Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Laws of Prejudice

“Racism, boy, is the belief of making decisions about other people based upon the color of their skin. One thing about it though is the fact that it can apply to one’s self also. It is just as racist to justify making decisions about others based on your own color of skin.

While judging people based solely on the color of their skin may be morally wrong, it should not be seen as being legally wrong. This issue should be left up to society itself to solve. Laws addressing this issue and issues such as this are laws meant to manipulate the thoughts of the people. Freedom of thought is a right of the people and that includes immoral thoughts as well as moral thoughts.

One of the big problems with an issue as this is the fact it allows a false accusation of being racist when a person does not agree with someone purely on the fact of disagreement and nothing more. Another problem results in judging the motive of people when they act in contradiction of a perceived benefit of one of another color. In both of these situations, racism is seen in regards to the accuser. A lot of debate has been stifled as a direct result of accusations like this.

Now, the reason I said that it should not be legally wrong is because of our justice system as we set it up. We set up a justice system that declares that an accuser must prove that the accused broke the law. In theory, this would mean that the accused would not need to defend himself against any charges against him. In cases as these though, the accused must not only defend himself against the charges he must practically prove he was innocent of them. The reason being is that a lot of the evidence used against the accused is statistical evidence or theories that depend upon statistical evidence.

The problem with statistical evidence is that it relies on conclusionary facts rather than evidentiary facts. What this means is that they use statistical evidence to imply a conclusion about something other than what was being measured. Another problem with its use is that it ends up making a statement of probability rather than a statement of fact. Lastly, statistical evidence is best used for predicting a future event. It is a poor means to use to determine a present event or a past event.

More important than anything else in regards to the use of statistics is the fact that statistical evidence is based on what others have done not on what the accused has done. By doing so, you are prejudicing the verdict against the accused. That is not what our justice system is supposed to be all about.

Lastly, and this is only a personal opinion. I have to question the conclusion that prejudice and bias are strictly culturally learned. Culture may be an influence in regards to issue of prejudice or bias but I can’t ignore the genetic element of it either of self-survival. The reason of this is because where prejudice and bias is seen, there is a issue of trust and confidence at play at the same time.”

I just stared at grandpa as he finished and my only thought was “if what grandpa says is true then we are saying that with laws of this nature we are forcing people to trust someone else. Does the government have that right?”


Fallen' Angel said...

I don't think they have that right at all, but I also don't think "forcing" was the intention...I think it was and still is the belief that Americans would ultimatelty do the right thing, including placing some level of trust in others, because without it we become self-serving, faithless drones...and that would have killed the dream of this Nation long ago.

The Griper said...

i know force was not the intent. but when it comes to laws enacted it is not the intent that counts but the end results of that law.

"Americans would ultimatelty do the right thing, including placing some level of trust in others..."

ok then lets trust the american people by leaving it up to society to deal with problems as these, not enact laws.

Gayle said...

I agree with you, Griper. One day I'll shock us both and disagree with you on something but it won't be today. :)

We are supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty" in this country and not the other way around. Unfortunately it works the other way around all to often and it's frightening!

tweetey30 said...

Great post Griper. I see people judging others all the time. I have to admit I have done it from time to time and regret doing it. Our judging system just doesnt seem right because they have to look up cases that are similar to the ones they are trying.

The Griper said...

he laughs at gayle's remarks. guess i better think real hard then and come up with something for you to disagree with. would hate to stifle a good debate. lol

The Griper said...

"Our judging system just doesnt seem right because they have to look up cases that are similar to the ones they are trying."

that is called presedence. by doing that it assures that laws are applied fairly to all. and i touched on that in a previous post, "government and principles".

dcat said...

Don't forget the ... oh shhhhh we ain't supose to say "HONOR" killing.

Griper are you calling the kettle black again ;)

The Griper said...

to call them "honor" killings, dcat, is to demean and degrade both words of that phrase.

there is no honor in them just as there is no honor in suicide bombings. as for killing, people know they pay the consequences of it not rewards as they think.

Lista said...

If trust is the issue, how in the world could we possibly prove that the motive behind mistrust has to do with the color of one's skin? You see, proving prejudice requires proving one's motive for making a certain decision and there is no way to prove such a thing.

The Griper said...

my point exactly. which is why it is turned around on these sort of cases. the defendent must prove himself not guilty.


Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code


Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster