn’t like? Limited government sounds good in principle, but I think it only works in a small, homogenous group with the same goals and ideals. In a multi-faceted, multicultural society like ours, it’s a failure waiting to happen.

            Just my view though.


    • No problem. In an ideal world with honest people, I would think laissez-faire was a great idea. Unfortunately, modern day America isn’t ideal or full of honest people in my opinion.


  4. Replying to Brosephus says:

    February 14, 2016 at 9:49 pm :

    Selfishness and individualism are done right on an individual level, not a social level.

    The reason it is difficult or impossible to do right on a social level in today’s society is that we have too many complications, distortions, and corruptions due to mixed-economy statism and its consequences.

    The Mid East’s problems are caused by authoritarian government, not limited government.

    It is the proper function of government to defend people against direct or indirect physical aggression. Armed groups taking over some building or property is a blatant example of physical aggression, so the government should act against it. However, we wouldn’t have much of that sort of problem if mixed-economy statism weren’t pitting us against each other.

    The multi-faceted, multicultural nature of our society makes it that much easier for mixed-economy statism to do harm.


    • I see your point, but I disagree. Chalk it up to life experiences and lessons learned from them.

      The current problems in the ME comes from the lack of authoritarian or strong government. Having no functioning government is why things are going the way they are. When Hussein and others were in control, these issues didn’t get bad. Not saying that I agree with their methods and actions, but it is what it is.

      Some people function well under limited government, but those societies are far and few today. Global forces make it almost impossible because of the intertwining of economies now.


      • Authoritarian governments are vulnerable to breakdowns, which is what is happening in Syria. A properly limited government would be more stable. Also, Islamic State is a remnant of Saddam Hussein’s authoritarian government.

        There is a very big difference between a broken-down government and a properly limited government.

        The intertwining of economies makes it that much easier for mixed-economy statism to do harm.


        • The breakdown you refer to was because of outside interference. A limited government is just as vulnerable in that aspect. It wasn’t internal conflict in Syria that started everything, it was outside influence. As far as ISIS, it would not exist if Hussein’s authoritarian government had not been bothered by outside influences. There is a difference between a true, internal uprising against an authoritarian government vs outsiders starting a chain of events.

          Different people function under different governments. I admire your adherence to the notion of limited government would solve everything, but I’m just not a fan of that train of thought. I don’t have the faith and confidence that we have people honest enough to function under such conditions.

          We wouldn’t have had a major economic meltdown if that were the case. We wouldn’t see Black unemployment historically remain twice the national average if people were noble enough to function under limited government.

          You and I come from two different environments and have very different life experiences. I’m cool with that, and I understand why you see things the way you do. I won’t agree with it because of my experiences and lessons learned, but I do respect your views. I wholeheartedly believe that two people can see the same thing and come away with two very different and valid perceptions. This is one of those cases.


          • An authoritarian government is more vulnerable to outside interference than a limited government because an authoritarian government damages its economy and creates resentments and discontents.

            Mixed-economy statism provides both a carrot and a stick to push people into dishonesty and corrupts the mechanisms for dealing with dishonesty, A properly limited government would not do these things, resulting in more honesty and more effective dealing with whatever dishonesty occurred.

            The major economic meltdown and the high black unemployment rate occurred under mixed-economy statism, not under limited government, and in fact are caused by government interference.


          • Under limited government, not that we’ve ever truly had it here in the US, Blacks couldn’t get a paying job. The high Black unemployment rate has existed since they started tracking it in the 1940s. Prior to that, Blacks were basically servants and such…

            I don’t think any one form of government is more vulnerable to outside influence than the other. As I’ve stated, I think your ideals work in an ideal world. In the real world, they won’t work because of human nature. There’s no way to have a functioning country in a global world with limited government because of the way countries are interconnected nowadays. Only if you plan on being an isolated country with very little outside interaction would such a thing work.

            Just my view though.


  5. Reply to Brosephus says:

    February 15, 2016 at 2:53 pm:

    You admit that we’ve never truly had limited government. It’s because we never have that we have all these problems, which are caused by government interference.

    Blacks, along with everyone else, would have their best chance to get a paying job under limited government, which would allow a better functioning economy and make it harder for people to afford to reject employees for irrational reasons.

    Jim Crow laws were blatant examples of the kind of government interference I am objecting to and are the primary reason Blacks suffered such disadvantages in the 1940s. Without such laws, those who knew better would have made exceptions to the general pattern of prejudice and discrimination. This would have put some flexibility into the system from the beginning and created opportunities for learning and incremental change. We would have gotten better results that way. Jim Crow laws closed the door against these possibilities and locked segregation into place. Even after Jim Crow laws were belatedly abolished, it takes time to repair damage like that. It doesn’t help when government programs create perverse incentives.

    Human nature has been corrupted and distorted by mixed-economy statism and, more fundamentally, by misguided philosophical and religious ideas such as the altruist morality. Mixed-economy statism makes us more vulnerable to harm from others’ flaws by politicizing things and by giving flawed people the possibility of using government power to express their flaws.

    There would be complications when connecting a limited-government country to mixed-economy statist countries, but complications are not impossibilities.

    The ideal situation, which we will reach at some time in the far future, is one in which there is enough understanding and acceptance of the relevant ideas worldwide that all countries will have limited governments.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s