Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Robert66]

Elsewhere Pattern-chaser has stated that a justice system which convicts innocent people is untrustworthy. I disagree.

I think you are applying binary thinking where a more nuanced approach might prove more constructive and useful. My statements were never intended to be interpreted in such a binary fashion, in such a nuanced subject. The threshold between 'trustworthy' and 'untrustworthy' is a grey area, a spectrum, if you will, and not an 'if you're not with us, you're against us' playground argument.

If you wished to avoid a "binary" interpretation, why state 'A legal system that sometimes punishes the innocent is not trustworthy'?

I was using my language, as I thought, in a non-binary fashion. But we are so used to binary thinking, we tend to interpret what is written in that light. I apologise for my lack of clarity.

That's nice, Pattern-chaser.

I have actually been trying to explore the nuance in this subject matter, which is why I dwelt on your (arguably binary) statement.

[Robert66]

Where justice systems exist, the natural and sensible default position is to consider them as untrustworthy.
And anyone who has had the misfortune to have direct contact even with the world's most "trusted" systems will know that the only way to get on with them is to treat them with utter caution.
"Never say anything to the police".

The police are not there to deliver justice, but to get a collar. It does not matter your guilt or innocence. You will find yourself in the dock for one reason only; if they think they can convict.
If you are poor, you will have to struggle with defence, and have a very small chance to keep your liberty.
If you are rich then you have a good chance to get off even if guilty.

Some will "naturally" trust no one. How sensible though if we all adopted such a default position? I prefer not to live in the kind of world described by Hobbes, and while I know there are bad actors in every human sphere, I trust that most police are concerned with justice, and do find the determination of guilt or innocence a matter of prime importance.

[Sculptor1]

Where justice systems exist, the natural and sensible default position is to consider them as untrustworthy.
And anyone who has had the misfortune to have direct contact even with the world's most "trusted" systems will know that the only way to get on with them is to treat them with utter caution.
"Never say anything to the police".

The police are not there to deliver justice, but to get a collar. It does not matter your guilt or innocence. You will find yourself in the dock for one reason only; if they think they can convict.
If you are poor, you will have to struggle with defence, and have a very small chance to keep your liberty.
If you are rich then you have a good chance to get off even if guilty.

Some will "naturally" trust no one. How sensible though if we all adopted such a default position?

I can assure you that people who love liberty, do in fact adopt exactly that position.
People in gaol, many of whom are innocent did not know how it works

I prefer not to live in the kind of world described by Hobbes, and while I know there are bad actors in every human sphere, I trust that most police are concerned with justice, and do find the determination of guilt or innocence a matter of prime importance.

Your view of Hobbes is wrong like so many people who have not actually studied him.
It was his view that the Leviathan ought to provide all with the necessities of life before "it" had the right to expect compliance from the social contract.
And your view of the police is naive to say the least.
I assume you are not black or Irish.

[Robert66]

Where justice systems exist, the natural and sensible default position is to consider them as untrustworthy.
And anyone who has had the misfortune to have direct contact even with the world's most "trusted" systems will know that the only way to get on with them is to treat them with utter caution.
"Never say anything to the police".

The police are not there to deliver justice, but to get a collar. It does not matter your guilt or innocence. You will find yourself in the dock for one reason only; if they think they can convict.
If you are poor, you will have to struggle with defence, and have a very small chance to keep your liberty.
If you are rich then you have a good chance to get off even if guilty.

Some will "naturally" trust no one. How sensible though if we all adopted such a default position?

I can assure you that people who love liberty, do in fact adopt exactly that position.
People in gaol, many of whom are innocent did not know how it works

I prefer not to live in the kind of world described by Hobbes, and while I know there are bad actors in every human sphere, I trust that most police are concerned with justice, and do find the determination of guilt or innocence a matter of prime importance.

Your view of Hobbes is wrong like so many people who have not actually studied him.
It was his view that the Leviathan ought to provide all with the necessities of life before "it" had the right to expect compliance from the social contract.
And your view of the police is naive to say the least.
I assume you are not black or Irish.

I do love liberty, but do not find it natural to trust no one.

Not talking about my view of Hobbes, just referring to the kind of world he described.

I am cautious, not naive, still I allow that most police, like most people, are interested in right or wrong, not just a collar.

Not black, but I do have Irish ancestors, including a couple who were transported to Australia, and who probably had similar views to yours about police and justice. Thankfully things have changed, and thankfully I do not live in England.

