Safety, Reasonable Doubt, and Anarchy
Consider this, in the context of the oft quoted Ben Franklin, that, and paraphrasing: "those who would would trade freedom for safety deserve neither."
Let’s suppose it’s true that the purpose of the legal standard of "reasonable doubt" in criminal matters is to protect the innocent. In other words, even if you think he’s probably guilty, if you have doubt/s that are reasonable, i.e., plausible, logical, then you acquit. Period. In this way, it’s far more likely that you’ll let the guilty go (to kill, rape, murder, steal again?) than it will be to convict an innocent. Of course, this all presumes competence on the part of the judge (courtroom referee), honesty and integrity on the part of the prosecution and its witnesses, and intelligence on the part of the jury, which, as we know from The Innocence Project and many other sources, is a shaky assumption at best. (Side note: I’m very often told that the essential justification and necessity for the state is to ensure and guarantee "objective justice." Did you check that link?)
But we’re talking principles and ideas, so let’s proceed. So, do you notice anything in that that’s apropos to the freedom/safety trade off? You should. It has rightly been deemed and put into quotedian legal practice that the freedom of the innocent is so precious and important, that we’ll trade away some safety by letting some number of murderers, rapists, child molesters, kidnappers, robbers and thugs go free.
Understand? Good.
Anarchy is merely the expansion of that sound and rational principle to it’s logical and just moral conclusion.
WHAT IT'S ABOUT AND HOW IT WORKS
Free The Animal is an eclectic writing project about everything since November 2003. 23 years, 5,500 posts, 5 million words.
It's a paid membership blog. Most posts are free and public, but only paid members can comment. What determines whether it's free or paid is when I publish. Monday through Friday, free and public. Saturday and Sunday, for paid members. That's it. Membership info here.
Most people cannot deal with trading discomfort for freedom, let alone safety. They will dispose of the lives of others because it was funny.
There are few people left who will even be able to comprehend the words you say. Never mind understand them. These are the types who will watch Nancy Grace push a woman to suicide, and reject the fact like a piece of garbage.
And they don't care to be reasoned the other way, even laughing in contempt, when a man is manifestly not hurting them. Do you even hope they'll care to let the guilty go free when it's their own precious safety at stake?
Consider this, in the context of the oft quoted Ben Franklin, that, and paraphrasing: "those who would would trade freedom for safety deserve neither."
We're talking about the Ben Franklin who signed the Constitution, right? What was that about if not the trading of freedom for safety?
Alright, forget Franklin if you must. The analysis and logic are still sound, right? Besides, I wasn't lauding Franklin, but the soundness of what he said in spite of himself.
trevalyan:
All true. Of course, it's why I'm anti-state. These people are dead set on running your life and using it up.