RoR: Forum

"And that, people, is as close to determinism as one can get."

Hmm .. I don't think this fact makes any difference one way or another, by Rand's theory of free will--which rests on causality by the way.

Post 41

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:57am

Level,

Sure sounds like that. Although I must believe that Adam meant "forgetting" literally. I'm sure he would agree that reason allows us to discard from consideration that which is not relevant.

Pukszta

Post 42

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 6:08am

Adam,

You and I agree that our tax dollars must not be spent on religious paraphenalia. You apparently feel such a use of tax dollars constitutes establishment of religion. I object to it on the grounds that it is not a necessary government expense (as few things are). I also recognize that government expenditure upon creches and menhoras could lead to genuine establishment ala the slippery slope. But the mere presence of such things in front of city hall, whether paid and put there by the government or private parties, coerces no one to believe anything other than he wants to believe. Absent that coercion, there has been no establishment.

As for the jury, reason enables any of use to ignore (not forget) any information that is not relevant to the decision at hand. Jurors are perfectly capable of following a judge's instruction to only consider the facts that have been entered as evidence. Whether they do or not in any particular case is not the issue. The important point here is that our judicial system is predicated upon jurors doing just that, which from my experience they do.

Pukszta

Post 43

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 6:31am

Rooster,

What are we to do with the person that files a charge of 'police brutality' and the case goes to court? Or a person that has sued the State or Federal government in a civil court, what shall we do with this one as well?

Every courtroom has police officers and/or bailiffs stationed inside for security. Would not their presence be a form of mental coercion? The badge, the uniforms, and the polite officers seating the jurors each day; by the logic used by some in their arguments this would be unacceptable. And for that matter, the state seals on the walls, the flags, and perhaps even the judge�s robes � all of these one could argue psychologically impact the jurors. All the uniforms and symbols of the �state�, in a room where a plaintiff is grieving the �state�, could be seen as a form of coercive manipulation to predispose the jury in favor of this state.

Of course my example above is a facetious one, I merely intend to highlight the utter absurdity of this particular line of thinking. I suppose the only proper solution is to hold the trial in the forest completely in the nude! But that wouldn�t work either I guess; it would be unfair in cases involving the lumber industry and nudist.

Do not misunderstand me, I do not believe that judges should be able to �decorate� their courtrooms, or court buildings any way they so desire (although a bit of latitude should not cause the earth to stop rotating), but the issue is very minor, and the inferences being made are beyond ridiculous.

George

Post 44

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 6:58am

As you say, Cordero, we are getting to the absurd. Either reason is supreme or it is not. If we are going to predicate the jury system of justice upon the belief that jurors are inherently incapable of letting reason rule over emotion (e.g., incapable of ignoring out of irrational fear the irrelevant crucifix the judge has displayed on his bench), then we would be irrational to even support the jury system.

I agree with you that judges should not be allowed to make their courtrooms shrines to their beliefs, because after all a judge works for us and doesn't have to take the job if he doesn't like our terms regarding free exercise of his beliefs. But the minor displays of religious belief that may occasionally creep into the courtroom hardly constitute establishment.

Pukszta

Post 45

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 7:28am

Rooster,

I sent you a PM, check your Solo mail box .

George

Post 46

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 9:12am

Is the human mind capable of ignoring that which one has independently judged to be irrelevant or false? Of course. That is an essential capability that the mind needs in order to function as a tool of survival.

Is the human mind capable of ignoring something that one has NOT independently judged to be irrelevant or false, merely because one is told by someone else to ignore it? The results of hundreds of controlled experiments in cognitive psychology tell us otherwise. A judge who truly believes, that the jury actually ignores everything he tells them to ignore, is a fool incapable of doing his job.
(Edited by Adam Reed on 12/28, 10:00pm)

Post 47

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 6:02am

So, you're telling me, Adam, that in your thought experiment, YOU as a juror would be incapable of ignoring the crucifix on the judge's bench as completely irrevelant to the verdict you had to make?

Pukszta

Post 48

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 11:40am

Rooster,

Yes, I would not be able to ignore it, or (being a Randian) even inclined to. In the context of my own knowledge, it would inform me of the judge's likely prejudice and non-impartiality in the case, and I would evaluate whatever the judge told me in that context.

But I am among the very small minority who would evaluate the import of the message consciously. Most people are what we psychologists call "field-dependent," and they adjust their behavior in the direction of obedience to authority, and not against it. On a jury, they conform to whatever prejudice the judge is communicating - by messages on the wall, or by any other means.

Post 49

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 11:55am

Exactly what prejudice is a Catholic crucifix-bearing or Jewish yarmulke-wearing or Sikh turban-topped judge communicating when he instructs the jury that the only facts they may consider are those that have been entered into evidence?

What disturbs me, Adam, is that what you are saying is getting very close to declaring that a religious person is incapable of impartiality in the courtroom. If that were true, then we would be nuts to let such people have authority in our judicial system. Then we're back to the obnoxious and outrageous prospect of religious tests for public office (only now is the religious rather than the secular who are being screened out).

By all means correct me if I have read too much into your statements.

Pukszta

Post 50

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 7:55pm

Rooster,

There are two kinds of attitudes that religious people may have with respect to the applicability of their religious ideas to the rest of society.

One is that adherence to their religious precepts is a special burden, accepted by the religious for the sake of earning a special merit with God. Some religions - for example, Conservative Judaism - specifically forbid the imposition of their religious precepts on those who have not voluntarily chosen to adhere to their religion. A Christian or Jew or Sikh who takes that path will NOT insist on displaying his symbols in a government building, except perhaps on his own person. I have no problem whatever trusting such a person to be impartial.

The other is a belief in the universal applicability of one's religous values, which makes it OK to use the government to enforce those values upon other people. That attitude is communicated by displaying one's religious symbols in a place where they symbolize not merely personal belief, but readiness to impose those values through the institution in which they are displayed. So while I respect a man who chooses to wear a crucifix around his own neck, a judge who would place a crucifix on the wall above MY head is signalling his intention to use his office to impose his values on ME. In a context where the litigation involves religious values - as in the case I brought up - such a man may be reasonably predicted to use his influence in a way that reflects his beliefs.

Legitimate government must maintain impartiality among the many personal value systems that exist among the citizens. This implies that its officers may not do anything which would legitimize a preference for one such personal value system over another.

Post 51

Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 8:39am

Adam,

I think the distinction you illustrated is valid. I like the way you put it: Personal burden vs. universal application. I agree that there is difference between a judge wearing a crucifix, for example, and one who displays it on the wall behind him. Nevertheless, I know I could as a juror ignore such an obnoxious display by a judge and consider only the evidence admitted in the case.

Pukszta

Post 52

Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 10:28am

OK, Rooster, I'm glad we're on the same planet again. Please note that I'm the one who never left.

Post 53

Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 11:33pm