[Sculptor1]

Where justice systems exist, the natural and sensible default position is to consider them as untrustworthy.
And anyone who has had the misfortune to have direct contact even with the world's most "trusted" systems will know that the only way to get on with them is to treat them with utter caution.
"Never say anything to the police".

The police are not there to deliver justice, but to get a collar. It does not matter your guilt or innocence. You will find yourself in the dock for one reason only; if they think they can convict.
If you are poor, you will have to struggle with defence, and have a very small chance to keep your liberty.
If you are rich then you have a good chance to get off even if guilty.

Some will "naturally" trust no one. How sensible though if we all adopted such a default position?

I can assure you that people who love liberty, do in fact adopt exactly that position.
People in gaol, many of whom are innocent did not know how it works

I prefer not to live in the kind of world described by Hobbes, and while I know there are bad actors in every human sphere, I trust that most police are concerned with justice, and do find the determination of guilt or innocence a matter of prime importance.

Your view of Hobbes is wrong like so many people who have not actually studied him.
It was his view that the Leviathan ought to provide all with the necessities of life before "it" had the right to expect compliance from the social contract.
And your view of the police is naive to say the least.
I assume you are not black or Irish.

I do love liberty, but do not find it natural to trust no one.

Don't descend to a straw man immediately. Do not trust the police is what I am talking about.
Strangers should be trusted with some reserve. But generally most people can be trusted with minor things.

Not talking about my view of Hobbes, just referring to the kind of world he described.

You mean "nasty brutish and short", which is what everyone thinks they know about Hobbes. This is a place of imagination which he never seriously proposed exists anywhere.

I am cautious, not naive, still I allow that most police, like most people, are interested in right or wrong, not just a collar.

Define "most"

Not black, but I do have Irish ancestors, including a couple who were transported to Australia, and who probably had similar views to yours about police and justice. Thankfully things have changed, and thankfully I do not live in England.
[/quote]

I've lived in the UK and the US. Police in the UK are far more polite, helpful and trustworthy, than the US cops.
Also they do not tend to shoot you - not even accidentally. I would never go back to the US.

Being Irish in the 1970s when bombs were being let off all over the place led to a series of false convictions.
When you learn about them is that the police had convinced themselves. And THAT is the danger. They were "doing there job", most of them interested in right and wrong but pressured to get a collar as every police is.

[Robert66]

Don't descend to a straw man immediately. Do not trust the police is what I am talking about.

More than 100,000 police in England, recruited from the general population (not bred in test tubes in a sinister policemaking laboratory), and none can be trusted? I disagree.

You mean "nasty brutish and short", which is what everyone thinks they know about Hobbes.

You think you are the only one who has read Hobbes. I note you knew exactly the part I was referring to, so my shorthand worked.

Define "most"

More than 50%.

When you learn about them is that the police had convinced themselves. And THAT is the danger.

A sentence which makes no sense is the danger? Or a capitalised word is the danger?

They were "doing there job", most of them interested in right and wrong but pressured to get a collar as every police is.

All of them succumb to pressure and shelve their interest in right or wrong - is that it? Don't ride on a bus, because all bus drivers are pressured to keep to the timetable, and they throw the rule book out the window, and forget all about safety.

[Pattern-chaser]

Don't descend to a straw man immediately. Do not trust the police is what I am talking about.

More than 100,000 police in England, recruited from the general population (not bred in test tubes in a sinister policemaking laboratory), and none can be trusted? I disagree.

This is what you did to my posts. That "the police" are not trustworthy is a general claim. One policeman who is trustworthy does not make the claim false or wrong. Even 10 would only be 1 in 10,000, and probably would not invalidate the claim, depending. Yes: "depending", because general claims or statements are intentionally vague.

[Robert66]

Don't descend to a straw man immediately. Do not trust the police is what I am talking about.

More than 100,000 police in England, recruited from the general population (not bred in test tubes in a sinister policemaking laboratory), and none can be trusted? I disagree.

This is what you did to my posts. That "the police" are not trustworthy is a general claim. One policeman who is trustworthy does not make the claim false or wrong. Even 10 would only be 1 in 10,000, and probably would not invalidate the claim, depending. Yes: "depending", because general claims or statements are intentionally vague.

Such a general claim serves no good purpose. Not "calling it out" allows its negative purpose, to reinforce distrust of the police, to go unchallenged.

[Sculptor1]

Don't descend to a straw man immediately. Do not trust the police is what I am talking about.

More than 100,000 police in England, recruited from the general population (not bred in test tubes in a sinister policemaking laboratory), and none can be trusted? I disagree.

Same can be said of the SS of Nazi Germany, and every member of ISIS or the IDL.
You have to ask what sort of people are attracted to the power that the uniform gives them?
What sort of person finds it okay to sign off on loyalty to their own family and sign themselves over to the force?
What sort of person is happy to arrest and truncheon peaceful protestors?
What sort of person uses his uniform to rape and kill vulnerable women?
What sort of person jokingly calls fellow members of his staff "a bit rapey", yet does not see the need to report them to their superior?
What sort of person wants to join up?

You mean "nasty brutish and short", which is what everyone thinks they know about Hobbes.

You think you are the only one who has read Hobbes. I note you knew exactly the part I was referring to, so my shorthand worked.

Define "most"

More than 50%.

When you learn about them is that the police had convinced themselves. And THAT is the danger.

A sentence which makes no sense is the danger? Or a capitalised word is the danger?

They were "doing there job", most of them interested in right and wrong but pressured to get a collar as every police is.

All of them succumb to pressure and shelve their interest in right or wrong - is that it? Don't ride on a bus, because all bus drivers are pressured to keep to the timetable, and they throw the rule book out the window, and forget all about safety.

I think your post has descended into incoherence.

[Sculptor1]

Don't descend to a straw man immediately. Do not trust the police is what I am talking about.

More than 100,000 police in England, recruited from the general population (not bred in test tubes in a sinister policemaking laboratory), and none can be trusted? I disagree.

This is what you did to my posts. That "the police" are not trustworthy is a general claim. One policeman who is trustworthy does not make the claim false or wrong. Even 10 would only be 1 in 10,000, and probably would not invalidate the claim, depending. Yes: "depending", because general claims or statements are intentionally vague.

People talk about a "culture" in the police. It would be the act of a fool to ignore that. Recently in London this has led to some shocking revelations about the corruption and misogyny in the Met, which resulted in women being raped by the people most trusted to keep them save.
And whilst parties run by black people in the city have been fined £1000s for breaching COVID rules, the MET stood-by as No.10 partied every night, tried to cover it up, tried to say that they did not charge retrospectively, then when forced to act, only fined the super rich politicians £50.

[Pattern-chaser]

More than 100,000 police in England, recruited from the general population (not bred in test tubes in a sinister policemaking laboratory), and none can be trusted? I disagree.

This is what you did to my posts. That "the police" are not trustworthy is a general claim. One policeman who is trustworthy does not make the claim false or wrong. Even 10 would only be 1 in 10,000, and probably would not invalidate the claim, depending. Yes: "depending", because general claims or statements are intentionally vague.

Such a general claim serves no good purpose. Not "calling it out" allows its negative purpose, to reinforce distrust of the police, to go unchallenged.

I don't think it's a "claim", but an opinion. And, if the opinion has any justification, it serves a purpose that many would describe as "good". Again, if the opinion has any justification, then its purpose is not "negative". And, if so, then distrust of the police is rational and reasonable, and your attempts to challenge the distrust is negative.

Trust is hard to earn, and the earning can take a long time. Breaking trust, though, is easy and quick. It only takes a few examples of untrustworthy behaviour before the public trust in the police is compromised. But you know all this. So why do you offer sub-topic-derailing objections to an opinion that clearly has some justification, maybe even enough to warrant that opinion? Is it that you wish to stifle or curtail discussion of such matters?

[Robert66]

Do you think if you keep insulting me I will start agreeing with you?

[Sculptor1]

Do you think if you keep insulting me I will start agreeing with you?

I do not care if you agree with me.
So seem to be not paying attention to the world around you.

[Robert66]

Pattern-chaser: Trust is hard to earn, and the earning can take a long time. Breaking trust, though, is easy and quick.

Sculptor1: Do not trust the police is what I am talking about."Never say anything to the police". The police are not there to deliver justice, but to get a collar. It does not matter your guilt or innocence.

Trust is not hard to earn but impossible to earn if you are the police. Is that the best outcome for society? If police officers are made to feel like the enemy of the public they have sworn to serve and protect, is that problematic?

Does society need police?

[Robert66]

Do you think if you keep insulting me I will start agreeing with you?

I do not care if you agree with me.
So seem to be not paying attention to the world around you.

I assume you meant "You seem ..." rather than "So seem ...". If that is correct then lucky me I have gathered another insult. If someone pays attention to the world around them (like you do) but reaches a different conclusion, or has a different attitude or opinion, then they must be wrong? My turn to insult: I give you 0 out of 10 for that thinking.